City Council Chambers, 311 Vernon Street roseville.ca.us
The City of Roseville welcomes your participation.
Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the first and third Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m.
Two Public Comment Periods for Non-Agenda Items: A total of twenty-five (25) minutes is allotted for public comments. At the beginning and end of the meeting, each speaker has three (3) minutes to address the Mayor/Chair on issues that are not listed on the agenda and are within the City’s jurisdiction. Please submit a yellow speaker card to the City Clerk before the item is heard if you wish to make a comment. You will still have an opportunity to comment if you haven’t filled out a yellow speaker card.
Brown Act: The City Council cannot discuss or act on items not listed on the agenda. Public Comment on Agenda Items: Each speaker has five (5) minutes to address items that are listed on the agenda.
Levine Act Provisions: If you’ve made a campaign contribution totaling more than $500 ($250 prior to January 1, 2025) to City Council Members in the last twelve (12) months, you must disclose it before addressing an item on the agenda. Please visit Levine Act – City of Roseville for updated forms and information.
Audio/Visual Presentations: If making a presentation regarding an agenda item, audio/visual materials must be submitted to the City Clerk for consideration at least 72 hours in advance.
Americans with Disabilities Act: If special assistance is required to participate in a meeting, including the need of auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City Clerk at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. City Clerk 311 Vernon Street [email protected] 916-774-5263 TDD: 916-774-5220
Security Measures: All meeting 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.
Viewing Options: The City of Roseville provides three options for viewing meetings:
Krista Bernasconi, Mayor
Karen Alvord, Vice Mayor
Bruce Houdesheldt, Councilmember
Tracy Mendonsa, Councilmember
Pauline Roccucci, Councilmember
Dominick Casey, City Manager
Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
AGENDA
City Council Regular Meeting
September 17, 2025
6:00 PM
City Council Chambers, 311 Vernon Street
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. MEETING PROCEDURES
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the first opportunity to make a public comment on non-agenda items.
VI. PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation - Find the Good Day September 18, 2025
Summary: Proclaim September 18, 2025, as Find The Good Day and urge all residents to take part in this movement by finding the good in themselves, in others, and in their communities— and to celebrate the power of optimism and the enduring impact of positive action.
CONTACT: Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]
2. Proclamation - Prostate Cancer Awareness Month September 2025 Summary: Proclaim the month of September 2025 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month and urge citizens to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in Prostate Cancer Awareness.
CONTACT: Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected] VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
3. Transit System Operation and the South Placer County Transit Information - Agreement Amendment (PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - TRANSPORTATION)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the agreement with MV Transportation, Inc. for the operation of the City of Roseville Transit System and the South
Placer County Transit Information Center. On May 21, 2025, Council approved the original agreement for a grand total, including option years, of $83,392,752.80. Following approval, staff noticed an outdated pricing sheet and minor edits to the Liquidated Damages section in the agreement that must be replaced to be consistent with the funding amounts approved by the City Council. There is no fiscal impact with this action.
CONTACT: Ed Scofield 916-774-5449 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-302 approving a first amendment to agreement for City of Roseville transit system management, operations and call center services, by and between the City of Roseville and MV Transportation, Inc., and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
4. Blue Oaks Boulevard Roadway and Bridge Widening Project - Budget Adjustment (PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING - CITY PROJECT'S)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of a budget adjustment to allocate $3.2 million in federal funding to the Blue Oaks Boulevard Widening Project, currently in design. The project will widen Blue Oaks Blvd. from Diamond Creek Blvd. to Highway 65 to its ultimate 8-lane configuration, including a new 4-lane bridge over Industrial Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2027. The project is currently funded by FY2021-22 General Fund year- end budget surplus, and construction will be funded with any remaining design funds and Traffic Mitigation Fee funds.
CONTACT: Nick Bumb 916-746-1313 [email protected]
The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Ordinance No. 6988 authorizing certain amendments to the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and declaring this ordinance to be immediately effective as an appropriation measure.
5. 2025-2030 Short Range Transit Plan Adoption (PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT -
TRANSPORTATION)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of the Roseville Transit updated five-year Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). This updated plan is for years 2025 through 2030. The plan provides a multi- year guideline for operations and capital investment strategies to better address changing transit needs. Adoption of the updated plan will have no direct fiscal impact to the City.
CONTACT: Ed Scofield 916-774-5449 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-301 adopting the Short Range Transit Plan.
6. Wastewater Collections Cured-in-Place Lining Equipment and Fleet Truck and Equipment Purchases – Purchase Order and Budget Adjustment (ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT - WASTEWATER)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of a purchase order to Vortex Holdco, LLC dba Vortex Technology Group, LLC for one (1) Ford F600 truck, with an 18-foot enclosed box body and a UV8000 lining equipment system utilizing the Helping Governments Across the Country Buy (HGACBuy) contract #TP07-25 in the amount of $961,443; and the purchase of (1) Schwalm Talpa FSR 1330 and 2060 Robotics Cutting System for sewer rehabilitation installed into Fleet ID 22-356 as a retrofit utilizing HGACBuy contract #TP07-25 in the amount of $286,577. The total cost of the truck, equipment, robotics, including transportation costs, shall not exceed $1,272,120. Funding for the Vortex Technology truck and equipment is included in the FY2025- 26 Fleet Replacement Fund budget. Staff also recommends approval of a budget adjustment of $14,120 for the Sewer Collection System Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) Rehabilitation Project, which is funded by the Wastewater Rehabilitation Fund. This budget adjustment increases the budget to fund the transportation costs plus contingency associated with the purchase of a new truck equipped with CIPP lining equipment through the Fleet Replacement Fund. The new truck will allow Wastewater Collections staff to perform trenchless repair and rehabilitation work on existing sewer mains.
CONTACT: Loni Randolph 916-746-1898 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Approve a purchase order to Vortex Holdco, LLC dba Vortex Technology Group, LLC; and
b. Adopt Ordinance No. 6989 authoring certain amendments to the fiscal year 2025-26 budget and declaring this ordinance to be immediately effective as an approporiation measure.
7. After School Education and Safety Program - Memorandum of Understanding (PARKS,
RECREATION, AND LIBRARIES DEPARTMENT - RECREATION)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Roseville City School District (RCSD) to provide the After School Education and Safety Program (ASES) at Woodbridge and Cirby Elementary schools. Per this MOU, RCSD will provide the City up to $305,000 in the current fiscal year to offset the City's operational expenses for the ASES program. Funding is included in the Parks, Recreation & Libraries budget in the Youth Development Fund.
CONTACT: Jeff Nereson 916-774-5974 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-296 approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Roseville and the Roseville City School District, and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
8. Cybersecurity Endpoint Detection and Response System - Contract Purchase Agreement (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT - INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS) Summary: Staff recommends approval of a contract purchase agreement with ePlus Technology Inc. in the amount of $103,612.85 for the one-year renewal of the Cybersecurity Endpoint Detection and Response system. Funding is included in the Information Technology Operations Fund budget.
CONTACT: Cesar Gamez 916-774-5408 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-298 approving a a contract purchase agreement with ePlus Technology Inc. and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
9. Ammunition - Sole Source Purchase Orders (POLICE DEPARTMENT) Summary: Staff recommends approval of sole source purchase orders with Miwall Corporation in the amount of $112,058.93 and San Diego Police Equipment in the amount of $81,936.31, for a combined total of $193,995.24 to provide Police Duty Ammunition. Miwall Corporation is the exclusive distributor for Hornady 9mm ammunition and San Diego Police Equipment is the exclusive distributor for Speer LE .223 Ammunition. Funding is included in the Police Department's FY2025-26 budget in the General Fund.
CONTACT: Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Approve sole source purchase orders with Miwall Corporation in the amount of $112,058.93 and San Diego Police Equipment in the amount of $81,936.31, for a combined total of $193,995.24 in the current fiscal year to provide Police Duty Ammunition.
10. All Band Portable Radio - Sole Source Purchase Order (POLICE DEPARTMENT) Summary: Staff recommends approval of a sole source purchase order with Motorola Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $531,477.30 in the current fiscal year to provide All Band Portable Radios.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. is the manufacturer of the APX 8000 All Band Portable Radio, which contains proprietary hardware and software components that are only available through Motorola. Funding of $500,000 for this purchase was included in the Police Portable Radio Replacement project, through the Equipment Replacement Fund, in the adopted FY2025-26 budget. Staff will be bringing forward a recommended budget adjustment for Council consideration at an upcoming Council meeting to fund the additional costs.
CONTACT: Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Approve a sole source purchase order to Motorola Solutions, Inc. for the purchase of 57 All Band Portable Radios in the amount of $531,477.30.
11. Police Body Armor Helmets - Purchase Order (POLICE DEPARTMENT) Summary: Staff recommends approval of a purchase order with Black Box Safety, Inc. for the purchase of Police Body Armor Helmets in the amount of $75,500.43. Funding for this purchase in the amount of $40,000 was included in the Police Department's FY2025-26 departmental budget in the General Fund. The remaining $35,500.43 will be funded by the Police Equipment Replacement project in the Equipment Replacement Fund.
CONTACT: Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Approve a purchase order to Black Box Safety, Inc. for the purchase of Police Body Armor Helmets.
12. 2025 Building Standards Code Adoption (FIRE DEPARTMENT) Summary: Staff recommends City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Title 16 of the Roseville Municipal Code, which prescribes regulations governing building standards and conditions hazardous to life and property, as well as adopt an urgency ordinance to be effective September 17, 2025. The fiscal impact on the City includes new code resources and staff training on the updated Building Code Standards. These costs have been accounted for within the current budgets of both the Fire Department and the Development Services Department in the General Fund.
CONTACT: Michael Bradley 916-774-5400 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Ordinance No. 6990 re-adopting and amending Chapters 16.04 and 16.16 of Title 16 of the Roseville Municipal Code regarding buildings and construction and the Fire Code, and declaring this ordinance to be effective September 17, 2025 as an urgency ordinance; and
b. Recommend that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Title 16 of the Roseville Municipal Code, which prescribes regulations governing building standards and conditions hazardous to life and property.
13. Minutes of Prior Meetings (CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of the minutes of the September 3, 2025 City Council Meeting.
CONTACT: Melissa Lipp 916-774-5268 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Approve the minutes of the September 3, 2025 City Council Meeting.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
VIII. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
14. Council Discretionary Funds - The Gathering Inn (CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT - CITY
MANAGER)
Summary: Staff recommends Council consider providing sponsorship to The Gathering Inn from Council Discretionary Funds for the annual Gathering for Hope 2025 event. This year's theme is Glitz & Glam Gala taking place at the Rocklin Event Center on Friday, November 14, 2025. The City has funded prior events in the amount of $3,000. The balance in the Council Discretionary Funds for FY2025-26 is $20,821.
CONTACT: Amy Ruiz 916-746-1362 [email protected]
The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Consider providing sponsorship to The Gathering Inn.
15. Westpark Community Facilities District No. 1 Bond Refunding (FINANCE DEPARTMENT) Summary: Staff recommends Council adopt the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Special Tax Refunding Bonds for and on Behalf of the City of Roseville Westpark Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 1 (Public Facilities), Approving and Directing the Execution of a Fiscal Agent Agreement, Approving the Form of Preliminary Official Statement, Approving Sale of Such Bonds Pursuant to Bond Purchase Agreement, and Approving Other Related Documents and Actions.
Refunding the Westpark CFD No. 1 bonds is projected to generate net present value savings of approximately 6.4% (approximately $3.1 million). The savings will accelerate repayment of the infrastructure reimbursement obligation to the developer, which is expected to be retired within five years. Once repaid, the portion of the special tax tied to that obligation will be removed, lowering costs for property owners.
CONTACT: Jeannine Thrash 916-774-5473 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-299 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for and on behalf of the city of Roseville Westpark Community Facilities District No. 1 (public facilities), approving and directing the execution of a fiscal agent agreement, approving the form of preliminary official statement, approving sale of such bonds pursuant to bond purchase agreement, and approving other related documents and actions.
16. Direction on City Council Compensation (CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT) Summary: Staff recommends City Council provide direction on a possible Charter amendment related to authorizing the voters to adjust City Council compensation—which was most recently increased 25 years ago to $600/month ($650 for the mayor)—including proposed language.
CONTACT: Joseph Speaker 916-774-5325 [email protected]
The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Provide direction to staff on whether to pursue a Roseville Charter amendment related to City Council compensation, including direction on proposed language.
17. Prohousing Designation - Draft Application Renewal (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING) Summary: Staff recommends Council receive a presentation on the draft application for the renewal of the City's Prohousing Designation. There is no fiscal impact on the City's General Fund.
CONTACT: Lauren Hocker 916-774-5272 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. This is an informational item and requires no City Council action.
18. City of Roseville Homelessness Strategy and Response Plan (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of a Homelessness Strategy and Response Plan that outlines how the City manages and mitigates the impacts of homelessness while connecting individuals and families to housing, services, and long-term solutions. The Homelessness Strategy and Response Plan includes Roseville’s strategic framework to prevent and reduce homelessness; specific actions the City is taking under each strategy; the City’s role in regional collaboration and its position on emergency shelters; and key principles guiding future planning, investment, and communication. In Fiscal Year 2025–26, the City allocated more than $25 million toward homelessness-related initiatives. This included funding for voucher assistance, homelessness prevention, rapid rehousing, affordable and transitional housing development, interdepartmental staffing, and environmental cleanup efforts.
CONTACT: Melissa Anguiano 916-774-5284 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-297 adopting the City of Roseville Homelessness Strategy and Response Plan and affirming the City Council’s commitment to a comprehensive and compassionate approach to homelessness.
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Public Hearing Process
City Council, when considering the matter, will take the following actions:
1. Open the Public Hearing
2. Presentation by staff
3. Presentation by applicant or appellant
4. Accept public testimony
5. Appellant or applicant rebuttal period
6. Close the Public Hearing
7. City Council comments and questions
8. City Council action
Any challenges in court about public hearing matters noticed on this agenda may be limited to only those issues, that were raised orally at the public hearing or in written form received by the City on or before the hearing.
Public Hearings listed for continuance will be continued and posting of this agenda will serve as notice of continuation.
19. Community Development Block Grant 2024 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - HOUSING)
Summary: Staff recommends approving the 2024 Program Year Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, and authorize the City Manager to execute necessary documents and certifications on behalf of the City for submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. Community Development Block Grant 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. This item does not impact the City's General Fund.
CONTACT: Michelle Wurster 916-774-5469 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-300 approving the 2024 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2024 CAPER to the U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD).
X. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the second opportunity to make a public comment on non-agenda items.
XI. STAFF/COUNCIL REPORTS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VI.1
File #: 0102-06
Item ID: 2025-662
Title: Proclamation - Find the Good Day September 18, 2025 Contact: Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Proclaim September 18, 2025, as Find The Good Day and urge all residents to take part in this movement by finding the good in themselves, in others, and in their communities—and to celebrate the power of optimism and the enduring impact of positive action.
RECOMMENDATION
Proclaim September 18, 2025, as Find The Good Day and urge all residents to take part in this movement by finding the good in themselves, in others, and in their communities—and to celebrate the power of optimism and the enduring impact of positive action.
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
5. Support community engagement and advocacy
Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Find the Good Day
REVIEWERS:
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Department Created/Initiated - 9/3/2025
Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/4/2025
Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/5/2025
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VI.2
File #: 0102-06
Item ID: 2025-651
Title: Proclamation - Prostate Cancer Awareness Month September 2025 Contact: Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Proclaim the month of September 2025 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month and urge citizens to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in Prostate Cancer Awareness.
RECOMMENDATION
Proclaim the month of September 2025 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month and urge citizens to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in Prostate Cancer Awareness.
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
5. Support community engagement and advocacy
Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
REVIEWERS:
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Department Created/Initiated - 9/3/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/3/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/4/2025
Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/4/2025
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VII.3
File #: 0721
Item ID: 2025-586
Title: Transit System Operation and the South Placer County Transit Information - Agreement Amendment
Contact: Ed Scofield 916-774-5449 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the agreement with MV Transportation, Inc. for the operation of the City of Roseville Transit System and the South Placer County Transit Information Center.
On May 21, 2025, Council approved the original agreement for a grand total, including option years, of $83,392,752.80. Following approval, staff noticed an outdated pricing sheet and minor edits to the Liquidated Damages section in the agreement that must be replaced to be consistent with the funding amounts approved by the City Council. There is no fiscal impact with this action.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a first amendment to the agreement between the City of Roseville and MV Transportation, Inc. for the operation of the City of Roseville Transit System and the South Placer County Transit Information Center.
BACKGROUND
On May 21, 2025, the City Council approved the Roseville Transit Operations and South Placer County Information Center contract with MV Transportation for a total amount of $83,392,752.80, including option years. After approval, staff identified an outdated pricing sheet at the end of Exhibit A that incorrectly listed the total as $85,959,611.58, which represented MV Transportation's original bid before submitting a Best and Final Offer (BAFO). The BAFO reduced the cost to the final, agreed-upon amount of $83,392,752.80.
This First Amendment corrects the contract total in Exhibit A to match the amount approved by the City Council.
In addition to the updated price page, Section 9.7 of the agreement requires clerical edits to the language listing the Liquidated Damages that can be enforced as part of the contract. In some cases, the dollar amount shown in parentheses is different from the amount that was spelled out. In all cases, the amount shown in parentheses is the correct amount. Items #13, #14, #18 and #22 on Pages 18 and 19 will be corrected to ensure consistency between the number in parentheses and what is spelled out before this number.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with this action. This First Amendment will replace the current price page at the end of Exhibit A in the contract agreement with MV Transportation to reflect the amounts approved by the City Council on May 21, 2025.
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
2. Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world
4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
6. Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Ed Scofield, Alternative Transportation Planner
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 25-302
2. Agreement Amendment
REVIEWERS:
Ed Scofield, Public Works Department - Transportation Created/Initiated - 8/13/2025 Ed Scofield, Public Works Department - Transportation Approved - 8/13/2025 Jason Shykowski, Public Works Department - All Approved - 8/15/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/2/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/2/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 9/5/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/5/2025
RESOLUTION NO. 25-302
APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE
TRANSIT SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND CALL CENTER SERVICES, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a First Amendment to Agreement for City of Roseville Transit System Management, Operations and Call Center Services, by and between the City of Roseville and MV Transportation, 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 ______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VII.4
File #: 0900-04-02 & 0201-
01 Item ID: 2025-637
Title: Blue Oaks Boulevard Roadway and Bridge Widening Project - Budget Adjustment Contact: Nick Bumb 916-746-1313 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of a budget adjustment to allocate $3.2 million in federal funding to the Blue Oaks Boulevard Widening Project, currently in design. The project will widen Blue Oaks Blvd. from Diamond Creek Blvd. to Highway 65 to its ultimate 8-lane configuration, including a new 4-lane bridge over Industrial Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2027. The project is currently funded by FY2021-22 General Fund year-end budget surplus, and construction will be funded with any remaining design funds and Traffic Mitigation Fee funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $3.2 million for the Blue Oaks Boulevard Roadway and Bridge Widening Project.
BACKGROUND
The Blue Oaks Boulevard Roadway and Bridge Widening Project is located between Diamond Creek Blvd and Highway 65 within the Northwest Industrial Specific Plan area. This segment of Blue Oaks Blvd currently varies between 7 and 4 total lanes. As part of the 2035 General Plan, this section of Blue Oaks Blvd was identified for widening to address increased traffic demand due to development activities.
The project consists of widening approximately 1.5 miles of roadway along Blue Oaks Blvd to its ultimate 8-lane configuration starting approximately 500 feet west of Diamond Creek Boulevard and continuing east to approximately 1,000 feet east of Washington Boulevard and includes a new 4-lane bridge spanning Industrial Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR).
In March 2024, $3.2 million of federal funding for design was directed to the project through the Congressional Directed Spending process, as part of the H.R. 4820 – Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2024. This funding will supplement the General Fund resources already budgeted and Traffic Mitigation Fee funds planned for the project through the construction phase.
The project is currently in the design and environmental phases, including coordination with Caltrans for improvements within existing state right of way. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2027.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project is currently funded with General Fund resources from the FY2021-22 year-end budget surplus.
This budget adjustment adds $3.2 million of federal funds to the project. Remaining General Fund resources in the project will be used toward construction, along with planned Traffic Mitigation Fee Funds.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378.
The budget adjustment for the Blue Oaks Boulevard Roadway and Bridge Widening Project meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required. Staff will return to Council with environmental review of the Project at a later date.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
2. Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world
4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
Respectfully Submitted,
Nick Bumb, Associate Engineer
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Blue Oaks Widening Location Map
2. Ordinance 6988
REVIEWERS:
Nick Bumb, Public Works Department - Engineering - City Project's Created/Initiated - 8/25/2025 Jerome Pastor, City Clerk Department Approved - 8/26/2025 Jesse Khatkar, Public Works Department - Engineering - Traffic Engineering Approved - 8/27/2025 Noah Siviglia, Public Works Department - Engineering - Traffic Engineering Approved - 8/28/2025 Stefanie Kemen, Public Works Department - Engineering - Traffic Engineering Approved - 8/28/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/3/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Dominick Casey, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/4/2025
FOOTHILLS BLVDBLUE OAKS BLVDHWY 65
WASHINGTONBLVDOAKSBLVD
CREEKJUNCTION BLVD
DIAMOND CRBLVD
INDUSTRIAL AVEBLVDPLEASANTGROVE
BLUE OAKS BOULEVARD ROADWAYAND BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECTLOCATION MAP
PROJECTLOCATIONLEGEND
ORDINANCE NO. 6988
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
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 2025-26, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Blue Oaks Boulevard Roadway ad Bridge Widening project.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2025, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 05/29/2025
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 ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment DESCRIPTION
2270 6587 84001 500322 3,200,000 Increase project budget to match federal grant
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 3,200,000
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment DESCRIPTION
2270 4401 84001 500322 3,200,000 Increase federal grant award revenue
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL 3,200,000
NET ADJUSTMENT -
FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment DESCRIPTION
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
FUND BALANCE TOTAL -
Justification for Budget Adjustment:
The Public Works Department is requesting this budget adjustment to increase the budget for the Blue Oaks Boulevard Widening Project (500322) in the Grants Fund (2270). This adjustment reflects the updated federal Community Project Funding Congressional District Spending (CPFCDS) funds.
The project scope includes widening approximately 1.5 miles of Blue Oaks Boulevard between Washington Boulevard and Foothills Boulevard to expand capacity and improve traffic flow. Planned improvements include additional travel lanes, upgraded traffic signals, ADA-compliant curb ramps, and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project supports regional mobility goals and addresses congestion in a key east-west corridor of the City.
The current project budget is $4,000,000. With this adjustment, the revised project budget will total $7,200,000. 2025-26Nicolas Bumb, Associate Engineer
Daniel Leonardich, Management Analyst II
Public Works - Engineering
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VII.5
File #: 0721-01
Item ID: 2025-642
Title: 2025-2030 Short Range Transit Plan Adoption
Contact: Ed Scofield 916-774-5449 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of the Roseville Transit updated five-year Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP).
This updated plan is for years 2025 through 2030. The plan provides a multi-year guideline for operations and capital investment strategies to better address changing transit needs. Adoption of the updated plan will have no direct fiscal impact to the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the Roseville Transit Short Range Transit Plan 2025-2030.
BACKGROUND
The Short Range Transit Plan 2025-2030 (SRTP) provides a multi-year plan for operations and capital investment strategies to better address changing transit needs. Unlike past SRTP's that comprised of individual transit plans for each agency, this proposed SRTP outlines a coordinated strategy to create a more integrated transit network for Roseville Transit, Placer County Transit (PCT), and Auburn Transit.
The SRTP, which was developed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), recommends operational changes, capital improvements, and interagency coordination efforts to be implemented over the next five years. The SRTP builds on previous Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) work and service plans developed by the three transit agencies. The plan also provides a multi-year guideline for operations and capital investment strategies to better address changing transit needs and includes the following:
• Updated operational cost and ridership estimates for implementing the COA service plan recommendations.
• Capital expenditures necessary to carry out the updated service plans. • Implementation roadmap for executing the proposed operational and capital changes over a five- year period.
• Interagency coordination strategies identified in the plan.
The following provides an overview of the SRTP planning process and engagement efforts, as well as the resulting recommendations proposed for Roseville Transit.
Public and Stakeholder Outreach
Development of the SRTP included a community and stakeholder outreach and engagement process consisting of the following:
• A project webpage hosted on the PCTPA website to keep the public and interested stakeholders
informed of progress and potential input opportunities. • An online public survey, conducted between February 13th and March 28th, 2025, which received 282 responses and helped provide stakeholder feedback regarding transit fare integration, trip planning coordination, tolerance for service transfers, and bus stop information and amenities improvements.
• The project’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), composed of the region’s transit operators, partnering social service agencies, and other public stakeholders, met three times throughout the SRTP planning process to review draft work products and provide guidance to the project team throughout the SRTP’s development.
Service Plan
The project team worked with Roseville Transit and the other two operators to refine and update their respective COA service plan recommendations. Recommendations include local and regional fixed-route and on-demand services connecting with the other operator’s services, as well as connecting with transit services outside of Placer County.
Capital Plan
Collective capital costs to implement the SRTP were estimated by the project team and the three transit agencies. These costs include transit vehicle replacement and fleet additions, installation of charging infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicle conversion, and bus stop additions and modifications anticipated to occur during the SRTP’s five-year planning period.
Financial Plan
Two financial cost scenarios were also developed for each transit operator: the first scenario reflects the SRTP’s recommended service plan implementation, and the second scenario includes service changes not currently proposed but were analyzed as part of the COA process and would be worth investigating if future funding becomes available. Five-year revenue projections were also developed for each transit agency, reflecting estimated local, state, and federal funding available to offset anticipated operating and capital expenses, including the one-time Senate Bill 125 (SB 125) funding that is currently programmed to help offset some of each transit operator’s capital needs over the next few years.
Implementation Plan
A phased implementation plan was developed for anticipated capital and operational improvements to be implemented by each transit agency. Improvements are grouped into three phases:
• Near-Term (2025-2028)
• Mid-Term (2028-2030)
• Long-Term (2030+)
Transit Agency Coordination Recommendations
The following recommendations were developed collectively by the three transit operators and the TAC to help streamline service integration, marketing, and overall coordination efforts to improve a transit rider’s experience in western Placer County. As previously mentioned, these recommendations were informed by the SRTP public survey results discussed earlier.
• Create a regional marketing brand for customer-facing services, materials, and resources that help promote transit services in an easy-to-understand way and highlight regional integration. • Incorporate data information and/or resources onto the South Placer Transit Information, Education, and Training program’s website to support online trip planning. • Develop consistent and integrated fare structures and a regional transit pass for the transit services.
• Discuss individual and collective fare capping strategies to implement for the three transit providers pending available support and technologies.
Performance Metrics and Standards
A unique set of performance metrics were developed for different service types and modes applicable to Roseville Transit. Proposed ranges were then developed for each metric using a calculated average target value for that service based on respective historical performance data (referred to as a standard) and identifying a low and high value target relevant to that standard. The low target was calculated as 75% of the standard value and the high target was calculated as 125% of the standard value for each metric. At a minimum, Roseville Transit should meet the low target values established for their respective service types and modes. Services unable to achieve the low target value could be considered underperforming and in need of either improvement or elimination. Services that meet the high target value may indicate opportunities for that service to receive further investment for frequency and/or service span expansion to accommodate demand.
Common metrics used in the SRTP include ridership (referred to as boardings), operating costs, and on- time performance/wait-time. Additionally, specific performance metrics were established for RapidLink, which is a new regional bus service Roseville is scheduled to begin operating in 2026, that were designed to evaluate the entire route and potentially assess individual route segments operating during different times of the day. Lastly, broader metrics such as the Placer County region’s population within a ½ mile of a fixed-route bus stop and the percentage of residents in a respective agency’s (i.e., transit operator’s) on- demand service area that works within a demand response service area, were established for regional transit service planning purposes and do not apply to the assessment of specific service types or modes provided by each transit operator. The proposed performance metrics and targets can be used to help inform service planning and operational improvement efforts throughout the SRTP’s implementation.
Roseville Transit Specific SRTP Items
For Roseville Transit, the following capital and operational changes are listed in the SRTP:
1. Near-Term
• Integrate new technology platforms to support demand response services and real-time transit information.
• Implement service changes to commuter, local, and ADA/Arrow services from the COA. • Implement RapidLink pilot service and develop performance metrics and standards. • Replace bus stop shelters.
• Install electric charging infrastructure at the Louis Orlando Transit Center, Roseville Galleria, and Roseville Corporation Yard.
• Replace seven commuter buses, four local buses, and eight demand response vehicles; add four additional demand response vehicles; and add five RapidLink buses.
2. Mid-Term
• No Recommendations
3. Long-Term
• Coordinate with Placer County Transit to expand demand response service to the Placer Vineyards and Cook Riolo/Vineyard areas.
• Implement 30-minute frequencies on the new Route 2 identified in Roseville Transit's COA. • Implement new fixed route service to Westpark with 30-minute frequencies.
Next Steps
The PCTPA Board of Directors approved the SRTP on June 25, 2025. Roseville's Transportation Commission accepted the SRTP and recommended Council approval on August 19, 2025. If the Council approves the SRTP, staff will then work on near-term improvements, in addition to coordinating with PCTPA and other transit operators to begin a bus stop facilities assessment to ultimately provide a general set of design criteria and prioritized program of bus stop improvements. This planning effort is expected to be completed by May 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the SRTP does not implement or approve any of the capital and operational improvements listed in this plan. As a result, SRTP adoption will have no direct fiscal impact on the City. However, the SRTP was drafted in consideration of what would be considered reasonable financial resources available to Roseville Transit. The near-term capital and operational improvements proposed for Roseville Transit in the SRTP have an estimated total combined cost of $28.5 million. Through federal grants, as well as local and state funds, Roseville Transit has already secured the $28.5 million to pay for these items. Staff will report back to the Transportation Commission and City Council, when appropriate, prior to implementing service changes that have the potential for fiscal impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the Short Range Transit Plan is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080(b)(10), as it is a plan to provide public passenger service.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
2. Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world
4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
6. Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Ed Scofield, Alternative Transportation Planner
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 25-301
2. Final Short-Range Transit Plan
REVIEWERS:
Ed Scofield, Public Works Department - Transportation Created/Initiated - 8/26/2025 Ed Scofield, Public Works Department - Transportation Approved - 8/26/2025 Jason Shykowski, Public Works Department - All Approved - 8/29/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/2/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/2/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/3/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 9/3/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/3/2025
RESOLUTION NO. 25-301
ADOPTING THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 2025-2030
WHEREAS, the Short Range Transit Plan 2025-2030 (SRTP) provides a multi-year plan for operations and capital investment strategies to better address changing transit needs; and
WHEREAS, the proposed SRTP outlines a coordinated strategy to create a more integrated transit network for Roseville Transit, Placer County Transit (PCT), and Auburn Transit; and
WHEREAS, the SRTP, which was developed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), recommends operational changes, capital improvements, and interagency coordination efforts to be implemented over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2025, the Transportation Commission approved the proposed SRTP; and
WHEREAS, the 2025 Short Range Transit Plan has been reviewed by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Short Range Transit Plan 2025-2030 is hereby approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 2025, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Existing Conditions Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Community and Stakeholder Outreach .......................................................................................................................................................................9 Service Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Capital Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Financial Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Implementation Plan .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Appendix 1: Technical Advisory Committee Participant Organizations ............................................................................................ 46
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 1
SUMMARY
PURPOSE
The western Placer County Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is the region’s plan to create an integrated and coordinated transit network for Auburn Transit, Placer County Transit (PCT), and Roseville Transit. The SRTP recommends operational changes, capital improvements, and interagency coordination strategies to be implemented over the next five years. Additionally, the SRTP recommends on-going collaboration with and a coordination support role for the Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (WPCTSA) to assist with the transit agencies’ implementation of their respective SRTP components.
The SRTP builds off the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) planning efforts and recommended service plans that were developed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) for Auburn Transit and PCT and by the City of Roseville for Roseville Transit. It includes:
• Updated operational cost and ridership estimates for implementing the COA service plan recommendations.
• Capital expenditures necessary to carry out the updated service plans. • Implementation roadmap for executing the proposed operational and capital changes over a five-year period.
• Interagency coordination strategies identified in the plan.
PROCESS
As shown in Figure 1, PCTPA’s COA was approved by the PCTPA Board of Directors in October 2024 and the SRTP development process began shortly after. Roseville Transit’s COA was adopted by the City of Roseville City Council in February 2025.
Figure 1: Short-Range Transit Plan Timeline
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that was utilized for PCTPA’s COA was convened again for the SRTP and met three times over the course of the SRTP’s development. Appendix 1 lists organizations participating in the TAC.
Key aspects of the development process included:
• Summarizing, aligning, and incorporating the results from PCTPA’s and Roseville Transit’s COAs. • Identifying the capital items needed to operate the recommended service plans from the COAs.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 2 • Recommending interagency coordination strategies to better integrate the services provided by the three transit agencies with complementing programs and support from the WPCTSA to make the transit experience in western Placer County easier for passengers. • Updating the operational cost and ridership estimates from the COAs and developing a phasing plan for implementing the recommended COA service changes and associated capital requirements. • Developing a phasing strategy and performance measures to guide implementation of the operational and capital changes and recommended interagency coordination strategies. • Conducting an online survey to gauge the public’s priorities about coordination around fare structures and policies, branding, and other service matters that make the transit experience easier for passengers in western Placer County.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
The Implementation Plan at the end of the SRTP provides a roadmap for carrying out the recommended capital and operational changes and interagency coordination strategies as well as identifying and measuring performance metrics. A summary of these recommendations is found below:
• Operational and capital changes
o Fiscal year (FY) 2025-2026 (all transit agencies and the WPCTSA) Gather up-to-date data on ridership, travel patterns, and system performance . Integrate new technology platforms to support demand response services and real- time transit information.
WPCTSA work with the transit agencies and Spare Labs to support development of a regional Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service certification platform. o FY 2025-2026 to FY 2027-2028
Auburn Transit
• Coordinate with PCT to serve Sutter Urgent Care – Auburn via Auburn OnDemand.
• Coordinate with PCT to plan for Route 30 service expanding into central Auburn.
PCT
• Implement COA recommended service changes on Route 10, Route 20, Route 50, Route 60, and Route 70.
• Install bus stop amenities at the Lincoln park-and-ride. • Coordinate with Roseville Transit to replace the existing Granite Bay Dial -A-Ride service with Arrow service.
• Coordinate with the City of Roseville to install on-street charging infrastructure at the Roseville Galleria.
• Add/modify bus stops to account for operational changes. • Replace 12 vehicles and add two demand response vehicles.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 3 • Install charging infrastructure at the PCT maintenance facility to accommodate four electric buses.
Roseville Transit
• Implement service changes to commuter, local, and ADA/Arrow services from the COA.
• Implement RapidLink pilot service and develop performance metrics and standards.
• Replace bus stop shelters.
• Install electric charging infrastructure at the Louis Orlando Transit Center, Roseville Galleria, and Roseville Corporation Yard.
• Replace seven commuter buses and add one, replace four local buses, replace eight demand response vehicles and add four, and add five RapidLink buses. WPCTSA
• Consider expanding “Case Management” or “Information and Assistance” program activities.
• Consider expanding the mileage reimbursement eligibility criteria for Placer Rides beyond essential trips only.
• Consider expanding the “last resort rides” beyond medical uses. o FY 2028-2029 to FY 2029-2030
PCT
• Install charging infrastructure at Colfax Station, Rocklin Station, and the Twelve Bridges bus stop.
• Add two local buses.
• Extend Route 30 from Auburn Station to central Auburn. • Add one round trip on Route 40.
• Following conversion of Route 50 to a Dial-A-Ride zone, analyze ridership to determine whether to reduce weekday service span from 12 hours to 9.5 hours and discontinue Saturday service.
o FY 2030+
PCT
• Install charging infrastructure at the county’s maintenance facility. • Determine funding to improve headways on Route 10 from 60 minutes to 30 minutes on weekdays between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM.
• Coordinate with the City of Lincoln to determine funding available and the city’s desire to add weekday service hours to the Lincoln Dial-A-Ride zone. • Determine need to potentially improve headways on the updated Route 20 from 60 minutes to 30 minutes weekdays between 12:00 PM and 6:00 PM pending funding availability and concurrence with local jurisdictional partners.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 4 • Improve headways on the updated Route 30 from 60 minutes to 30 minutes weekdays between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM and add 60-minute Sunday service from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM pending funding availability and concurrence with local jurisdictional partners.
• Analyze Route 60 ridership to determine whether any additional trips should be added or removed based on return to office and travel demand patterns.
• Coordinate with Roseville Transit to expand demand response service to Placer Vineyards and Cook Riolo/Vineyard areas.
• Expand Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride zone to the Placer One area. • Add lifeline services or an alternative transportation program solution to Foresthill and Sheridan if it is determined that they could be sustainable and financially feasible given available funding resources and demand. Roseville Transit
• Coordinate with PCT to expand demand response service to the Placer Vineyards and Cook Riolo/Vineyard areas.
• Implement 30-minute frequencies on Route 2.
• Implement new fixed route service to Westpark with 30-minute frequencies. • Interagency coordination strategies (all transit agencies and the Transit Operators Working Group [TOWG])
o Update the existing WPCTSA Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to expand roles and responsibilities.
o Create a regional transit branding and improve customer information. o Better coordinate online trip planning.
o Develop a consistent and integrated fare structure/transit pass. o Discuss potential for fare capping strategies individually and across the three transit agencies. • Performance metrics and standards (all transit agencies and TOWG) o Discuss and refine the metrics and standards that will be consistently monitored and reported to each agency’s governing body or jurisdiction.
o Update and refine the proposed metrics and standards for RapidLink to gauge the performance of the route, identify needed adjustments, and determine the feasibility of making the route permanent following the end of the three-year service pilot. o Discuss and refine the regional performance metrics and standards used to determine the feasibility of making service changes.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 5
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
Transit is a vital service to many residents of western Placer County. Transit services provide mobility to residents, including access to important medical, recreational, social, educational, and economic services and opportunities. In addition to being important to the quality of life for residents in the region, transit services assist in supporting the functions of educational programs, public and private employers, and social service programs throughout the region.
This document presents the SRTP for western Placer County. The SRTP builds upon the COA s completed by PCTPA and Roseville Transit in October 2024 and February 2025 respectively. The SRTP aims to turn the respective COAs’ service plan recommendations into actions that improve the region’s transit experience while meeting the following goals:
• Increase transit usage
• Plan and provide an efficient, effective, and equitable network • Deliver reliable and integrated transportation options PCTPA’s COA analyzed transit services provided by Auburn Transit and PCT in western Placer County (excluding the City of Roseville) and created a recommended service plan to better match services with existing ridership demand and provide opportunities for transit ri ders to access more areas within the region.
During PCTPA’s and Roseville Transit's concurrent COA planning efforts, both teams met multiple times and collaborated throughout the development process to ensure that the respective plans complement ed each other.
The SRTP combines the results of both COAs to create a plan for implementing an integrated and coordinated transit network in western Placer County. This includes building on the analysis and recommendations from the two COAs to determine how the recommended service plans will be funded and what strategic decisions need to be made in the near-term to implement the service changes in the coming years. Focus is given to improving interagency coordination among the three main transit providers in western Placer County (Auburn Transit, PCT, and Roseville Transit), with complementing support from the WPCTSA, and developing ways to make it easier for customers to connect among each of the providers’ services. The development of the SRTP included the following steps:
• Incorporate and refine results from PCTPA and Roseville Transit’s COA. • Identify capital requirements for the proposed service plan. • Develop marketing, fare, and partnership programs to create an integrated transit network and support coordination among the three transit agencies and the WPCTSA. • Update operational cost and ridership estimates to identify two funding scenarios for the proposed COA service plans.
• Create an implementation and network integration plan for the proposed COA service plans. • Conduct community and stakeholder outreach.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 6
DOCUMENT STRUCTURE
The SRTP is composed of the following sections:
• Existing Conditions Analysis – summary of the demographics and transit performance within the study area.
• Community and Stakeholder Outreach – results of the online survey conducted, and TAC meetings held.
• Service Plan – updated operational cost and ridership estimates for each agency’s service changes. • Capital Plan – required facility and fleet needs to carry out each agency’s service changes. • Financial Plan – anticipated phasing plan for the capital and operational changes and five -year cost and revenue projections.
• Implementation Plan – roadmap to guide implementation of the capital and operational changes and interagency coordination strategies and proposed performance metrics and standards.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 7
EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
The first step in developing the SRTP involved combining the results of PCTPA and Roseville Transit’s respective COAs. The project team began by building upon the existing conditions analysis that was completed for each COA, which focused on examining the demographics and travel patterns in western Placer County as well as an analysis of the performance of each transit agency. A high-level summary of the existing conditions analysis is shown below, while the full report can be found on the SRTP project website :
• Demographics
o Population density is sparse throughout the study area, with higher concentrations located in Rocklin and Roseville.
o Areas with a higher concentration of people that are more likely to rely on transit 1 include North Auburn near Quartz Drive and Galena Drive, southwest Lincoln near First Street Community Church, northwest Lincoln near Fred Festersen Park, northwest Rocklin near Gold Circle, and southeast Roseville near Centerpoint Community Church. • Travel patterns
o Key destinations include the Roseville Galleria, Thunder Valley Casino and Resort, Sierra College, Jessup University, Kaiser Permanente, and Sutter Health. o Most of the Placer region’s top employers are located in Roseville, Rocklin, and Auburn. o The largest proportion of total weekday trips occurred within the Roseville West area, followed by Rocklin and Lincoln.
o By 2027, 22% of growth in trips will occur within the Roseville West area, followed by 13% within Rocklin, and seven percent in Lincoln.
o Future developments in the study area include Placer One, a 2,213-acre development in unincorporated northwestern Placer County, and the Placer Vineyards and Cook - Riolo/Vineyard Corridor areas, which will consist of residential units, commercial uses, and schools.
• Transit performance
o Auburn Transit, PCT, and Roseville Transit provide transit service Monday -Saturday, with Roseville Transit’s Arrow being the only service provided on Sunday. o The fare structure differs for each agency with PCT and Roseville Transit offering the lowest one-way fare ($1.50) and several passes for frequent riders. Auburn Transit has a one -way fare of $3.50, while the one-way fare for Roseville Transit’s Arrow service is $3.75. Roseville’s commuter service costs $3.50 for Roseville residents and $4.50 for non-Roseville residents. o Roseville Transit ($160) has the highest average systemwide cost per vehicle service hour, followed by PCT ($152), and Auburn Transit ($71).
1 This was identified through the development of a Transit Needs Index which identified the percentages of residents that are low-income, seniors, have a disability, are below the poverty level, and do not have access to a vehicle.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 8 o PCT has the highest average systemwide annual boardings per hour (5.2), followed by Roseville Transit (3.9) and Auburn Transit (2.8). Roseville Transit has the highest farebox recovery ratio (9.2%), followed by Auburn Transit (7.0%), and PCT (2.4%). 2 o PCT has the highest annual ridership (201,000 boardings), followed by Roseville Transit (180,000) and Auburn Transit (23,000). Ridership is highest across all services during spring and fall, and Tuesdays and Thursdays.
2 The farebox ratios are for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and only include fares paid by customers. Farebox calculations do not represent official calculations for Transportation Development Act eligibility. Farebox ratios are higher when factoring in other sources of revenue including federal grants and local funds.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 9
COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
Development of the SRTP included a community and stakeholder outreach process consisting of an online survey and multiple stakeholder meetings held over the project lifecycle. The recommended interagency coordination strategies described later in the SRTP aim to address the results of the survey.
ONLINE SURVEY
PCTPA hosted an online survey on the SRTP’s project website between February 13 th and March 28th, 2025.
The survey was intended to receive feedback from the public on ways the three agencies could coordinate to improve the overall transit experience in western Placer County. A summary of results from the survey is provided below, while the full results can be found on the SRTP project website:
• Trip fare
o Most respondents prefer to pay for their fare via their credit card, debit card, and/or Apple Pay. o The highest fare respondents would be willing to pay for their transit trip was $5 . • Trip planning
o Most respondents find it at least moderately difficult to plan their transit trip . o Most respondents would like to use mobile apps such as Apple/Google Maps to plan their transit trips.
• Transferring between services
o Most respondents find it at least moderately difficult to transfer between transit services . o Most respondents would be willing to wait between five and ten minutes for their next connecting bus.
• Bus stop information and amenities
o Most respondents would like to see information on the routes being served at a stop and real- time information.
o Most respondents feel a shelter is the most important bus stop amenity.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The TAC that was utilized for PCTPA’s COA was convened again for the SRTP. The TAC met three times to review draft work products and provide guidance throughout the SRTP ’s development. Members of the TAC included staff from advocacy groups, Auburn Transit, PCT, Roseville Transit, and various jurisdictions.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 10
SERVICE PLAN
As part of the SRTP, the project team worked with Auburn Transit, PCT, and Roseville Transit to update the service plan from PCTPA and Roseville Transit’s COA. This included refining the operational changes and updating the estimated operational cost and ridership for each change. Figure 2 shows the combined recommended service plan for Auburn Transit, PCT, and Roseville Transit. The combined network incorporates the recommended transit routes and demand response zones for all service providers, as well as several key transfer points between the three transit agencies and other regional providers outside of the county.
Figure 2: Auburn Transit, Placer County Transit, and Roseville Transit Combined Recommended Service Plan
AUBURN TRANSIT
The COA recommended that Auburn Transit coordinate with PCT to amend their service area to include the Bowman area and reduce their service span to be 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday to Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. This change was implemented prior to the development of the SRTP and therefore updated operational cost and ridership numbers were not developed.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 11
PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT
The updated PCT recommended service changes and operating cost and ridership estimates are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Placer County Operational Cost and Ridership Estimates Service Recommended Service Changes Estimated Change in Annual Operating Cost (2025 $)
Estimated Change in Annual
Boardings
Route 10
Improve headways from 60
minutes to 30 minutes weekdays
between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM
$0.2 million 14,673
Realign westbound routing to
serve Taylor Road Park and Ride
and add stops in each direction at
the Park and Ride
<$0.1 million 1,251
Route 20
Split route at the Roseville
Galleria and realign routing to
expand service coverage in west
Rocklin
$0.1 million 11,807
Route 30 Extend route from Auburn’s
Nevada Station to central Auburn <$0.1 million 5,385
Route 40 Add one round trip $0.1 million 1,017
Route 50
Convert route and deviation area
to a Dial-A-Ride zone $0 0
Reduce weekday service span
from 12 hours to 9.5 hours ($0.1 million) (253)
Discontinue Saturday service (<$0.1 million) (260)
Route 60 Discontinue route between
Auburn and Colfax ($0.1 million) (189)
Route 70
Extend route Along 1st Street to
Joiner Parkway and from Twelve
Bridges to the Park-and-Ride lot
on Industrial Avenue
<$0.1 million 1,143
Granite Bay Dial-A-Ride
Reimburse Roseville Transit to
serve Granite Bay with Arrow
during limited weekday midday
hours
$0 0
Lincoln Dial-A-Ride Add weekday vehicle service
hours $0.1 million 1,518
Total $0.4 million 36,092
ROSEVILLE TRANSIT
The updated Roseville Transit recommended service changes and operating cost and ridership estimates are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Roseville Transit Operational Cost and Ridership Estimates Service Recommended Service Changes Estimated Change in Annual Operating Cost (2025 $)
Estimated Change in Annual
Boardings
Commuter Routes
Serve five AM trips from the Taylor
Road/Sunsplash Park and Ride
and five AM trips from the
Mahany Park and Ride
$0.2 million 11,674
Local Routes
Implement 30-minute
frequencies for all routes (except
Route 2 and Route 6)
$0.4 million 3,606
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 12 Service Recommended Service Changes Estimated Change in Annual Operating Cost (2025 $)
Estimated Change in Annual
Boardings
Eliminate Routes C/F, L, and R
Implement Routes 4 and 6 (peak-
only)
Eliminate Routes A/B and E
Implement Route 3
Eliminate Routes D, S, and M
(Including the M deviation)
Implement Routes 1, 2 (60-
minute frequencies), and 5
Arrow
Implement three zones
$0.5 million 10,056 Implement existing PCT Granite
Bay Dial-A-Ride service area into
Zone 3
RapidLink* Implement pilot service $1.7 million 78,406
ADA Adjust service to complement
new Arrow zones $0.3 million 7,798
Total $3.2 million 111,540
*RapidLink is being funded through a dedicated external grant that is separate from Roseville Transit’s operating budget.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 13
CAPITAL PLAN
This section identifies the capital assets needed to implement the service plan shown above , with costs shown in 2025 dollars. Costs are only shown for improvements that will take place after calendar year 2025. It should be noted that PCTPA, in conjunction with the three transit agencies, will conduct a bus stop assessment in mid-2025 that will analyze the existing conditions of bus stops served by each agency and develop a list of prioritized improvements to bus stop facilities that would complement the COA/SRTP planning efforts. The assessment will also identify potential funding opportunities for any improvements and/or changes.
AUBURN TRANSIT
FACILITIES
As shown in Table 3, Auburn Transit is improving their facilities to account for the transition to zero-emission vehicles. This includes adding electric charging infrastructure to Auburn’s Nevada Station and their Corporation Yard. These are expected to cost $1.6 million and $0.6 million respectively.
Table 3: Auburn Transit Facility Needs for the Short-Range Transit Plan Facility Project Name Total Estimated Cost
(2025 $)* Total Funded (2025 $) Total Unfunded (2025 $) Nevada Station
Nevada Street Station
Electric Charging
Infrastructure
$1.6 million $1.6 million $0
Corporation Yard
City Corporation Yard EV
Charging Infrastructure
Upgrades
$0.6 million $0.6 million $0
*Estimated costs are from Placer County Transportation Planning Agency’s Senate Bill 125 funding request.3 FLEET
As shown in Table 4, all expected changes to Auburn Transit’s fleet are anticipated to take place before the end of 2025 and are not assumed to be costs for implementing the SRTP. Accounting for the expected changes to the fleet, Table 5 shows that Auburn Transit will need four vehicles for peak service, four spare vehicles, and eight total to operate the SRTP service plan. Auburn Transit is also expecting to acquire additional vehicles in the future for $0.2 million.
Table 4: Auburn Transit Fleet Needs for the Short-Range Transit Plan* Vehicle Number Make Model Year Placed into
Service
Estimated
Retirement
Date
Primary Use Status* Estimated Cost
(2025 $)
TR-98 Freightliner Bus 2017 2031 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
TR-103 Ford Glaval Cutaway
Bus 2011 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
by end of 2025 N/A
E-03 Tesla Model Y 2023 2031 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
E-04 Tesla Model Y 2023 2031 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
3 Source: “PCTPA’s Initial Allocation Request Package for SB 125 Funding”, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, 2023, https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/placer_a11y.pdf.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 14 Vehicle Number Make Model Year Placed into
Service
Estimated
Retirement
Date
Primary Use Status* Estimated Cost
(2025 $)
TBD Ford E Ford Transit 2025 TBD Demand
Response
To be added by
end of 2025 N/A
TBD Ford E Ford Transit 2025 TBD Demand
Response
To be added by
end of 2025 N/A
TBD Ford E Ford Transit 2025 TBD Demand
Response
To be added by
end of 2025 N/A
TBD Ford E Ford Transit 2025 TBD Demand
Response
To be added by
end of 2025 N/A
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Demand
Response TBD $0.2 million
*TR-99, E-01, and E-02 to be removed from service prior to Short-Range Transit Plan implementation and will not be assumed as a cost to implement the Short-Range Transit Plan.
Table 5: Auburn Transit Fleet Spare Ratio Needs for the Short-Range Transit Plan Primary Use Peak Service Spare Total
Demand Response 4 4 8
PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT
FACILITIES
As shown in Table 6, a number of projects are expected to be completed by PCT to implement the SRTP.
These projects include adding charging infrastructure at PCT’s maintenance facility, Colfax Station, Rocklin Station, Twelve Bridges bus stop, and Roseville Galleria. The realignment of Route 20 to terminate at the Lincoln park-and-ride will require costs to add bus stop amenities and other potential supporting infrastructure at that location. There are also expected to be additions and modifications to the existing bus stop network to serve the new route paths (specifically the new Route 20 alignment).
Table 6: Placer County Transit Facility Needs for the Short-Range Transit Plan Facility Project Name Total Estimated Cost
(2025 $)* Total Funded (2025 $) Total Unfunded (2025 $) Maintenance facility Charging infrastructure $10.0 million $0 $10.0 million Maintenance facility Charging infrastructure for
four electric buses $3.0 million $3.0 million $0
Lincoln Park-and-Ride† Bus stop amenities and
charging infrastructure $0.2 million $0 $0.2 million
Colfax Station Charging infrastructure $1.5 million $0.1 million $1.4 million Rocklin Station Charging infrastructure $1.5 million $1.0 million $0.5 million Twelve Bridges bus stop Charging infrastructure $1.5 million $1.0 million $0.5 million Roseville Galleria On-street charging
infrastructure $3.0 million $0 $3.0 million
Bus stops Add/modify stops to serve
the new routes‡ $3.9 million $0 $3.9 million
*Estimated costs are from Placer County Transit and the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. †This is listed as a placeholder cost for Placer County Transit. Discussions will need to take place to determine who is responsible for the cost and installing the infrastructure. ‡This may include costs for updating logos, maps, and signage if a new regional brand is implemented.
FLEET
As shown in Table 7, PCT is expecting to make a number of changes to their fleet as they replace older vehicles and transition to ZEBs. PCT will replace nine local buses and add two more (four of which will be ZEBs) and replace three demand response vehicles and add two more. As shown in Table 8, implementing
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 15 the SRTP will require two commuter buses for peak service with three spares (five total), seven demand response vehicles for peak service with six spares (13 total), and 12 local buses for peak service with three spares (15 total).
Table 7: Placer County Transit Fleet Needs for the Short-Range Transit Plan Vehicle Number Make Model Year Placed into
Service
Estimated
Retirement
Date
Primary Use Status Estimated Cost
(2025 $)*
1510 Gillig LF 2015 2029 Local Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $0.8 million
1511 Gillig LF 2015 2029 Local Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $0.8 million
1512 Gillig LF 2015 2029 Local Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $0.8 million
1513 Gillig LF 2015 2029 Local Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $0.8 million
1514† Gillig LF 2015 2029 Local Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.5 million
1515† Gillig LF 2015 2029 Local Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.5 million
1520 Starcraft Allstar 2015 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
after 2025 $0.8 million
1521 Starcraft Allstar 2015 2025 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
1522 Starcraft Allstar 2015 2025 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
1523 Starcraft Allstar 2015 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
by end of 2025 N/A
1601 MCI D4500 2010 2022 Commuter Bus Remain in
service N/A
1604 MCI D4500 2010 2022 Commuter Bus Remain in
service N/A
1605 MCI D4500 2010 2022 Commuter Bus Remain in
service N/A
1724† Gillig LF 2017 2031 Local Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.5 million
1725† Gillig LF 2017 2031 Local Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.5 million
1726 Gillig LF 2017 2031 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
1729 Starcraft Allstar 2017 2027 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
1730 Starcraft Allstar 2017 2027 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
1731 Starcraft Allstar 2017 2027 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
1732 Starcraft Allstar 2017 2027 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
1733 Starcraft Allstar 2017 2027 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
1734 Starcraft Allstar 2017 2027 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
1735 Starcraft Allstar 2017 2027 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
1736 Gillig LF 2017 2031 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 16 Vehicle Number Make Model Year Placed into
Service
Estimated
Retirement
Date
Primary Use Status Estimated Cost
(2025 $)*
1737 Gillig LF 2017 2031 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
2285 MCI D45-CRT LE 2021 2035 Commuter Bus Remain in
service N/A
2286 MCI D45-CRT LE 2021 2035 Commuter Bus Remain in
service N/A
0805 Starcraft Allstar 2008 2018 Local Bus To be replaced after 2025 $0.8 million
0809 Starcraft Allstar 2008 2018 Demand
Response
To be replaced
after 2025 $0.2 million
TBD† TBD TBD TBD TBD Local Bus To be added
after 2025 $1.5 million
TBD† TBD TBD TBD TBD Local Bus To be added
after 2025 $1.5 million
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Demand
Response
To be added
after 2025 $0.2 million
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Demand
Response
To be added
after 2025 $0.2 million
*Estimated costs are from Placer County Transit. Approximately $5.7 million of these costs are covered by Senate Bill 125 funding.4
†These are expected to be zero-emission vehicles.
Table 8: Placer County Transit Fleet Spare Ratio Needs for the Short-Range Transit Plan Primary Use Peak Service Spare Total
Commuter Bus 2 3 5
Demand Response 7 6 13
Local Bus 12 3 15
OTHER
PCT is in the process of transitioning to new open-source electronic fare payment equipment and software.
They have secured funding for the installation of Genfare equipment; however, they will still need $0.2 million for the incorporation of a regional account-based ticketing system that may be provided by a vendor like Masabi. This is an anticipated cost to implement the SRTP.
ROSEVILLE TRANSIT
FACILITIES
Roseville Transit is currently making changes to their facilities that will remain consistent with the SRTP service plan and its transition to zero-emission buses. As shown in Table 9, this includes adding electric charging infrastructure to the Roseville Galleria and Louis Orlando Transit Center and the Roseville Corporation Yard. Roseville Transit will also be making upgrades to their bus stops by adding or replacing existing shelters as well as adding and modifying existing bus stops to serve the new route alignments.
4 Source: “PCTPA’s Initial Allocation Request Package for SB 125 Funding”, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, 2023, https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/placer_a11y.pdf.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 17 Table 9: Roseville Transit Facility Needs for the Short-Range Transit Plan* Facility Project Name Total Estimated Cost
(2025 $)* Total Funded (2025 $) Total Unfunded (2025 $) Bus stops† Roseville Transit Bus
Shelter Replacement $1.1 million $1.1 million $0
Roseville Galleria and Louis
Orlando Transit Center
Electric Charging
Infrastructure Projects:
Roseville Galleria and Louis
Orlando
$5.0 million $5.0 million $0
Roseville Corporation Yard Charging infrastructure $3.5 million $3.5 million $0 *Estimated costs are from Roseville Transit and Placer County Transportation Planning Agency’s Senate Bill 125 funding request.5
†This includes estimated costs for adding/modifying bus stops to serve the new routes from the Short-Range Transit Plan service plan. This may include costs for updating logos, maps, and signage if a new regional brand is implemented.
FLEET
As shown in Table 10, Roseville Transit will add five vehicles for the RapidLink pilot project. These are expected to cost around $1.1 million each. After 2025, Roseville Transit is also expecting to replace seven commuter buses and add one more for around $1.1 million and replace four local buses. As shown in Table 11, to implement the SRTP, Roseville Transit will need nine commuter buses for peak service and five spares (14 total), 11 demand response vehicles for peak service and four spares (15 total), 12 local buses for peak service and two spares (14 total), and four RapidLink vehicles for peak service and one spare (five total).
Table 10: Roseville Transit Fleet Needs for the Short-Range Transit Plan Vehicle Number Make Model Year Placed into
Service
Estimated
Retirement
Date
Primary Use Status Estimated Cost
(2025 $)*
14-475 Gillig ISL Low Floor 2014 2028 Local Bus To be replaced after 2025 $1.1 million
14-476 Gillig ISL Low Floor 2014 2028 Local Bus To be replaced after 2025 $1.1 million
14-477 Gillig ISL Low Floor 2014 2028 Local Bus To be replaced after 2025 $1.1 million
14-478 Gillig ISL Low Floor 2014 2028 Local Bus To be replaced after 2025 $1.1 million
17-470 Gillig G27B102N4 2017 2031 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
17-471 Gillig G27B102N4 2017 2031 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
17-472 Gillig G27B102N4 2017 2031 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
17-474 Gillig G27B102N4 2017 2031 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
20-402 Gillig Low Floor 2020 2034 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
20-403 Gillig Low Floor 2020 2034 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
20-404 Gillig Low Floor 2021 2035 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
5 Source: “PCTPA’s Initial Allocation Request Package for SB 125 Funding”, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, 2023, https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/placer_a11y.pdf.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 18 Vehicle Number Make Model Year Placed into
Service
Estimated
Retirement
Date
Primary Use Status Estimated Cost
(2025 $)*
20-405 Gillig Low Floor 2020 2034 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
20-406 Gillig Low Floor 2020 2034 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
20-407 Gillig Low Floor 2020 2034 Local Bus Remain in
service N/A
00-461 Gillig Phantom 2001 2025 Commuter Bus To be replaced by end of 2025 N/A
00-462 Gillig Phantom 2001 2025 Commuter Bus To be replaced by end of 2025 N/A
00-464 Gillig Phantom 2001 2015 Commuter Bus To be replaced by end of 2025 N/A
00-465 Gillig Phantom 2001 2015 Commuter Bus To be replaced by end of 2025 N/A
09-408 Gillig SL-63964 (Low
Floor) 2009 2023 Commuter Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.1 million
09-409 Gillig SL-63964 (Low
Floor) 2009 2023 Commuter Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.1 million
09-410 Gillig SL-63964 (Low
Floor) 2009 2023 Commuter Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.1 million
09-411 Gillig SL-63964 (Low
Floor) 2009 2023 Commuter Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.1 million
09-412 Gillig SL-63964 (Low
Floor) 2009 2023 Commuter Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.1 million
09-497 Gillig SL-63964 (Low
Floor) 2009 2023 Commuter Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.1 million
09-498 Gillig SL-63964 (Low
Floor) 2009 2023 Commuter Bus To be replaced
after 2025 $1.1 million
20-499 Gillig Low Floor 2021 2035 Commuter Bus Remain in service N/A
20-500 Gillig Low Floor 2021 2035 Commuter Bus Remain in service N/A
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Commuter Bus To be added
after 2025 $1.1 million
14-444 ARBOC Spirit of Mobility 2014 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
by end of 2025 N/A
14-445 ARBOC Spirit of Mobility 2014 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
by end of 2025 N/A
14-446 ARBOC Spirit of Mobility 2014 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
by end of 2025 N/A
14-447 ARBOC Spirit of Mobility 2014 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
by end of 2025 N/A
14-466 ARBOC Spirit of Mobility 2014 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
by end of 2025 N/A
14-467 ARBOC Spirit of Mobility 2014 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
before 2025 N/A
14-468 ARBOC Spirit of Mobility 2014 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
by end of 2025 N/A
14-469 ARBOC Spirit of Mobility 2014 2025 Demand
Response
To be replaced
by end of 2025 N/A
20-485 Champion Class F Low Floor 2021 2031 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
20-486 Champion Class F Low Floor 2021 2031 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
20-487 Champion Class F Low Floor 2021 2031 Demand
Response
Remain in
service N/A
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 19 Vehicle Number Make Model Year Placed into
Service
Estimated
Retirement
Date
Primary Use Status Estimated Cost
(2025 $)*
TBD TBD TBD 2025 TBD Demand
Response
To be added by
end of 2025 N/A
TBD TBD TBD 2025 TBD Demand
Response
To be added by
end of 2025 N/A
TBD TBD TBD 2025 TBD Demand
Response
To be added by
end of 2025 N/A
TBD TBD TBD 2025 TBD Demand
Response
To be added by
end of 2025 N/A
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD RapidLink To be added
after 2025 $1.1 million
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD RapidLink To be added
after 2025 $1.1 million
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD RapidLink To be added
after 2025 $1.1 million
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD RapidLink To be added
after 2025 $1.1 million
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD RapidLink To be added
after 2025 $1.1 million
*Estimated costs are from the City of Roseville’s 2025 Transit Asset Management Plan. Most of these costs are covered by Senate Bill 125 funding.6
Table 11: Roseville Transit Fleet Spare Ratio Needs for the Short-Range Transit Plan Primary Use Peak Service Spare Total
Commuter Bus 9 5 14
Demand Response 11 4 15
Local Bus 12 2 14
RapidLink 4 1 5
OTHER
Similar to PCT, Roseville Transit is in the process of transitioning to new open-source fare payment equipment and software. This will include costs for the initial installation and implementation of Kuba hardware, an annual payment to Kuba over the next few years, a one-time charge for implementation of LittlePay software, and 2.3% of total revenue in addition to $0.02 per transaction that will be paid to LittlePay. This is shown as a cost of $0.2 million for Roseville Transit to implement these changes for the SRTP service plan.
TOTAL
Table 12 shows the total estimated capital costs for each agency to implement the SRTP service plan. They are broken down by costs for facilities, fleet, and other changes that are required.
Table 12: Total Estimated Capital Costs to Implement the Short-Range Transit Plan Agency Item Total Estimated Cost
(2025 $) Total Funded (2025 $) Total Unfunded (2025 $)
Auburn Transit
Facilities $2.2 million $2.2 million $0
Fleet $0.2 million $0.2 million $0
Other $0 $0 $0
Total $2.4 million $2.4 million $0
6 Source: “PCTPA’s Initial Allocation Request Package for SB 125 Funding”, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, 2023, https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/placer_a11y.pdf.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 20 Agency Item Total Estimated Cost
(2025 $) Total Funded (2025 $) Total Unfunded (2025 $)
Placer County Transit
Facilities $24.6 million $5.1 million $19.5 million
Fleet $14.4 million $5.7 million $8.7 million
Other $0.2 million $0 $0.2 million
Total $39.2 million $10.8 million $28.4 million
Roseville Transit
Facilities $9.6 million $9.6 million $0
Fleet $18.7 million $18.7 million $0
Other $0.2 million $0.2 million $0
Total $28.5 million $28.5 million $0
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 21
FINANCIAL PLAN
The project team worked with the three agencies to propose the general timing of when the capital and operational changes shown in the previous two sections are anticipated to be implemented. These changes are grouped into three phases: near-term (FY 2025-2026 to FY 2027-2028), mid-term (FY 2028-2029 to FY 2029-2030), and long-term (FY 2030+). Two scenarios were also developed for each agency, one which reflects the proposed changes as part of the SRTP service plan and the other reflecting changes that are not proposed at this time but were analyzed as part of the COA process and would be worth investigating more if funding becomes available. All long-term changes (FY 2030+) shown below are included in Scenario 2.
Table 13 shows the financial plan and proposed phasing for implementing Auburn Transit changes. Most operational changes proposed in the COA have already been implemented and are not shown. Staff are in discussions with PCT to determine where and when Auburn OnDemand should provide service to Sutter Urgent Care – Auburn.
Table 13: Auburn Transit Financial Plan
Phase Capital Changes Estimated Capital Costs Operational Changes Estimated Change in Annual Operational Costs
Near-Term (FY 2025-2026
to FY 2027-2028)
Install electric charging
infrastructure at the
Nevada Street Station
$1.6 million
Provide service to Sutter
Urgent Care – Auburn $0 Install electric charging
infrastructure at the City
Corporation Yard
$0.6 million
Mid-Term (FY 2028-2029 to
FY 2029-2030) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Long-Term (FY 2030+)* Acquire additional vehicles $0.2 million N/A N/A *The operational changes are part of Scenario 2.
Table 14 shows the financial plan and proposed phasing for implementing PCT changes. Funding is mostly available for the changes proposed in the near-term, however increases to frequencies or service spans will require more time to identify funding and necessary fleet changes. Extending Route 30 to central Auburn will require further analysis of specific routing due to the nature of the street network in that area, while making further adjustments to Route 50 should take place after the initial conversion to a Dial -A-Ride zone takes place to determine impacts on ridership. Improving frequencies on Route 10 should be further analyzed following the completion of the RapidLink pilot project to determine the impact on ridership.
Table 14: Placer County Transit Financial Plan
Phase Capital Changes Estimated Capital Costs Operational Changes Estimated Change in
Annual Operational
Costs
Near-Term (FY 2025-
2026 to FY 2027-2028)
Lincoln Park-and-Ride bus stop
amenities and charging
infrastructure
$0.2 million
Route 10 – realign
westbound routing to
serve Taylor Road Park
and Ride and add stops
in each direction at the
Park and Ride
<$0.1 million
Roseville Galleria on-street charging
infrastructure $3.0 million
Route 20 – split route at
the Roseville Galleria and
realign routing to expand
service coverage in West
Rocklin
$0.1 million
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 22 Phase Capital Changes Estimated Capital Costs Operational Changes Estimated Change in
Annual Operational
Costs
Add/modify bus stops to serve new
routes $3.9 million
Route 50 – convert route
and deviation area to a
Dial-A-Ride zone
$0
Route 60 – discontinue
route between Auburn
and Colfax
($0.1 million)
Replace vehicles 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513,
1514, 1515, 1520, 1523, 1724, 1725,
0805, 0809, and add two demand
response vehicles
$11.4 million
Route 70 – extend route
along 1st Street to Joiner
Parkway and from
Twelve Bridges to the
Park-and-Ride lot on
Industrial Avenue
<$0.1 million
Reimburse Roseville
Transit to serve the
existing Granite Bay Dial-
A-Ride zone
$0
Maintenance facility charging
infrastructure for four electric buses $3.0 million
Incorporate a regional account-
based ticketing system that may be
provided by a vendor like Masabi
$0.2 million
Mid-Term (FY 2028-
2029 to FY 2029-2030)
Colfax Station charging
infrastructure $1.5 million
Route 30 – extend route
from Auburn’s Nevada
Station to central Auburn
<$0.1 million
Rocklin Station charging
infrastructure $1.5 million Route 40 – add one
round trip $0.1 million
Twelve Bridges bus stop charging
infrastructure $1.5 million
Route 50 – reduce
weekday service span
from 12 hours to 9.5
hours
($0.1 million)
Add two local buses $3.0 million Route 50 – discontinue Saturday service (<$0.1 million)
Long-Term (FY 2030+)* Maintenance facility charging
infrastructure $10.0 million
Route 10 – improve
headways from 60
minutes to 30 minutes
weekdays between 9:00
AM and 12:00 PM
$0.2 million
Lincoln Dial-A-Ride – add
weekday service hours $0.1 million
Coordinate with Roseville
Transit to expand
demand response service
to the Placer One Area
$0.2 million
Coordinate with Roseville
Transit to expand
demand response service
to Placer Vineyards and
Cook-Riolo/Vineyard
Corridor
$0.2 million
*The operational changes are part of Scenario 2.
Table 15 shows the financial plan and proposed phasing for capital and operational changes to Roseville Transit services. As indicated in their COA and discussions with staff, all changes are expected to be completed within the near-term (FY 2025-2026 to FY 2027-2028), with the changes to commuter route service taking place in April 2025. It should be noted that changes to the local routes and Arrow service cannot be implemented until the agency completes its transition to a new Computer-Aided
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 23 Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Location system from Tripshot and contactless payment system via Kuba utilizing LittlePay and Masabi backend software.
Table 15: Roseville Transit Financial Plan
Phase Capital Changes Estimated Capital Costs Operational Changes* Estimated Change in Annual Operational Costs
Near-Term (FY 2025-2026
to FY 2027-2028)
Bus stop shelter
replacement $1.1 million
Implement 30-minute
frequencies for all routes
(except Route 2 and Route
6)
$0.4 million
Eliminate Routes C/F, L,
and R
Implement Routes 4 and 6
(peak-only)
Louis Orlando and
Roseville Galleria electric
charging infrastructure
$5.0 million
Eliminate Routes A/B and
E
Implement Route 3
Roseville Corporation Yard
charging infrastructure $3.5 million
Eliminate Routes D, S, and
M (including the M
deviation)
Implement Routes 1, 2 (60-
minute frequencies), and 5
Replace seven commuter
buses and add one,
replace four local buses,
and add five RapidLink
buses
$18.7 million
Implement RapidLink pilot
service $1.7 million
Implement Arrow three
zones
$0.5 million
Implement existing PCT
Granite Bay Dial-A-Ride
zone into Zone 3 Arrow
service area (pending
agreement with PCT)
Adjust ADA service to
complement new Arrow
zones
$0.3 million
Install Kuba hardware and
implement LittlePay
software
$0.2 million
Serve five AM trips from
the Taylor Road/Sunsplash
Park and Ride and five AM
trips from the Mahany
Park and Ride
$0.2 million
Mid-Term (FY 2028-2029
to FY 2029-2030) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Long-Term (FY 2030+)† N/A N/A
Implement 30-minute
frequencies on Route 2 $0.3 million
Implement new fixed
route to Westpark with 30-
minute frequencies
$0.6 million
Coordinate with PCT to
expand demand response
service to the Placer One
Area
$0.2 million
Coordinate with PCT to
expand demand response
service to Placer Vineyards
and Cook-Riolo/Vineyard
Corridor
$0.2 million
*These changes are part of Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4 from Roseville Transit’s Comprehensive Operational Analysis implementation plan. Completion of these changes are dependent on Roseville Transit implementing their Computer-
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 24 Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Location system from Tripshot and contactless payment system via Kuba utilizing LittlePay and Masabi backend software.
†The operational changes are part of Scenario 2.
The project team worked with the three transit agencies to identify gaps between the cost estimates shown above and estimated revenue for the five-year lifespan of the SRTP. Table 16 shows the results of this analysis.
Based on discussions with the transit agencies, the operating and capital revenues are combined. Also, projected revenues are held constant over the next five years as a baseline forecast. This is due to the year -to- year changes the agencies experience in determining funding sources and amounts and how revenues will be distributed between operating and capital expenditures. Finally, state and federal funding sources could change from current amounts. For example, revenue from the state’s diesel tax has decreased over the past few years and federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 funding to address the impact of the pandemic will no longer be available. It is important to note that the numbers below are estimates and reflective of what was accurate at the completion of the SRTP. Additionally, for the purpose of addressing Senate Bill (SB) 125 funding requirements, the five-year budgetary forecast accounts for the SB 125 funding used to support some of the capital expenses projected for the three transit agencies over the five-year period, which is included in the state funding revenues identified for each agency. No SB 125 funding will be used to support operating expenses for any of the transit agencies.
As described in the beginning of this section, two funding scenarios were developed by the project team, Scenario 1 which reflects the proposed changes as part of the PCTPA and Roseville Transit COA and Scenario 2 which reflects changes that are not proposed at this time but were analyzed as part of the COA process and would be worth investigating more if funding becomes available. As shown in Table 16, all long-term changes (FY 2030+) from the previous section shown below are included in Scenario 2. There are no differences in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 for Auburn Transit since they are not anticipating any operating or capital changes that do not have funding at this time. While the revenues and costs balance out for Auburn Transit and Roseville Transit, there is a funding shortfall to meet anticipated capital and operational costs for PCT. To close that gap, additional Local Transportation Fund (LTF) dollars or other sources of funding need to be secured.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 25 Table 16: Five-Year Cost and Revenue Projections
Agency Item
Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term
FY 2025-
2026
FY 2026-
2027
FY 2027-
2028
FY 2028-
2029 FY 2029-2030 FY 2030+
Auburn
Transit
Operating
and Capital
Revenues
Federal (Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5311 funds) $0.1 million $0.1 million $0.1 million $0.1 million $0.1 million $0.1 million State (Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP),
State Transit Assistance (STA), State of Good Repair, and SB 125)
$0.5 million $0.5 million $0.5 million $0.5 million $0.5 million $0.5 million Local (LTF, fares, Transportation Development Act ¼ cent sales tax revenue) $0.8 million $1.8 million $0.2 million $0.2 million $0.3 million $0.3 million Total $1.4 million $2.4 million $0.8 million $0.8 million $0.9 million $0.9 million Operating
Costs
Scenario 1 $0.8 million $0.8 million $0.8 million $0.8 million $0.8 million $0.8 million Scenario 2 $0.8 million $0.8 million $0.8 million $0.8 million $0.8 million $0.8 million Capital Costs Scenario 1 $0.6 million $1.6 million $0 $0 $0.1 million $0.1 million Scenario 2 $0.6 million $1.6 million $0 $0 $0.1 million $0.1 million PCT
Operating
and Capital
Revenues
Federal (FTA Section 5307, FTA Section 5311, and
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
Act)
$2.8 million $2.8 million $2.8 million $2.8 million $2.8 million $2.8 million State (LTF, STA, State of Good Repair, Regional Surface Transportation Program, LCTOP, and SB 125) $5.5 million $5.5 million $5.5 million $5.5 million $5.5 million $5.5 million Local (fares, aid from other agencies, and reimbursement from Tahoe Truckee Regional Transportation) $3.0 million $3.0 million $3.0 million $3.0 million $3.0 million $3.0 million Total $11.3 million $11.3 million $11.3 million $11.3 million $11.3 million $11.3 million Operating
Costs
Scenario 1 $10.0 million $10.0 million $10.0 million $10.0 million $10.0 million $10.0 million Scenario 2 $10.0 million $10.0 million $10.0 million $10.0 million $10.0 million $10.7 million Capital Costs Scenario 1 $17.8 million $3.9 million $0 $7.5 million $0 $10.0 million Scenario 2 $17.8 million $3.9 million $0 $7.5 million $0 $10.0 million Roseville
Transit
Operating
and Capital
Revenues
Federal (FTA 5307 (operations and capital) and 5339
(capital) funds)7 $10.8 million $2.0 million $2.0 million $2.0 million $2.0 million $2.0 million State (STA, LCTOP, State of Good Repair, and SB 125)8 $17.7 million $1.7 million $1.7 million $0 $0 $0 Local (LTF, fares, reimbursement agreements, developer
fees, and advertising) $8.8 million $5.6 million $5.7 million $5.9 million $6.2 million $7.8 million Total $37.3 million $9.3 million $9.4 million $7.9 million $8.2 million $9.8 million Operating
Costs9
Scenario 1 $8.8 million $9.3 million $9.4 million $7.9 million $8.2 million $8.5 million Scenario 2 $8.8 million $9.3 million $9.4 million $7.9 million $8.2 million $9.8 million Capital Costs Scenario 1 $28.5 million $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Scenario 2 $28.5 million $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7 Federal funding may require local match.
8 Available Local Transportation Fund dollars will be used to concurrently support any projects receiving Senate Bill 125 funds. 9 RapidLink costs only shown for the three-year duration of the pilot.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 26
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This section provides a roadmap for the three agencies to follow to implement the capital and operational changes and recommended interagency coordination strategies. Performance metrics are also proposed for measuring the effectiveness of these changes as well as the performance of the RapidLink pilot project.
CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL CHANGES
This section of the implementation plan focuses on the steps required to implement the capital plan and service plan portion of the SRTP.
FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 – PREPARATION AND INITIAL SETUP
Before launching the full implementation of service changes, this phase focuses on preparing the foundational steps necessary to ensure the success of subsequent phases. This phase sets the groundwork for future changes by addressing key logistical and operational requirements. It includes the following recommendations:
• The three transit agencies should gather the most current data on ridership, travel patterns, and system performance measures to ensure that decision-making is grounded in the latest information. • All three transit agencies should integrate new technology platforms to support demand response services and real-time transit information, using compatible platforms throughout the three transit agencies.
o Auburn OnDemand was recently included in the GO South Placer app so that all three agencies now use the app for providing access to demand response service ride scheduling and tracking.
o PCTPA, through its administration of the WPCTSA will support the transit agencies work with Spare Labs to develop a regional ADA paratransit service certification platform and process to allow the three agencies to have a streamlined digital process for certifying ADA eligibility on one platform.
• All three transit agencies should conduct targeted public outreach efforts to inform the community of upcoming changes, gather additional feedback, and ensure a smooth transition as new services are rolled out.
• The WPCTSA should conduct a bus stop assessment using available funding to determine the countywide standard for and condition of bus stop amenities, accessibility issues, identify and prioritize improvements and their associated costs, and determine locations for new bus stops based on the operational changes made by the region’s three transit agencies and in collaboration with the other incorporated jurisdictions.
FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 TO FISCAL YEAR 2027-2028 – NEAR-TERM CHANGES The first phase of the implementation plan focuses on implementing changes that are already funded and ready to be incorporated. This includes all proposed changes for Auburn Transit and Roseville Transit.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 27
AUBURN TRANSIT
• Coordinate with PCT to serve Sutter Urgent Care – Auburn with Auburn OnDemand service. The office is located just north of the intersection of Bell Road and State Route 49 and service will be provided within Auburn OnDemand’s current span of service.
PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT
• Implement service changes on Route 10 (change route to serve Taylor Road park -and-ride), Route 20 (change end of route from Twelve Bridges to the Lincoln park and ride), Route 50 (convert to Dial- A- Ride zone), Route 60 (discontinue Auburn-Colfax segment), and Route 70 (extend to Lincoln park- and-ride and extend route to Joiner Parkway).
o Prior to the Route 20 and Route 70 service change, bus stop amenities will need to be installed at the Lincoln park-and-ride and other new bus stop locations due to the updated routing. • Continue coordination with Roseville Transit to replace the existing Granite Bay Dial-A-Ride service with Arrow service. This includes determining the service area boundaries and span of service and cost parameters, developing a draft agreement between the two agencies, coordi nating implementation activities (i.e., agency bid processes), and updating the Spare Labs platform. • Coordinate with the City of Roseville to install on-street charging infrastructure at the Roseville Galleria, within close proximity to the existing charging facilities located within the Roseville Galleria parking lot used to support Roseville Transit and the RapidLink services. • Coordinate with local jurisdictions to add/modify bus stops to serve operational changes in Rocklin to account for the Route 20 service change and Lincoln to account for the Route 70 service change. • Replace 12 vehicles and add two demand response vehicles. • Install charging infrastructure at the PCT maintenance facility to accommodate four electric buses.
ROSEVILLE TRANSIT
• Implement service changes to commuter, local, and Arrow services from the COA. • Implement RapidLink pilot service.
• Replace bus stop shelters using the SB 125 funding allocated to Roseville Transit to implement this effort.
• Install electric charging infrastructure at the Roseville Galleria. • Install electric charging infrastructure at the Louis Orlando transit center and Roseville Galleria with allocated SB 125 funding.
• Replace seven commuter buses and add one, replace four local buses, replace eight demand response vehicles and add four, and five RapidLink buses.
In addition to implementing the RapidLink pilot service, the proposed performance metrics shown at the end of the SRTP will be discussed and refined by the TOWG as necessary to monitor the effectiveness of the pilot project. The data for the metrics should be pulled every six months throughout the pilot timing to see if trends are emerging, particularly because brand new services typically take several years to reach ridership maturity.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 28
To further measure the performance of RapidLink, onboard and general public surveys should be conducted at least twice a year (with the option to take place more frequently to determine adequate levels of feedback) by Roseville Transit. Onboard surveys will help determine how RapidLink has affected ridership travel patterns and volumes, customers’ ratings of service attributes and suggestions for changes, and how the public feels about the service and whether it meets their travel needs effectively. The pub lic survey would include questions to gauge the level of awareness that residents in the area have regarding the RapidLink service and why they do (or do not) use the service.
Finally, corridor ridership counts of RapidLink and other lines in the RapidLink corridor (i.e., PCT Route 10 and Route 20 and Roseville Transit’s new local Route 4) should be conducted to determine the impact of RapidLink on nearby routes’ ridership and the net change to corridor ridership.
WESTERN PLACER CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGENCY • Discuss potential strategies to expand the Placer Rides Program:
o WPCTSA should consider expanding "Case Management" or "Information and Assistance" program activities for understanding who needs rides and where they need to go, in addition to available resources to address those needs, which would help inform both South Placer Transit Information, Education and Training activities as well as Placer Rides program eligibility and expansion changes.
o Consider expanding the mileage reimbursement eligibility criteria for Placer Rides beyond essential trips only following implementation of “Case Management” and “Information and Assistance” program activities.
o Consider expanding the “last resort rides” to offer trips beyond medical uses. The program could consider paying for Lyft/Uber rides for ambulatory users, utilizing existing resources and partnerships had with these transportation network companies.
FISCAL YEAR 2028-2029 TO FISCAL YEAR 2029-2030 – MID-TERM CHANGES As mentioned above, all proposed changes for Auburn Transit and most for Roseville Transit will be implemented by FY 2028-2029. Therefore, mid-term and long-term changes primarily apply to PCT. Mid-term changes depend on securing funding to increase service levels and analyzing ridership to determine further changes to Route 50.
PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT
• Install charging infrastructure at Colfax Station, Rocklin Station, and the Twelve Bridges bus stop. • Add two local buses.
• Extend Route 30 from Auburn’s Nevada Station to central Auburn in coordination with the City of Auburn and Auburn Transit and add/modify bus stops as needed. • Add one round trip on Route 40.
• Following the conversion of Route 50 to a Dial-A-Ride zone, analyze ridership to determine whether to reduce weekday service span from 12 hours to 9.5 hours and discontinue Saturday service. New services typically take at least two years to reach ridership maturity and ridership should be analyzed
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 29
every six months following the conversion to a Dial-A-Ride zone, with a full analysis of whether to make the other changes to take place at least two years after implementation.
FISCAL YEAR 2030+ – LONG-TERM CHANGES
The last phase includes all changes identified in PCTPA’s and Roseville Transit’s COA, even those that were not recommended to be included in the service plan. These changes include those recommended in PCTPA’s 2018-2025 SRTP that were not implemented, findings from previous technical analysis and community and stakeholder outreach activities, and geographic gaps in the network that do not serve currently developed or developing areas.
AUBURN TRANSIT
• Acquire additional vehicles.
PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT
• Install charging infrastructure at the county’s maintenance facility. • Determine funding to improve headways on Route 10 from 60 minutes to 30 minutes on weekdays between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM. Final recommendations for Route 10 should be developed based on the outcome of the RapidLink pilot project.
• Coordinate with the City of Lincoln to determine support and funding available for adding weekday service hours to the Lincoln Dial-A-Ride zone.
• Improve headways on the updated Route 20 from 60 minutes to 30 minutes weekdays between 12:00 PM and 6:00 PM pending funding availability and support from local jurisdictional partners. • Improve headways on the updated Route 30 from 60 minutes to 30 minutes weekdays between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM and add 60-minute Sunday service from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM pending funding availability and support from local jurisdictional partners. • Analyze Route 60 ridership to determine whether any additional trips should be added or removed based on return to office and travel demand patterns.
• Coordinate with Roseville Transit to expand demand response service to Placer Vineyards and Cook Riolo/Vineyard areas.
• Expand Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride zone to the Placer One area. • Add lifeline services or an alternative transportation program solution to Foresthill and Sheridan if it is determined that they could be sustainable and financially feasible given available funding resources and demand.
ROSEVILLE TRANSIT
• Coordinate with PCT to expand demand response service to the Placer Vineyards and Cook Riolo/Vineyard areas.
• Implement 30-minute frequencies on Route 2.
• Implement new fixed route to Westpark with 30-minute frequencies.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 30
TRANSIT AGENCY COORDINATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are intended to streamline decision making processes across the three agencies and improve the transit passenger experience in western Placer County. They also respond to the results of an online survey that was conducted between February 13 th and March 28th to gauge from the
public any changes that could be implemented to improve their riding experience across the three agencies. • Update the existing WPCTSA JPA
• Regional transit branding and customer information
• Coordinated online trip planning
• Consistent and integrated fare structures/transit passes • Fare capping
The expected implementation of these recommendations is discussed in detail in this section.
UPDATE THE EXISTING WESTERN PLACER CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
PCT has individual annual agreements with the cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, Colfax, and the Town of Loomis to operate transit service on behalf of each jurisdiction. In addition, PCT and the City of Auburn have a funding agreement for PCT’s Route 10 and Route 60 as well as maintenance of the Nevada Street Station. The City of Auburn and the City of Roseville do not have transit agreements with other cities.
The existing transit agreements have well-defined funding arrangements, but do not fully define decision- making processes, roles, and responsibilities for coordination strategies such as regional branding and trip planning, fare distribution and collection technology, fare capping, and bus stop responsibilities. Importantly, the agreements do not address multi-jurisdictional coordination on route changes that have impacts across jurisdictional boundaries.
It should be noted that the coordination of regional transit is commonly practiced in western Placer County.
A good recent example is the joint procurement and implementation of the demand response Spare Labs technology platform and mobile phone application for ride requests by Auburn Transit, PCT, and Roseville Transit branded as GO South Placer. GO South Placer provides access to booking demand response services provided by all three transit agencies operating within the cities of Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Auburn, and unincorporated Placer County.
The existing WPCTSA JPA was approved by the Placer County Board of Supervisors in August 2008 and subsequently approved by all the incorporated municipalities in Placer County. The JPA establishes the WPCTSA’s powers, duties, and administrative responsibilities, one of which is to lead regional coordination and service planning activities for the transit agencies operating in western Placer County. As a first coordination step, rather than creating a new intergovernmental agreement (IGA) or JPA, the transit agencies should consult with their respective agency’s legal counsel, risk management, and governing bodies to evaluate the feasibility of amending the WPCTSA’s existing JPA to further clarify or expand its decision - making authority, roles, and responsibilities for implementing the coordination strategies described below.
The updated JPA does not need to replace the existing funding agreements between the transit agencies,
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 31
and it could address other cooperative items of interest to the agencies such as joint procurement and continued maintenance of equipment. Updating the JPA agreement should be the first step to improve network integration since the other strategies listed below are dependent on it. The updated agreement should also codify a coordinated approach to implementing service changes to ensure changes to one agency’s services do not adversely affect another and maintain the interconnected nature of all three agency’s’ transit services. Updating the WPCTSA’s JPA could further potentially position the three agencies to be more successful when applying jointly for grant funding opportunities in the future.
The updated JPA could be modeled after a similar one developed for the Northwest Oregon Transit Alliance (NWOTA), which includes performance metrics tracking for the participating transit agency’s ridership, costs, and service impacts on vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emission reductions.
The updated JPA should include future decision-making roles and responsibilities, and evaluation criteria related to the RapidLink pilot project. Additionally, it should identify a process to determine whether the route should stay in operation beyond the three-year pilot period, how services may be modified during the pilot program, and ongoing funding source solutions should the service operate past the pilot program’s initial term.
REGIONAL TRANSIT BRANDING AND CUSTOMER INFORMATION
The transit agencies in western Placer County have established branding that has evolved over the decades.
Each agency’s branding follows and/or closely complements the overarching brand of the governing agency that is responsible for administering the service. There are different service identities under the individual brands (i.e., Placer Commuter Express, Placer County Transit, Arrow , Roseville Local, Auburn OnDemand, etc.).
This recommendation is to create a unifying regional brand and logo which supple ments and will not replace each individual agency’s existing brands.
There are several examples of separate agencies creating a unifying brand as part of formal consolidation, like Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority and Tulare County Regional Transit Authority. However, the recommendation for western Placer County transit agencies is to create a unifying brand that overlays existing branding without consolidation of the services under one particular entity. A prime example is NWOTA’s Northwest (NW) Connector brand. Each of the five transit agencies that make up NWOTA maintains autonomy in day-to-day operations, finances, and services provided. However, collectively all five services are branded as the “NW Connector”. There is a single website and trip planning tool integrating the NW Connector services. Each agency maintains their own fare structure, but all use one fare collection technology to provide fare purchasing consistency throughout the NW Connector service area. Each transit agency’s buses have its unique identity branding, and the NW Connector branding has been a dded to their existing branding to show how the transit agencies are unified under NWOTA. The recently created South Placer Transit Information, Education, and Training program’s branding is modeled from the NW Connector branding since that program jointly promotes all three transit agencie s in western Placer County.
Another example is the joint branding by Placer County and the Town of Truckee for Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transportation (TART). In this case, both agencies adopted the same bus paint/wrap scheme with only slight differences. Over the course of two years, each agency replaced individually branded bus stop signs with the new TART branded signs that identify the agency in small print on the sign. Most importantly,
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 32
one phone number and website are used for both systems. Both Placer County and the Town of Truckee still maintain separate operations and governance of their respective services.
Regional branding should be one of the WPCTSA’s responsibilities included in the updated JPA discussed above. If included, the WPCTSA’s updated JPA would establish how decision- making takes place for website management, design, and content. Bus stop facilities and transit vehicles (if supported) could also include a new regional brand highlighting the joint partnership among the three transit providers serving western Placer County. Other customer-facing technologies, such as fare payment and trip planning, would also benefit from regional branding.
Branding would likely start with all digital assets, such as websites and social media graphics. Re -designed branding for bus stop signage and other passenger-facing amenities to incorporate the regional branding scheme could also be implemented relatively quickly in phases or by geographic area pending available resources. Even if collectively supported, re-branding each transit agency’s service vehicles might take longer as vehicle replacement cycles occur over several years. New buses delivered could include specific new exterior graphics related to the regional brand, but existing vehicles may have to consider some interim new regional branding modifications to last until the vehicle is replaced. Steps to implement this new regional branding would be as follows:
• Engage key stakeholders in the branding process.
• Convene a branding/marketing committee.
• Select a professional firm experienced in branding (similar to GO South Placer platform or the South Placer Transit Information, Education, and Training program). • Create a schedule for branding launch and placement.
• Present proposed branding to stakeholders.
• Finalize and launch branding.
COORDINATED ONLINE TRIP PLANNING
Another recommendation is to incorporate a trip planning tool on both the South Placer Transit Information, Education, and Training program’s website, as well as through a unified app. SRTP survey respondents indicated using a variety of service platforms to plan their trip, with most using the Roseville Transit website (31%), PCT website, or a Google/Apple Maps or similar app. Nearly 70% of respondents indicated it is currently difficult or moderately difficult to plan their transit trips. Improving the tr ip planning process would also help passengers transfer between the three agencies, something nearly 78% of respondents indicated was currently difficult or moderately difficult to do.
The foundation of any modern trip planning tool or app is General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data, which agencies publish through a stable web link, making it accessible for use in various applications. GTFS data is shared in the following formats:
• GTFS: Static route and schedule information that is required to be published by the National Transit Database; all three agencies have this data published.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 33
• GTFS-RT: Real-time data that adds a level of detail that constantly updates with real- time bus location that allows trip planning tools and apps to predict real-time service times to stops. This can also allow users to see where their bus is in real time and even the bus capacity if Automatic Passenger Counters are installed on buses. Roseville Transit is the only agency of the three to currently publish GTFS -RT data, which relies upon their onboard technology package and computer -aided dispatch software, which is provided by the company GMV Transit. Implementing real-time transit information was strongly requested by survey respondents.
• GTFS-Flex: A relatively new GTFS format that allows for the incorporation of demand response services in trip planning tools and apps such as Google Transit; none of the three transit agencies currently publish this data.
To modernize and integrate trip planning for all western Placer County transit services, the following actions are recommended:
• All agencies should work to generate and publish GTFS-RT data so that demand response services can be incorporated into trip planning tools and apps such as Google Transit. Spare Labs provides a free GTFS-Flex Builder Tool that could be used to generate and publish this data. • Auburn Transit should remove the Auburn Loop GTFS data, as this route is no longer in service but still appears in trip planning tools due to outdated published data. • PCT should coordinate with Auburn Transit and Roseville Transit to ensure that GTFS common bus stops are consistently named and include schedules from each agency. • PCT should procure a technology suite that supports GTFS-RT data publication. This would improve the passenger experience with real-time information and foster confidence in inter-agency connectivity. PCT and Roseville Transit will be using different vendors and coordination should be pursued if possible given the differences in software.
• After updating and expanding GTFS formats, a third-party app developer could be contracted to build a branded, unified trip planning app, possibly integrated into the existing G O South Placer app.
Alternatively, directing users to Google Maps or the Transit app may offer a more cost-effective and accessible solution.
• Publish printable itineraries with maps and schedules for common inter -agency trips on the South Placer Transit Information, Education, and Training website to support passengers that are less comfortable with digital tools.
• Maintain accurate, up-to-date GTFS data, regularly monitor app functionality, and stay informed on emerging technologies. This could be another discussion topic for the TOWG meetings.
CONSISTENT AND INTEGRATED FARE STRUCTURES/TRANSIT PASS
FARE STRUCTURE
Fare coordination is not a new idea for transit agencies in the greater Sacramento area. Connect Card is a regional electronic fare card that allows passengers to load cash value onto a smart card, which can be used to pay fares for PCT, Roseville Transit, and five other regional transit agencies at their established rates. This program was first implemented in 2016 and was organized by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 34
then subsequently administered by the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) on behalf of the participating transit agencies. Connect Card is being phased out as it is a “closed proprietary system” that requires passengers to purchase and use a specific card provided by a third -party vendor. Instead, SacRT is leading the procurement for a new open-loop fare payment system using Kuba equipment and supporting Little Pay and Masabi software and technology platforms purchased through the California Integrated Travel Project’s (Cal-ITP) joint procurement program and Master Services Agreement (MSA). The new onboard fare collection technology will enable passengers to pay with any contactless -enabled mobile device or credit/debit card without the need to load funds onto a non-refundable third-party payment card. Due to issues with technical and customer support, and having already upgraded some GenFare fareboxes, PCT is in the process of switching to all GenFare Fast Fare farebox equipment instead of using the Kuba devices.
However, there still may be an opportunity to connect GenFare to the supporting Little Pay and Masabi software and technology platforms, which PCT is currently investigating.
The fare structures for the three transit agencies differ. This can be expected given the wide variety of route distances and services offered by each agency. A long-term coordination objective should be to make using the transit systems in western Placer County as easy as possible, which includes simplifying the fare payment process. Over half of all SRTP survey respondents indicated that it is difficult or moderately difficult to pay their transit fare. Standardizing and simplifying fare structures and di scount group classifications would enhance regional coordination and likely increase inter-agency transfers and overall ridership. However, this is not a simple undertaking given that each agency has its own policy and approval process for fare changes.
Initial steps could include:
• Discuss possible fare standardization options with each transit agency’s respective governing body, including:
o When or how often fare price increases should be considered (i.e., after a certain increase in the Consumer Price Index or based on operational cost increases). • Defining discount group fare categories that are consistent among all three transit agencies. • Identifying reasonable fare ranges for each type of service collectively provided by the transit agencies:
local fixed routes, commuter routes, and demand response services. Discounted fares should be assumed to be half of the general public fare within each respective service type category. • Offer the same fare pass categories for each service type (i.e., daily, weekly, monthly, etc.). • Define clear transfer privileges between the three transit agencies and their respective service categories and ensure customers are not charged a second fare when transferring between services. • Share feedback from the respective transit agency’s governing body during a formal TOWG meeting to assess regional alignment.
• If alignment exists, publicize the proposed plan and gather public input before each agency seeks final board approvals.
TRANSIT PASS
The idea of a regional transit fare pass was also considered. Under this scenario, a regional card (in plastic or electronic form on a mobile phone) could be purchased online through an app or at certain retailers and used for any transit agency in the region. This is similar to the idea of Connect Card, except that the regional
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 35
card is only good for a certain amount and time period, not an arbitrary amount of money uploaded to the card. Fare capping would not apply in this case, so passengers would be required to pay upfront for the full cost of the pass.
Currently, PCT and Roseville Transit have a reciprocal agreement to accept each other’s daily, 14 -day, and 30- day passes on local routes. Single-ride transfers are not honored. This agreement does not include accounting for fare revenue. It is assumed that there is a similar number of passes accepted by each transit agency and considered “a wash”. This arrangement allows for seamless transfers for passengers purchasing some type of pass. Masabi (which Roseville Transit will be implementing and is being considered by PCT) offers cross- agency electronic ticketing through their mobile phone app, making it possible to have some sort of regional pass in western Placer County. While nearly 30% of survey respondents preferred to pay their fare via a regional electronic fare or pass card, a regional pass would not be a significant improvement over the existing fare transfer agreements, as it would likely involve more complicated accounting to distribute fare revenue.
Lastly, it should be noted that there are fare discrepancies between Roseville Transit’s $4.00 daily pass that costs significantly more than PCT’s $2.50 24-hour pass. This provides a baseline level of interagency coordination to be improved upon in the future. One option would be to make the 24 -hour pass price equivalent to just over two times the one-way trip fare for either PCT or Roseville Transit or $3.25.
Auburn Transit does not participate in inter-agency fare agreements and only offers their Auburn OnDemand service with no duration-based passes. The three agencies should discuss whether it is practical to allow transfers between Auburn OnDemand and PCT fixed routes in the City of Auburn.
FARE CAPPING
Fare capping is a modern fare policy that eliminates the need for riders to pre -purchase daily or monthly passes. Instead, passengers pay as they ride using a smart card or smartphone. Once they reach the cost equivalent of a daily or monthly pass, no further charges are applied. This approach supports:
• Greater convenience for riders.
• Improved equity by removing upfront cost barriers.
• Increased adoption of digital fare payment, reducing cash handling . • Faster boarding and reduced fare disputes for drivers.
As mentioned above, both PCT and Roseville Transit are currently upgrading their fare payment systems.
Roseville Transit is installing Kuba contactless card reader equipment, while PCT is upgrading to GenFare Fast Fare farebox equipment to support contactless fare payments. Roseville Transit will still be using GenFare fareboxes to track rides and accept Connect Cards. Overall, these upgrades are significant steps toward modernizing fare collection and reporting.
The following scenario provides an example of how fare capping could be applied on a regional level to create a coordinated fare payment system between the local fixed route services in western Placer County. A passenger boards a Roseville Transit bus using their debit card, then transfers to a PCT bus at the Roseville Galleria, also using their debit card. With a regional fare capping system, the passenger would then be able to take advantage of a regional daily, weekly, or monthly fare cap. The fare cap w ould apply to rides for both PCT and Roseville Transit. For example, the regional daily fare cap could be $5.00. This is the maximum amount
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 36
most SRTP survey respondents (55%) indicated they would prefer to pay for transit trips. Under this scenario, once the passenger reaches $5.00 worth of trips on either PCT and/or Roseville Transit local fixed routes, the passenger would no longer be charged a fare for the remainder of that day. The two agencies could still maintain separate fare structures, but the passenger would not have to worry about purchasing a daily or weekly pass for either respective system because the fare capping would eliminate the need for pass es regardless of which system the customer is using as long as the payment capture software and technology platforms among all the transit agencies are coordinated with each other.
One challenge associated with the idea of regional fare capping is how the fare revenue would then be distributed between PCT and Roseville Transit on the back end. As an example, San Luis Obispo County has a regional daily fare and 31-day pass that can be used on San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLO RTA), SLO Transit, Morro Bay Transit, and Atascadero Dial-A-Ride. Fare revenue obtained from the sales of the regional passes is allocated as follows: SLO RTA administers the program and reconciles r evenue on a monthly basis. The number of riders using each pass type is multiplied by the average fare paid for each system as a whole to calculate “fare-weighted riders”. Next, the percentage of fare-weighted riders per system is calculated. After a nine percent administrative fee is taken off the top for SLO RTA, the percent of fare - weighted riders is multiplied by total monthly revenue by the pass type to determine the balance owed to each agency.
As previously mentioned, fare capping can only occur when the fare collection technologies can communicate with each other. Discussions with the Cal-ITP staff and fare technology software providers indicate that integrating fare capping across different hardware fare collection systems may be possible but is likely cost-prohibitive. There may be additional costs for integrating the two different hardware systems that weren’t originally designed to be integrated. It is also important for all systems to be “o n the cloud”. A unified fare capping program should be a long-term goal. However, in the meantime, the three transit agencies should coordinate future technology upgrades and utilize resources like the Cal -ITP MSA to streamline procurement and ensure future interoperability.
In summary, fare capping on a regional level is likely unfeasible at this time. However, fare capping within each transit agency should be considered as a tool to encourage ridership. If the three agencies decide on pursuing a fare capping strategy, the following steps should be considered:
• Cal-ITP published a 2022 case study Contactless Fare Payments Data: Lessons Learned which recommends implementing GTFS-RT alongside contactless payment systems, because it allows for stop level payment data tracking and analysis which could help to identify trip making patterns and strengthen the fare capping partnership. This is not a mandatory step unless zone based rather than duration-based fare capping is considered.
• The three transit agencies and WPCTSA should discuss a standardized fare structure and coordinate future changes to assist with implementing a potential fare capping strategy. The T OWG should set parameters for when fare increases should occur, align definitions and parameters for discount passenger group fare categories, set reasonable ranges for different fare types, and standardize types of passes available among all three transit agencies.
• As a long-term goal, the three agencies should adopt a unified fare collection hardware and software technology platform and mobile phone application across all three transit agencies. A common platform greatly reduces implementation complexity and cost co mpared to combining systems from
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 37
various vendors and providers. Discussions of future fare procurement technology should continue to occur through regular TOWG and WPCTSA meetings.
PERFORMANCE METRICS AND STANDARDS
An important element in the success of any organization is a clear and concise set of goals and objectives, as well as an established set of performance measure targets and standards used to help evaluate how they can be attained. Transit agencies that expend public funds have a responsibility to provide transparency regarding how operational performance goals and targets are being met. Funding partners also have a responsibility to ensure that funds provided to the transit agencies are being used appropriately, and that services are operating effectively and efficiently. An adopted set of performance measure targets and standards further help to both internally and externally communicate the values of the transit agencies to other organizations, the public, and the agency’s staff.
ON-GOING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MONITORING
The project team worked with the three agencies to determine a set of performance metrics and standards that apply to the unique set of services provided by each agency. The metrics and standards aim to meet the goals of PCTPA and Roseville Transit’s COA’s:
• Increase transit usage (PCTPA COA)
• Plan and provide an efficient, effective, and equitable network (PCTPA COA) • Deliver reliable and integrated transportation options (PCTPA COA) • Elevate the transit experience (Roseville Transit COA) • Achieve a modal shift toward public transit (Roseville Transit COA) • Foster sustainable urban mobility (Roseville Transit COA) • Enhance data-drive decision-making (Roseville Transit COA) • Innovate and improve commuter services (Roseville Transit COA) The performance standards and metrics are broken into a number of different categories including the applicability of the metric and type of service. At a minimum, the following metrics should be monitored and reported to each agency’s governing body or jurisdiction:
10 • Annual boardings
• Boardings per vehicle service hour
• Boardings per vehicle service mile
• Operating cost per passenger trip
• Operating cost per vehicle service hour
10 These metrics are required to be reported in Transportation Development Act performance audits with the addition of vehicle service hours per employee.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 38
• On-time performance (fixed routes only)
• Average wait time (demand response services only)
Depending on the availability of data collected by each agency, the following are examples of other metrics to monitor and report to each agency’s governing body or jurisdiction. This is not an exhaustive list and should be discussed with each agency to determine the feasibility and applicability of inducing these metrics.
• Total service miles per preventable accident
• Total service miles per accident
• Total service miles per road calls
• Farebox recovery ratio
• Subsidy per passenger trip
The sections below provide proposed ranges for the first set of metrics described above for each agency.
These ranges should be discussed and refined by the TOWG to determine whether any modifications need to occur to ensure the accurate measuring of performance of services. For each range there is a standard, low, and high value established. This will allow agencies to determine services that are closer to the lower end of the range and require adjustments such as removing a portion of a route or reducing span of service to focus on times of higher ridership to improve accordingly or closer to the higher end and could see further increased ridership with enhancements to the service such as increased frequencies or span of service. The standard reflects the data received from Auburn Transit, PCT, and Roseville Transit. The low value is calculated as 75% of the standard and the high value is calculated as 125% of the standard for each metric. The low values should be achieved at a minimum by each agency, while the high value indicates aspirational targets for each agency.
11 Table 17 provides a description of each performance standard.
Table 17: On-Going Performance Standards Definitions
Performance Metric Description Units Applicability
Annual Boardings
Number of passenger boardings
per FY. This metric measures
overall usage of a route or
demand response service.
Annual total Fixed routes and demand
response services
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Hour
Number of passenger boardings
per vehicle service hour per FY.
This metric measures route or
demand response service area
effectiveness/productivity over a
duration of time and is influenced
by hours of operation.
Annual total Fixed routes and demand
response services
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Mile
Number of passenger boardings
per vehicle service mile per FY.
This metric measures route or
demand response service area
Annual total Fixed routes and demand
response services
11 Note that the low and high values are flipped for operating cost per passenger trip and operating cost per vehicle service hour since the goal is to keep those as low as possible.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 39
Performance Metric Description Units Applicability
effectiveness/productivity and is
influenced by trip length.
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip
Operating costs per number of
passenger boardings per FY. This
metric measures financial
efficiency and return on
investment in relation to
ridership.
Annual total Fixed routes and demand
response services
Operating Cost per Vehicle
Service Hour
Operating costs per vehicle
service hour per FY. This metric
measures financial efficiency and
can be used to identify service
inefficiencies.
Annual total Fixed routes and demand
response services
On-Time Performance
Percentage of “on-time” arrivals
according to the service schedule.
This metric focuses on passenger
experience and transit reliability.
Annual percentage Fixed routes only
Average Wait Time
Total number of minutes
passengers wait for demand
response service pick-ups per FY.
This metric focuses on passenger
experience and service reliability.
Annual average Demand response services only
AUBURN TRANSIT
The proposed standards in Table 18 for Auburn Transit’s Auburn OnDemand service reflect FY 202 4-2025 data received from Auburn Transit.
Table 18: Proposed Auburn Transit Performance Standards Performance Metric Standard Low High
Annual Boardings 23,128 17,346 28,923
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Hour 2.79 2.09 3.49
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Mile 0.23 0.17 0.29
Operating Cost per Passenger
Trip $28.02 $35.03 $21.02
Operating Cost per Vehicle
Service Hour $70.71 $88.39 $53.03
Average Wait Time 7 minutes 5 minutes 9 minutes
PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT
As shown in Table 19, Table 20, Table 21, and Table 22, specific standards are proposed for the various types of PCT services to ensure the standards account for the service’s context in the network and region (i.e., types of area served and mode of service). Similar to Auburn Transit, the proposed standards reflect FY 202 4-2025 data received from PCT. The breakdown of services is shown below:
• Fixed routes
o Local – urban/suburban
Route 10, Route 20, Route 30, Route 70, and Route 80
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 40
o Local – rural
Route 40 and Route 50
o Commuter
Route 60
• Dial-A-Ride
o All PCT Dial-A-Ride zones
Table 19: Proposed Placer County Transit Local Urban/Suburban Fixed Route Performance Standards Performance Metric Standard Low High
Annual Boardings 30,188 22,641 37,735
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Hour 11.05 8.29 13.81
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Mile 0.75 0.56 0.94
Operating Cost per Passenger
Trip $42.11 $52.64 $31.58
Operating Cost per Vehicle
Service Hour $142.58 $178.23 $106.94
On-Time Performance 71% 53% 89%
Table 20: Proposed Placer County Transit Local Rural Fixed Route Performance Standards Performance Metric Standard Low High
Annual Boardings 2,038 1,529 2,548
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Hour 1.01 0.76 1.26
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Mile 0.05 0.04 0.06
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip $42.11 $52.64 $31.58
Operating Cost per Vehicle
Service Hour $142.58 $178.23 $106.94
On-Time Performance 64% 48% 80%
Table 21: Proposed Placer County Transit Commuter Fixed Route Performance Standards Performance Metric Standard Low High
Annual Boardings 16,983 12,737 21,223
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Hour 13.38 10.04 16.73
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Mile 0.44 0.33 0.55
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip $25.02 $31.28 $18.77
Operating Cost per Vehicle
Service Hour $171.63 $214.54 $128.72
On-Time Performance 64% 48% 80%
Table 22: Proposed Placer County Transit Dial-A-Ride Performance Standards Performance Metric Standard Low High
Annual Boardings 6,727 5,045 8,409
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Hour 2.71 2.03 3.39
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 41
Performance Metric Standard Low High
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Mile 0.22 0.17 0.28
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip $83.05 $103.81 $62.29 Operating Cost per Vehicle
Service Hour $141.45 $176.81 $106.88
Average Wait Time 20 minutes 15 minutes 25 minutes
ROSEVILLE TRANSIT
Similar to PCT, specific standards are proposed by type of Roseville Transit service. Table 23 includes proposed standards for local fixed routes, Table 24 includes proposed commuter fixed route standards, and Table 25 shows proposed Arrow/Dial-A-Ride standards. The proposed standards reflect FY 2023-2024 data received from Roseville Transit.
Table 23: Proposed Roseville Transit Local Fixed Route Performance Standards Performance Metric Standard Low High
Annual Boardings 125,585 94,189 156,981
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Hour 3.89 2.92 4.86
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Mile 0.19 0.14 0.24
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip $38.51 $48.14 $28.88
Operating Cost per Vehicle
Service Hour $149.93 $187.41 $112.45
On-Time Performance 90% 68% 100%
Table 24: Proposed Roseville Transit Commuter Fixed Route Performance Standards Performance Metric Standard Low High
Annual Boardings 30,494 22,871 38,118
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Hour 6.30 4.73 7.88
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Mile 0.05 0.04 0.06
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip $33.27 $41.59 $24.95
Operating Cost per Vehicle
Service Hour $209.64 $262.05 $157.23
On-Time Performance 90% 68% 100%
Table 25: Proposed Roseville Transit Arrow/Dial-A-Ride Performance Standards Performance Metric Standard Low High
Annual Boardings 24,116 18,087 30,145
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Hour 2.59 1.94 3.24
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Mile 0.04 0.03 0.05
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip $65.60 $82.00 $49.20
Operating Cost per Vehicle
Service Hour $170.10 $212.63 $127.58
Average Wait Time 20 minutes 15 minutes 25 minutes
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 42
RAPIDLINK
In addition to developing performance metrics and standards for fixed routes and demand response zones, these ranges were also developed for the RapidLink pilot project. These performance metrics were developed through evaluating peer agencies, such as Sound Transit in Seattle and Valley Metro in Phoenix, 12, 13, 14 as well as
through the FY 2018-2019 PCT Triennial Performance Audit. 15 As shown in Table 26, they include the minimum metrics recommended for each agency to monitor and report to each their governing body or jurisdiction as well as some additional metrics including:
• Impact on ridership of existing PCT and Roseville Transit routes/entire system ridership growth • Mode shift factor
• Annual operating cost
These performance metrics should be used to evaluate the entire route as well as route segments and times of day to determine if certain parts of the route or certain times of the day perform differently and warrant service adjustments. The performance metrics and standards were determined using data from Roseville Transit’s COA and existing performance data for PCT Route 10 when RapidLink projections were not available since that route is fairly similar to RapidLink in its limited number of stops, structure, and connections to key activity generators. The metrics and ranges should be refined and amended as necessary by the TOWG through on-going discussion and evaluation. Table 27 provides definitions for the performance standards that are unique to the RapidLink pilot project.
Table 26: RapidLink Performance Standards Definitions
Performance Metric Description Units Applicability
Entire Fixed-Route Transit System
Growth/Impact of RapidLink on
Existing Fixed Route Transit
Services16
Percentage of total fixed route
transit system growth (PCT and
Roseville Transit service)
after introduction of RapidLink
service. This metric measures
total system growth using FY
2023-2024 ridership levels as the
base year. This is used to estimate
the number of RapidLink
passengers that previously took a
different fixed route service.
Annual percentage RapidLink only
Mode Shift Factor
Percentage of passengers that
shift to transit from motor vehicle
travel with the introduction of
RapidLink service. This metric
uses an on-board survey to
On-board survey response
percentage RapidLink only
12 Source: “Transit Standards and Performance Measures”, Connect Beyond, 2021, https://www.connect- beyond.com/docs/CONNECT_Beyond_Transit_Standards_and_Performance_Measures_Final.pdf. 13 Source: “Sound Transit Service Standards and Performance Measures”, Sound Transit, 2018, https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2018-service-standards-measures.pdf. 14 Source: “Transit Standards and Performance Measures”, Valley Metro, 2019, https://www.valleymetro.org/about/agency/transit-performance/standards-measures. 15 https://pctpa.specialdistrict.org/files/28b402514/FINAL+PCT+2021+TPA_6-30-22.pdf. 16 This metric is intended to be measured after the first fiscal year of RapidLink service. In subsequent years a metric measuring the percentage growth of RapidLink ridership may be more useful for monitoring growth of the service.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 43
Performance Metric Description Units Applicability
estimate the number of
passengers who would drive
alone, have someone else drive
them, shift to taxi, and/or carpool
if RapidLink was not available.
Annual Operating Cost
Total operating cost of the
RapidLink service. This metric
measures the actual financial cost
of this new service which can be
compared to the financial
projections in Roseville Transit’s
COA.
Annual total RapidLink only
Table 27: Proposed RapidLink Performance Standards
Performance Metric Standard Low High
Annual Boardings17 48,000 36,000 60,000
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Hour 6.25 4.69 7.81
Boardings per Vehicle Service
Mile 0.13 0.10 0.16
Entire Fixed-Route Transit
System Growth/Impact of
RapidLink on Existing Fixed
Route Transit Services
10% system growth
(20,500 riders from existing
routes)
7.5% system growth
(15,500 riders from existing
routes)
12.5% system growth
(25,500 riders from existing
routes)
Mode Shift Factor 34% 26% 43%
Operating Cost per Passenger
Trip $35.42 $44.28 $26.57
Operating Cost per Vehicle
Service Hour $197.76 $247.20 $148.32
Annual Operating Cost $1.7 million $2.1 million $1.3 million On-Time Performance 83% 18 62% 100%
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING
The following metrics and thresholds should be used to determine the feasibility of making service changes including adjusting frequencies, route length/direction, and spans of service. T hese should be referenced when each agency receives requests from the public or developments for service to determine whether or not that area warrants being served. These are not recommended to be reported to each agency’s governing body or jurisdiction.
• Population within ½ mile of a fixed route bus stop
• Percentage of residents in respective agency’s on-demand service areas that work within a demand response service zone
17 Estimated ridership from Roseville Transit. Ridership is anticipated to grow 3%-5% per year following implementation of the pilot project.
18 This is based on Placer County Transit Route 10 data from Placer County Transportation Planning Agency’s Comprehensive Operational Analysis.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 44
Similar to the previous section, a proposed threshold, low, and high value range is provided for each type of service provided. Table 28 provides definitions for the service change request performance standards.
Table 28: Service Change Request Performance Standards Definitions Performance Metric Description Units Applicability
Population within ½ mile of a
fixed route bus stop
Percentage of Placer County
residents living in a Census Block
Group within ½ mile of a fixed
route bus stop. This metric
measures population19 covered
by fixed-route transit services and
can indicate when service may
need to be adjusted accordingly
with land use changes.
Percentage of residents Fixed routes only
Percentage of residents in
respective agency’s on-demand
service areas that work within a
demand response service area
Percentage of residents living
within a demand response service
area zone that also work within
the service area zone. This metric
uses census reported
employment data20 to estimate
the service area coverage
performance for commute trips.
Percentage of residents Demand response only
FIXED ROUTES
As of 2023, 74% of Placer County residents currently live within ½ mile of a PCT or Roseville Transit bus stop.
As shown in Table 29, the following metric creates thresholds around this 74% baseline coverage to indicate when a change in service may be necessary. An increase in coverage may indicate a need for more frequent service and a decrease in coverage may indicate a need for expanded service due to an increase in population density outside of current service areas. This metric would be monitored by PCTPA .
Table 29: Proposed Regional Fixed Route Thresholds
Performance Metric Threshold Low High
Population within ½ Mile of a
Fixed Route Bus Stop 74% ± 5% 74% ± 7.5% 74% ± 2.5%
DEMAND RESPONSE SERVICES
Table 30 shows the percentage of residents who both live and work within the demand response service area for each respective agency as of 2022. While not every trip taken is a commute trip, this metric uses available data to measure how well each demand response service area provides coverage for commuting purposes.
This can be used to help agencies understand where residents are traveling to and adjust service as necessary to aid in offering first/last mile transportation solutions. This metric would be monitored by each individual agency.
19 Source: “B01001 | Sex by Age”, United States Census Bureau, 2023, https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2023.B01001?q=population&g=050XX00US06061$1500000&y=2023. 20 Source: “Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics”, United States Census Bureau, 2022, https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 45
Table 30: Proposed Regional Demand Response Thresholds
Performance Metric Threshold Low High
Percentage of City of Auburn
Population Working within
Auburn OnDemand Service Area
20% 25% 15%
Percentage of City of Roseville
Population Working within
Roseville Transit Arrow/Dial-A-
Ride Service Areas
22% 28% 17%
Percentage of Population in PCT
Jurisdictions Working within PCT
Dial-A-Ride Service Areas
25% 31% 19%
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency | Short-Range Transit Plan Page 46
APPENDIX 1: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PARTICIPANT
ORGANIZATIONS
• Auburn Transit
• City of Colfax
• City of Lincoln
• City of Rocklin
• City of Roseville
• Town of Loomis
• Latino Leadership Council (LLC)
• MV Transportation (South Placer Transit Information, Education and Training staff) • PCTPA Social Services Transportation Advisory Council • Placer County Office of Education
• Placer County Health and Human Services
• PCT
• Placer Independent Resource Services
• Residents of Rocklin and Roseville
• Seniors First
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VII.6
File #: 0203-01 & 0203-02
& 0201-01
Item ID: 2025-621
Title: Wastewater Collections Cured-in-Place Lining Equipment and Fleet Truck and Equipment Purchases – Purchase Order and Budget Adjustment
Contact: Loni Randolph 916-746-1898 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of a purchase order to Vortex Holdco, LLC dba Vortex Technology Group, LLC for one (1) Ford F600 truck, with an 18-foot enclosed box body and a UV8000 lining equipment system utilizing the Helping Governments Across the Country Buy (HGACBuy) contract #TP07-25 in the amount of $961,443; and the purchase of (1) Schwalm Talpa FSR 1330 and 2060 Robotics Cutting System for sewer rehabilitation installed into Fleet ID 22-356 as a retrofit utilizing HGACBuy contract #TP07-25 in the amount of $286,577. The total cost of the truck, equipment, robotics, including transportation costs, shall not exceed $1,272,120. Funding for the Vortex Technology truck and equipment is included in the FY2025-26 Fleet Replacement Fund budget. Staff also recommends approval of a budget adjustment of $14,120 for the Sewer Collection System Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) Rehabilitation Project, which is funded by the Wastewater Rehabilitation Fund. This budget adjustment increases the budget to fund the transportation costs plus contingency associated with the purchase of a new truck equipped with CIPP lining equipment through the Fleet Replacement Fund. The new truck will allow Wastewater Collections staff to perform trenchless repair and rehabilitation work on existing sewer mains.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve a purchase order to Vortex Holdco, LLC dba Vortex Technology Group, LLC for one (1) Ford F600 truck, with an 18-foot enclosed box body and a UV8000 lining system equipment utilizing HGACBuy contract #TP07-25; and the purchase of a Schwalm Talpa FSR 1330 and 2060 Robotics Cutting System for sewer rehabilitation installed into Fleet ID 22-356 utilizing HGACBuy contract #TP07-25. The Ford F600 truck will be a fleet addition, and the robotics cutting system will be a retrofit to Fleet ID 22-356. The total cost, including the truck, options, equipment, robotics, transportation, and sales tax shall not exceed $1,272,120.
Staff also recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a $14,120 budget adjustment to fund the transportation plus contingency associated with the purchase of a new truck equipped with Cured-in-Place Pipe lining equipment to be used by the Environmental Utilities (EU) Department’s Wastewater Collection Section to address repair and rehabilitation work to existing sewer mains.
BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department’s Fleet Management Division is making the purchase as the recommended equipment is part of the City’s vehicle fleet. The new CIPP Truck will be purchased through the Fleet Replacement Fund. The previously approved budget adjustment of $1,258,000 for this purchase did not cover the transportation plus contingency, so an additional amendment to the budget adjustment is required to transfer additional funds from the Sewer Collection System CIPP Rehabilitation Project (funded through the Wastewater Rehabilitation Fund) to increase Fleet’s appropriation authority.
This equipment will assist the Wastewater Collections Section with both their routine and emergency repairs and rehabilitation to the existing collection system infrastructure. Wastewater Collections has used cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) rehabilitation using ultraviolet light for the last five years through the procurement of two contractors through three separate construction contracts. The EU Department received a single bid for two of the construction contract procurements, and two bids for the other construction contract procurement. The last two construction contracts required work to be removed via change order from each of the two contractors due to their inability to perform the required CIPP work.
The Wastewater Collection Section continually inspects sewer pipes using closed circuit television that identifies pipes for CIPP repair and rehabilitation. The Wastewater Collections Section has been CIPP rehabilitating laterals for many years. Based on the continual need for CIPP rehabilitation of sewer mains, the Wastewater Collection team’s experience with CIPP lining laterals and the lack of competent CIPP contractors in the local community, the EU Department has decided that expanding the Wastewater Collection team’s CIPP lining work to include 8-inch to 24-inch sewer mains is in the best interest of the City.
The purchase of the CIPP equipment will allow Wastewater Collection staff to rehabilitate existing wastewater collections mains to prevent permit violations, and to decrease inflow and infiltration, which will reduce wastewater collections and treatment plant capital costs. Staff estimates the payback period for this CIPP equipment purchase will be less than two years based on the three prior construction contract costs, and an estimate that the Wastewater Collections crew will line 2,400 lineal feet of pipe a month over a six- month period per year.
HGACBuy is a nationwide, government procurement service that offers competitively solicited purchasing contracts for products and equipment to all government, education, and non-profit agencies across the United States. The City will use HGACBuy contracts to purchase one (1) Ford F600 truck, with an 18-foot enclosed box body and a UV8000 lining system and (1) Schwalm Talpa FSR 1330 and 2060 Robotics Cutting System.
The Wastewater Collections Section is purchasing one (1) Ford F600 truck, with an 18-foot enclosed box body and a UV8000 system inspection vehicle as a Fleet addition. The UV8000 lining system allows for faster curing times, increased durability, and reduced environmental impact as opposed to steam cure methods. This method uses UV light to cure the resin, resulting in a strong, long-lasting pipe liner. It allows for year-round use due to its ability to perform well at lower temperatures. This vehicle will be used for new and existing infrastructure inspections, ranking of pipe integrity and determining replacement or maintenance requirements for repairs. These requirements keep the City compliant with the state-issued Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR).
The Schwalm Talpa FSR 1330 and 2060 Robotics Cutting System will be used for pipelines that are 6 to 12 inches and 8 to 24 inches. These cutting systems will be used for detailed cutting, grinding, and cleaning tasks in mainline and lateral pipes that have been CIPP lined and UV cured.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended budget adjustment appropriates $14,120 from the Sewer Collection System Cured-in- Place-Pipe Rehabilitation Project for a payment to the City’s Fleet Replacement Fund for the transportation
costs plus contingency associated with the new CIPP truck purchase. The equipment will be purchased by the Fleet Replacement Fund. There will be no net impact on that fund since this budget adjustment will increase both its revenue and expenditure budgets by $14,120.
The total cost for one (1) Ford F600 truck, 18-foot enclosed box body and a UV8000 lining system; and the purchase of (1) Schwalm Talpa FSR 1330 and 2060 Robotic Cutting System including the truck, options, equipment, robotics, transportation, and sales tax shall not exceed $1,272,120, which will be funded from the Fleet Replacement Fund budget.
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 purchase of a truck, equipment and robotics meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
2. Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world
4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
6. Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Loni Randolph, Materials Technician
Sean Bigley, Environmental Utilities Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance 6989
REVIEWERS:
Loni Randolph, Environmental Utilities Department - Wastewater Created/Initiated - 8/21/2025 Tracie Mueller, Environmental Utilities Department - Wastewater Approved - 8/26/2025 Sean Bigley, Environmental Utilities Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/2/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 9/5/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/5/2025
ORDINANCE NO. 6989
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
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 2025-26, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Wastewater Collections Cured-In- Place Lining Equipment project.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2025, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 07/03/2025
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 ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment DESCRIPTION
6230
5517
84001
400078
14,120
Increase Fleet Expansion budget for truck upfitting and contingency costs associated with purchase of UV CIPP
Curing System and Schwalm Talpa Robotic Cutting
System
4005
6552
62601
000000
14,120
Increase Fleet Replacement Capital Outlay budget for
truck upfitting and contingency costs associated with
purchase of UV CIPP Curing System and Schwalm
Talpa Robotic Cutting System
6230 6587 84001 400078 (14,120) Reduce Capital Outlay budget to increase Fleet Expansion budget
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL 14,120
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment DESCRIPTION
4005
4252
62601
000000
14,120
Increase revenue in Fleet Replacement Fund for truck
upfitting and contingency costs associated with
purchase of UV CIPP Curing System and Schwalm
Talpa Robotic Cutting System
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL 14,120
NET ADJUSTMENT -
FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment DESCRIPTION
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
3601 00000 000000
FUND BALANCE TOTAL -
Justification for Budget Adjustment:
The recommended budget adjustment appropriates $14,120 for a payment to the City’s Fleet Replacement Fund (4005) for vehicle transportation and contingency costs for the Sewer Collection System CIPP Rehabilitation project (400078) in the Wastewater Rehabilitation Fund (6230). The purchase of this vehicle was approved in a prior budget adjustment for $1,258,000, but it did not include the associated truck upfitting transportation cost of $1,520 and 1% contingency of $12,600, bringing the new vehicle total cost to $1,272,120. This request will not increase the project's budget since there is an accompanying request to reduce the project's capital outlay budget by $14,120. This vehicle and related equipment will be purchased in the Fleet Replacement Fund. There will be no net impact to that fund since this budget adjustment will increase both its revenue and expenditure budgets by $14,120. 2025-26Tracie Mueller, EU Wastewater Utility Manager
Deanne Garcia, EU Business Analyst
EU/Wastewater
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VII.7
File #: 0704
Item ID: 2025-629
Title: After School Education and Safety Program - Memorandum of Understanding Contact: Jeff Nereson 916-774-5974 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Roseville City School District (RCSD) to provide the After School Education and Safety Program (ASES) at Woodbridge and Cirby Elementary schools. Per this MOU, RCSD will provide the City up to $305,000 in the current fiscal year to offset the City's operational expenses for the ASES program. Funding is included in the Parks, Recreation & Libraries budget in the Youth Development Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the Roseville City School District (RCSD) for the After School Education and Safety Program (ASES) and authorize the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
BACKGROUND
Since 2006, the Roseville City School District (RCSD) has received grant funding from the California Department of Education to provide the After School Education and Safety Program (ASES) at both Woodbridge and Cirby Elementary Schools. ASES is an after-school tutoring and enrichment program that provides opportunity for up to 120 students at Cirby and 100 students Woodbridge at no cost to participating families. The City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department has collaborated with RCSD to implement this after-school program.
While the City's Adventure Club offers a fee-based program at 21 school sites in Roseville, ASES program funding provided by RCSD enables participation at Cirby Elementary and Woodbridge Elementary for an underserved population of students during after-school hours at no charge. The fee-based Adventure Club program is offered at both campuses or nearby school sites for before school hours, non-school days, and vacation breaks.
FISCAL IMPACT
Through this MOU, the RCSD reimburses the City of Roseville $305,000 of the grant funds they receive for this program to offset the City's expense to operate the program. On June 5, 2024, Council adopted resolution 24-198, approving the Youth Development Program Funding Policy, allowing for support to the Youth Development Fund from the General Fund for expenses including losses incurred by subsidized programs if needed. If the funds provided by RCSD do not sufficiently cover ASES program expenses, some support may be required from the General Fund. Staff are diligent to manage this program to keep losses, if any, to a minimum. Funding is included in the Parks, Recreation & Libraries budget in the Youth Development 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(b)(3) and §15378.
Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
1. Ensure a safe and healthy community
2. Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world
6. Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeff Nereson, Parks Recreation and Libraries Manager
Jill Geller, Parks Recreation and Libraries Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 25-296
2. Memorandum of Understanding
REVIEWERS:
Jeff Nereson, Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Department - Recreation Created/Initiated - 8/20/2025 Jeff Nereson, Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Department - Recreation Approved - 8/20/2025 Jill Geller, Parks, Recreation, and Libraries - All Approved - 8/28/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/3/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/3/2025 Dominick Casey, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/4/2025
RESOLUTION NO. 25-296
APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE AND THE ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding for the After School Education and Safety (ASES) Program, between the City of Roseville and the Roseville City School District, has been reviewed by the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Memorandum of Understanding is approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VII.8
File #: 0293-06
Item ID: 2025-636
Title: Cybersecurity Endpoint Detection and Response System - Contract Purchase Agreement Contact: Cesar Gamez 916-774-5408 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of a contract purchase agreement with ePlus Technology Inc. in the amount of $103,612.85 for the one-year renewal of the Cybersecurity Endpoint Detection and Response system.
Funding is included in the Information Technology Operations Fund budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract purchase agreement with ePlus Technology Inc. for a one-year renewal of the Cybersecurity Endpoint Detection and Response system.
BACKGROUND
The renewal of this contract will ensure the overall cybersecurity readiness of critical City information technology infrastructure and assets by providing real-time threat monitoring and detection, allowing rapid identification and mitigation of malicious activity, and enhancing protection for the City’s network and data against cyber threats.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of the contract is $103,612.85, and it is included in the FY2025-26 Information Technology Operations Fund budget.
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 Cybersecurity Endpoint Detection and Response system renewal meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
1. Ensure a safe and healthy community
4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth
6. Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Cesar Gamez, Information Security Administrator
Hong Sae, Chief Information Officer
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 25-298
2. Contract Purchase Agreement
REVIEWERS:
Cesar Gamez, Information Technology Department - Infrastructure Solutions Created/Initiated - 8/27/2025 Karl Grover, Information Technology Department - Infrastructure Solutions Approved - 8/27/2025 Hong Sae, Information Technology Department Approved - 8/27/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/2/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 9/5/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/5/2025
RESOLUTION NO. 25-298
APPROVING A CONTRACT PURCHASE AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND EPLUS TECHNOLOGY, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a contract purchase agreement (3004978) for Cybersecurity Endpoint Detection and Response System, by and between the City of Roseville and ePlus Technology, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said agreement is hereby approved and 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 ______________, 2025, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
Supplier Details:
Company ePlus Technology Inc
Contact Brittani Neff
Address 233 Technology Way Ste 4
Rocklin, CA 95765
Submit your response to:
Company City of Roseville
Contact "Becky" Rebecca Philipp
Address Purchasing Division
311 Vernon St
Roseville, CA 95678
Phone (916) 746-1110
Fax (916) 746-1115
E-mail [email protected]
This Contract Purchase Agreement is sent for your review and acceptance. Notify the Buyer via email of any needed changes to the company name, address, and contact information. The Buyer will update the agreement prior to you signing the document.
Return signed copies of the agreement to the Buyer noted on the agreement. Alterations or modifications to the agreement are not allowed. Upon receipt of all necessary documents, the City will sign the agreement and return a fully executed copy to you. Receipt of the signed copy will be your notice to proceed with the work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Work must not begin until the contract has been fully executed.
The following guidelines must be followed for the signature block on the agreement:
Sole proprietorship - By owner
Partnership - Any general partner
Corporation - Two options:
(1) A signature from the President and the corporate seal; OR (2) One signature from the Chairman of the Board, President, or any Vice President AND one signature from the Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, or any Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer of the corporation
*General Manager, Office Manager and/or Sales Manager are not corporate officer titles. The agreement will be rejected if not signed in accordance with these guidelines.
Insurance requirements:
The City's insurance requirements are referenced on Attachment A of the agreement. By signing the agreement, you are confirming that your company has the minimum insurance limits required. 1 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
Agreement 3004978
Agreement Date 21-AUG-2025
Change Order 1
Change Order Date 21-AUG-2025
Revision 1
Agreement Amount 103,612.85 USD
Invoice To City of Roseville
Accounts Payable
311 Vernon St
ROSEVILLE CA 95678
Supplier ePlus Technology Inc
233 Technology Way Ste 4
Rocklin, CA 95765
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
(916) 774-5488
(916) 784-3796
[email protected]
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
(916) 251-3953
()
[email protected]
Description of
Labor,
equipment
and/or materials
The supplier shall provide the services called for under the City of Roseville Request for Proposals (RFP) 12-022 and ePlus Technology, Inc.'s proposal "Endpoint Detection and Response" dated 4/22/22 and price quote 23229452 dated 10/10/24. The terms and scope of work of the City of Roseville RFP 12-022 and supplier's proposal and price quote are herein made part of this contract purchase agreement and fully incorporated by reference. The attached Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement and CrowdStrike Terms and Conditions shall also be incorporated by reference.
Contact Cesar Gamez in the Information Technology Department at (916)774-5408 or [email protected] for questions regarding this agreement.
Customer # Supplier # Payment Terms Freight Terms FOB Shipping Method 12325 Net 30 Freight on Board at the destination Destination Best Method Start Date End Date Confirm To
13-Sep-2025 12-Sep-2026 "Becky" Rebecca Philipp Phone 1-916-746-1110 Attention: Total Cost not to exceed the agreement amount without prior approval of the Purchasing office. 2 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
Contract Terms and Conditions
1. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, including the cost to defend City, and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant and its agents in the performance of services under this contract, but this indemnity does not apply to liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or other loss, arising from the sole negligence, willful misconduct or defects in design by City or the agents, servants, or independent contractors who are directly responsible to City, or arising from the active negligence of City.
Consultant'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.
2. Consultant is an independent contractor, and shall not be considered an officer, agent or employee of the City.
3. Without the written consent of the City, this Agreement is not assignable by Consultant either in whole or in part.
4. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
5. At any time during the term of this Agreement, the City has the right to terminate this Agreement, provided Consultant is given thirty (30) days written notice. City's termination shall be without further liability to City; however, Consultant shall be entitled to all costs reasonably incurred prior to the date of termination. Consultant acknowledges that City may terminate this Agreement should funds not be appropriated by its governing body to continue services under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City acknowledges that ePlus is a reseller and ePlus is providing license and or maintenance renewal provided by the manufacturer. ePlus cannot enforce any early termination of such plans without manufacturer approval/consent. ePlus will work with the manufacturer at the time of the request but cannot meet this provision without such consent. Once a license or maintenance plan is purchased it is valid for the term provided.
6. This Agreement may only be amended or modified in writing. It is integrated and contains the complete understanding of the parties.
7. All equipment, supplies and services sold to the City of Roseville shall conform to the general safety orders of the State of California. The City acknowledges that ePlus is a reseller of IT hardware, software, maintenance and support and other third party products and services (collectively, "Products") and not the manufacturer or licensor. ePlus or its supplier will pass through to the City any and all applicable hardware or software product warranties of the manufacturer, as ePlus does not provide warranties on Products which it does not manufacture, whether with respect to its design, performance, specifications, functionality or compatibility with the City's system. ePlus will not be liable for any damage, loss, cost or expense for breach of warranty. As ePlus has not control over the manufacturing of the products sold herein, it cannot and does not indemnify the City for claims by third parties that products infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret.
8. Unless notified to the contrary, in writing, the City assumes that the Consultant has accepted the work in accordance with the plans and specifications (if any) and agrees to do the work in compliance with this Agreement. Any work product created for City pursuant to this Agreement is deemed owned by City.
3 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
9. All prevailing wages and fair employment practices must be adhered to. For prevailing wage contracts over $25,000, copies of certified payroll must be submitted with invoices. Prevailing wage rates may be obtained from the State Department of Industrial Relations and/or the following website address:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm
10. Consultant agrees to the below insurance requirements:
a. Unless otherwise specified, the Consultant shall maintain the policies of insurance outlined in Attachment A, incorporated herein by this reference, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement. The City of Roseville retains sole discretion in determining the types and proper levels of insurance coverage. b. Form. Consultant 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 claims made basis is subject to the approval of Risk Management and the City Attorney. c. Additional Insureds. Consultant shall also provide a separate endorsement or section of the policy showing City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds for each type of coverage, except for Workers' Compensation and Professional Liability. Such insurance shall specifically cover the contractual liability of Consultant.
The additional insured coverage under the Consultant's policy shall be primary and noncontributory, as evidenced by a separate endorsement or section of the policy, and shall not seek contribution from City's insurance or self-insurance. 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
d. Cancellation/Modification. Consultant shall provide ten (10) days written notice to City prior to cancellation or modification of any insurance required by this Agreement. e. 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.
f. Subconsultants. Consultant agrees to include in its contracts with all subconsultants the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, to the extent they apply to the scope of the subconsultants work.
Furthermore, Consultant shall require its subconsultants to agree to be bound to Consultant and City in the same manner and to the same extent as Consultant is bound to City under this Agreement. Additionally, Consultant shall obligate its subconsultants to comply with these same provisions with respect to any tertiary subconsultant, regardless of tier. A copy of City's indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subconsultant or tertiary subconsultant upon request.
g. 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 4 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
of any insurance policy and endorsements. The failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of such right.
h. Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer of Consultant may acquire from Consultant 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 Consultant, its employees, agents and sub consultants.
i. Liability/Remedies. Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve Consultant of liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude City from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provisions of this Agreement or law. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE
CONTRARY, EACH PARTY'S AFFREGATE LIABILITY HEREUNDER, IF ANY, SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO MILLION ($2,000,000) USD. IN NO EVENT SHALL
EPLUS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL,
PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY
CONNECTED WITH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL PRODUCT TO THE CITY OR
THE PRODUCT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOST
PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, LOST DATA OR FOR ANY DAMAGES OR SUMS PAID
BY THE CITY TO THIRD PARTIES, EVEN IF EPLUS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
11. Consultantshall comply with all federal, state, local laws, ordinances and policies as may be applicable to the performance of services under this Agreement. Failure to comply with local ordinances may result in monetary fines and cancellation of this Agreement.
12. In the event that the terms of any attachment or exhibit conflict with any terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control.
13. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. In the event that any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by e-mail delivery of a ". pdf" format data file, such signature shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same force and effect as if such facsimile or ".pdf" signature page were an original thereof.
14. If either party commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement or the performance thereof, 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 attorneys' 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.
15. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the respective parties hereto.
16. 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.
17. For purposes of this Agreement, the terms "Contractor," "Consultant," and "Supplier" are used interchangeably.
18. Consultant agrees that any and all information furnished by City shall be deemed proprietary 5 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
and confidential. All such information, to the extent previously, presently or subsequently disclosed to Consultant and/or processed and derived by Consultant services is the property of City and such property shall be deemed and treated as "Confidential Information" of City.
Consultant acknowledges that such Confidential Information may contain information provided and/or generated by third-parties. Consultant agrees that such Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any third party without written permission from City, except as required by law. Consultant shall not use the Confidential Information except to perform Consultant's services as directed by City.
19. All facilities, devices, networks and services used to store, deliver, process, backup or purge Confidential Information will employ administrative, physical, technical, and procedural safeguards and best practices at a level sufficient to secure Confidential Information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. Such measures will be no less protective than those used to secure Consultant's own information of a similar type, and in no event less than reasonable in view of the type and nature of the information involved. It is the City's expectation that Consultant, at its own expense, shall perform annual audits for any data centers that house Confidential Information, using an independent third-party audit that meets industry standards applicable to the services under this Agreement, and provide the audit report or certification upon request to City.
20. Consultant will retain Confidential Information until deleted by City or City-authorized third party, or for a time period mutually agreed upon by the parties to this Agreement.
21. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, Consultant will ensure that all Confidential Information is securely transferred to City within thirty (30) calendar days. Consultant will ensure that any transfer of Confidential Information is accomplished by methods that are compatible with the relevant City systems, and that City will have access to all Confidential Information during any such transfer. Consultant shall securely dispose of all Confidential Information when requested by City and Consultant will provide written notification to City once all Confidential Information has been securely disposed of.
22. Consultant shall report to City any data compromise or unauthorized access to Confidential Information within twenty-four (24) hours after Consultant discovers such data compromise or unauthorized access. Consultant will take commercially reasonable measures to address any such data compromise or unauthorized access in a timely manner. Except as otherwise required by law, Consultant will not provide notice to end users or other entities of any such data compromise or unauthorized access without written permission from City. Consultant will promptly reimburse City in full for all fees and costs incurred by City in any investigation, remediation or litigation resulting from any such data compromise or unauthorized access, including identity protection and restoration services for each person, who in the City's sole discretion, could be impacted by identity theft.
23. Consultant may not advertise that City is a client, list City as a reference or otherwise use City's name, logos, trademarks, or service marks without prior written permission from City.
24. Consultant acknowledges that services rendered under this agreement (including but not limited to service levels and operational levels) shall be performed in accordance with industry standards.
25. If the project referenced on this agreement is a Public Works project, then the following shall apply: No contractor or subcontractor may work on a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. During the performance of this agreement, Contractor and its subcontractors shall have a continuing legal obligation to maintain current registration with the Department of Industrial Relations.
Contractor is hereby notified that this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
26. If the project referenced on this agreement is a Public Works project, then the following shall 6 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
apply: Contractor must submit all claims as defined in and in accordance with the claim resolution process set forth in Section 9204 of the Public Contract Code. Each such claim must be sent to the City by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested and must contain reasonable documentation to support the claim. All claims must be received prior to acceptance of the work.
27. Consultant certifies that Consultant, its employees, directors, officers, agents, subcontractors, vendors, and volunteers are not presently debarred, excluded, suspended, declared ineligible, voluntarily excluded, or proposed for debarment, exclusion, suspension or ineligibility by any federal, state, or local department or agency.
28. This Agreement may be amended via change order, but only if such change order is made in writing, approved by the City, and signed by both parties.
29. CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify CITY if, despite the parties intent and practice, any venue, agency, or court with competent jurisdiction determines that CONSULTANT and/or any of its agents, officers, employees, volunteers, independent contractors, or subcontractors, are characterized as employee(s) of CITY.
CONSULTANT and CITY agree that: (a) CONSULTANT is free from the control and direction of CITY in connection with the performance of the work; (b) CONSULTANT is providing services directly to CITY; (c) CONSULTANT has and will maintain at all relevant times a business license; (d) CONSULTANT maintains a business location that is separate from CITY; (e) CONSULTANT is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed hereunder; (f) CONSULTANT actually contracts with other businesses to provide the same or similar services and maintains a clientele without restrictions from CITY; (g) CONSULTANT advertises and holds itself out to the public as available to provide the same or similar services; (h) CONSULTANT provides its own tools, vehicles, and equipment to perform the services; (i) CONSULTANT has negotiated its own rates; (j) CONSULTANT set its own hours and location of work in accomplishing CITY's on-call needs; and (k) CONSULTANT has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired and exercises its own expert independent judgement.
30. Should the City decide to finance its purchase of the Endpoint Detection and Response services over a three-year term (with three (3) annual payments due in advance), the City agrees and acknowledges that the terms and conditions of the ePlus Group Installation Payment Agreement and Opinion Letter (Sample attached) are hereby accepted and incorporated into this Services Agreement, made a part hereof and take precedence over any City Contract Purchase Agreement and any other terms that may apply.
The supplier named hereon by the acceptance of this order agrees to the provisions of this document titled "Contract Purchase Agreement" and all accompanying terms, conditions, and attachments.
Roseville Business License No. ____________________________________ Contractor License No. ____________________________________________ DIR Registration No. _______________________________________________ Check mark the applicable company type below:
_____X______ Corporation
___________ Limited Liability Company
___________ Partnership
7 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
___________ Sole Proprietor
City reserves the right to withhold any payments to Consultant in the event of noncompliance with insurance requirements or if required by law.
Information Technology T&C Negotiated for ePlus Technology, Inc REV 7/28/22 JS
8 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
ATTACHMENT A
HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENT OVER FORMAL BID LIMIT OR INVOLVING HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES General - Required Coverage/Documentation
● General Liability: $1 Million per occurrence /$2 Million aggregate ● Automobile Liability: $1 Million combined single limit ● Workers' Compensation: Statutory *Must provide a Waiver of subrogation ● Additional Insured Endorsement (AIE) - General Liability policy: CG 20 38 04 13 or an equivalent, blanket endorsement or section of the policy. Endorsement shall cover the City of Roseville, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insured. ● Policies must be primary and non-contributory
● A 30 day notice of cancellation must be provided
● List certificate holder as: The City of Roseville - Insurance Compliance, PO Box 100085-R1, Duluth, GA 30096
Additional Liability/Insurance Requirements if required by Agreement (and marked below):
Construction:____
General Liability:
$2 Million/occurrence
$4 Million aggregate
Design Professional:____
General Liability:
$2 Million/occurrence
$4 Million aggregate
Professional Liability:
$2 Million/occurrence
Professional Consultant:____
Professional Liability:
$1 Million/occurrence
IT Services:_X___
Professional Liability:
$1 Million/occurrence
No auto required
Cyber Liability:
$1 Million/occurrence
Hazardous Materials:____
Pollution Liability:
$1 Million/occurrence
Special Events/Caterers-Vendors:____
No auto required
No workers' comp required
Professional Counseling/ Psychological:____
Professional Liability:
$1 Million/occurrence
No auto required
9 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
Pyrotechnics:____
General Liability:
$5 Million/occurrence
$10 Million aggregate
Auto - $2 Million/occurrence
Chemical/Environmental:____
General Liability:
$3 Million/occurrence
$6 Million aggregate
Pollution – $2 Million/Occurrence
Auto - $2 Million/Occurrence
Insurance Submission Process
The City of Roseville Human Resources/Risk Management Department uses a service called EBIX to manage our insurance certificate tracking.
How It Works
● The vendor's contact information is entered into EBIX. EBIX will contact the vendor to request proof of insurance.
● The Vendor can forward the request to their Insurance Agent(s) if necessary. ● Vendor/Insurance Agent submits insurance to EBIX by email to [email protected] or by fax to (770) 325-5727. After faxing or emailing the certificate, please DO NOT send the certificate by mail to EBIX. Please do not mail, email or fax any certificates to the City of Roseville. ● Once submitted, EBIX reviews the insurance documentation. If there are deficiencies, EBIX will send a follow up letter or email requesting additional information.
Questions Regarding Insurance Submission: Contact EBIX at (951) 652-4239 Questions Regarding Insurance Requirements Contact Risk Management at (916) 774-5202 10 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Contract Purchase Agreement 3004978
Supplier
Signature:______________________________________________ Print Name:_____________________________________________ Title:__________________________________________________ Date: __________________________________________________ Supplier
Signature:______________________________________________ Print Name:_____________________________________________ Title:__________________________________________________ Date: __________________________________________________ City of Roseville, A Municipal Corporation
Signature:______________________________________________ Print Name: Dominick Casey
Title: City Manager
Date:__________________________________________________ 11 Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D Don McLaughlin
8/27/2025
SVP Contracts
Sharon Bocher
VP, Corporate Contracts & Asst. Secretary
8/27/2025
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4749B558-6FCA-43A5-91D4-B595639FE9FA A
pril, 2022
RE
: Contractor and Grantee Compliance with Economic Sanctions Imposed in Response to Russia’s Actions in Ukraine
D
ear Vendor:
O
n March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-6-22 (EO) regarding sanctions in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. The EO is located at https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/3.4.22-Russia-Ukraine-Executive- Order.pdf.
The EO directs all agencies and departments that are subject to the Governor’s authority to take certain immediate steps, including notifying all contractors and grantees of their obligations to comply with existing economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law.
This correspondence serves as a notice under the EO that as a contractor or grantee, compliance with the economic sanctions imposed in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine is required, including with respect to, but not limited to, the federal executive orders identified in the EO and the sanctions identified on the U.S. Department of the Treasury website (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions- programs-and-country-information/ukraine-russia-related-sanctions). Failure to comply may result in the termination of contracts or grants, as applicable.
P
lease note that for any agreements or grants valued at $5 million or more you must report to the City of Roseville your compliance with economic sanctions including steps you have taken in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine, including, but not limited to, desisting from making new investments in, or engaging in financial transactions with, Russian entities, not transferring technology to Russia or Russian entities, and directly providing support to the government and people of Ukraine.
S
incerely,
4/25/2022
Shannon Wiest
City of Roseville
Purchasing and Warehouse Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
ARTICLE I – GENERAL
_____ _____ _____ _____ (“Consultant”) agrees that information furnished by the City of Roseville (“ City”) shall be deemed proprietary and confidential, and all such foregoing information, to the extent previously, presently, or subsequently disclosed to Consultant or processed and derived by Consultant services is hereinafter referred to as “Confidential Information” of City.
Consultant acknowledges that such Confidential Information may contain information provided and/or generated by third parties.
In recognition of the proprietary and confidential nature of such Confidential Information, Consultant agrees to treat the Confidential Information as provided by this Agreement.
ARTICLE II – TREATMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Consultant shall, and shall cause each of Consultant’s affiliates, agents, employees, directors, partners, and representative s to safeguard and maintain as confidential all Confidential Information, including, without limitation, information in written, magnetic , electronic or any other form, and take reasonable precautions to protect the Confidential Information (including, without limitation, all precautions Consultant employs with respect to Consul tant’s own proprietary and confidential information). Consultant shall not, and Consultant shall cause each of Consultant’s affiliates, agents, employees, directors, partners, and representatives not to:
(a) use the Confidential Information except to perfo rm Consultant’s services as directed by City; (b) do anything to impair the business relationships, intellectual property or other proprietary rights of City; (c) claim, or reverse engineer any of the Confidential Information; or (d) disclose the Confidential Information to anyone unless required to do so by law or with prior written consent of City. Any Consultant employee, affiliate, advisor, agent, director, partner or representative given access to any of the Confidential Information must have undergone and passed City approved criminal background screenings, and have a legitimate “need to know”; and Consultant will notify such employee, affiliate, advisor, director, partner, or representative that they are bound by the same restrictions as Consultant regarding the Confidential Information. No Confidential Information may be stored or transmitted outside the continental United States without prior written consent of City. For Confidential Information that is protected under Federal, State or Local law, including, without limitation, personally identifiable information, health care information and criminal history information, Consultant will use best practices to protect such information in conformity with applicable law.
ARTICLE III – EXCEPTIONS
The foregoing restrictions of confidentiality and non-use will not apply to information that: (a) is or becomes publicly available without breach of this Agreement; (b) is disclosed to Consultant by a third party, provided such information was not obtained by such third party, directly or indirectly, from City on a confidential basis; (c) is already known to Consultant without obligations of confidentiality; (d) is independently developed or discovered by Consultant without access to the Confidential Information as evidenced by the Consultant’s business records; or (e) is the subject of a written permission to disclose provided by City.
ARTICLE IV – PERMITTED DISCLOSURES
Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, Consultant may disclose the Confidential Information to applicable regulatory authorities or if required by judicial or administrative process or timely disclosure requirements imposed by law, provided that Consultant first provides to City prompt written notice of such required disclosure, maintains confidentiality to the greatest extent permissible and takes such steps as may be reasonable in the circumstances to allow City to seek a protective order with respect to the confidentiality of the information required to be disclosed. If City receives a legal order or request seeking Confidential Information being held by Consultant, City will supply a copy to Consultant. Consultant will supply City with copies of the Confidential Information within two business days.
ARTICLE V – NO LICENSE
This Agreement shall not be construed as creating, conveying, transferring, granting or conferring upon Consultant any rights , license or authority in or to the Confidential Information. Furthermore and specifically, no license or conveyance of any intellectual property rights is granted or implied by this Agreement.
ARTICLE VI – RETURN OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Immediately upon the decision of either party to terminate this Agreement, Consultant shall, and shall cause each of Consultant’s affiliates, agents, employees, directors, partners, and representatives to, return to City all documents, media and data, in any form, containing Confidential Information and any and all copies or extracts in a usable format deemed acceptable by City thereof, within thirty (30) calendar days of such decision. Furthermore, within thirty (30) calendar days of the decision of either party to terminate the Agreement, Consultant shall remove all Co nfidential Information from any computer system used by Consultant’s agents o r business partners.
ARTICLE VII – REQUIRED DISCLOSURES
Consultant must disclose information regarding participation, directly or indirectly, in any arrangement, agreement, investment, or other activity with any vendor, supplier, or other entity, which has resulted or could result in a benefit to Consultant, if said participation creates potential conflicts or competition with this Agreement or other agreements involving City.
ARTICLE VIII – REMEDIES FOR BREACH
Consultant agrees that the limitations contained herein are reasonable and necessary for the protection of City, and given the unique nature of the Confidential Information, the breach of this Agreement cannot be adequately remedied by law. Therefore, in the event of a breach of this Agreement by Consultant, City shall be entitled to pursue equitable remedies, which shall include, but not be limited to, injunctive relief, and recovery of any associated reasonable attorney’s fees and legal costs, along wi th any other available remedies at law. Consultant will notify City in writing immediately upon discovery of any such unauthorized release or other breach of Confidential Information, or any belief that unauthorized access to Confidential Information has transpired, ARTICLE IX – VALIDITY
Any provision of this Agreement held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable by law or rule or regulation shall be fully severable, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Additionally, the parties hereby agree to negotiate in good faith to modify and amend this Agreement to maintain the original intent of the parties with respect to suc h provisions so severed.
By:________________________________ Print Name:_________________________ Title:_______________________________
Date:______________________________
and
By:________________________________ Print Name:_________________________ Title:_______________________________
Date:______________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D 8/27/2025
Don McLaughlin
SVP Contracts
8/27/2025
Sharon Bocher
VP, Corporate Contracts & Asst. Secretary
Customer Name:CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Quote No:23229452
Quote Name:ePlus-Crowdstrike
Renewal 09-2025 City of
Roseville 12 Month
Quotation Date:10/10/2024
Sales Support Contact:BRITTANI NEFF
Sales Support Phone:916-897-4667
Sales Support Email:TEAM-BRITTANI-
[email protected]
Account Executive:Brittani Neff
Account Executive Phone:9168974667
Account Executive Email:[email protected]
Customer PO No:
Order No:
Expiration Date:09/19/2025
ePlus Technology inc, 13595 Dulles Technology Drive, Herndon, VA, 20171 001 CS.EPPENT.SOLN CROWDSTRIKE FALCON ENDPOINT PROTECTION
ENTERPRISE FLEXIBLEBUND LE
09/13/2025-
09/12/2026
2500 44.75 111,875.00 8.28 20,700.00
002 CS.FIREWBP.SOLN CROWDSTRIKE FALCON FIREWALL MANAGEMENT BUNDLE PROMO
09/13/2025-
09/12/2026
2500 4.75 11,875.00 1.18 2,950.00
003 CS.PREVENT.SOLN CROWDSTRIKE PREVENT 09/13/2025-
09/12/2026
2500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
004 CS.INSIGHT.SOLN CROWDSTRIKE INSIGHT 09/13/2025-
09/12/2026
2500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
005 CS.TG.STD.GOV CROWDSTRIKE THREAT GRAPH STANDARD ON GOVCLOUD09/13/2025- 09/12/2026
2090 7.19 15,027.10 7.12 14,880.80
006 CS.OW.SVC CROWDSTRIKE OVERWATCH 09/13/2025-
09/12/2026
2500 13.77 34,425.00 3.39 8,475.00
007 CS.INTELBP.SOLN CROWDSTRIKE CROWDSTRIKE FALCON INTELLIGENCE
BUNDLE PROMO
09/13/2025-
09/12/2026
2500 9.30 23,250.00 9.14 22,850.00
008 CS.DEVICEBP.SOLN CROWDSTRIKE FALCON DEVICE CONTROL BUNDLE PROMO09/13/2025- 09/12/2026
2500 4.75 11,875.00 0.87 2,175.00
009 CS.TG.STD.HPSGOV CROWDSTRIKE SERVER THREAT GRAPH STANDARD ON
GOVCLOUD
09/13/2025-
09/12/2026
410 21.57 8,843.70 21.55 8,835.50
010 RR.HOS.ENT.EXPS CROWDSTRIKE EXPRESS SUPPORT 09/13/2025- 09/12/2026
1 10,621.55 10,621.55 10,621.55 10,621.55
011 RR.PSO.ENT.PASS CROWDSTRIKE UNIVERSITY LMS SUBSCRIPTION
CUSTOMER ACCESSPASS
09/13/2025-
09/12/2026
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
012 CS.DISC.SOLN CROWDSTRIKE DISCOVER 09/13/2025-
09/12/2026
2500 10.33 25,825.00 1.99 4,975.00
013 CS.SPOTLT.SOLN CROWDSTRIKE FALCON SPOTLIGHT 09/13/2025- 09/12/2026
2500 15.47 38,675.00 2.86 7,150.00
Renewal - Term Dates: (Sep 13, 2025 - Sep 12, 2026Renewal - Term Dates: (Sep 13, 2025 - Sep 12, 2026 Sub-Total (USD)103,612.85Sub-Total (USD)103,612.85
Line No.
Part Number
MFG
Description/Line Notes
Dates
QTY
List Price
Ext List
Price
Unit Price
Ext Price
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Totals 292,292.35 103,612.85
Shipping:
Packing:
Sub Total (USD): 103,612.85
Trade/Discount (USD): 0.00
Est. Tax (USD): 0.00
Shp&Hnd (USD): 0.00
Total (USD): 103,612.85
By placing an order with ePlus for products or services you agree to comply with the City of Roseville Terms and Conditions of Purchase (rev 3/21/2024 as attached). Unless there is a separate written agreement signed on behalf of both you and ePlus by a duly authorized officer, the Order Terms shall be the only terms and conditions applicable to transactions between you and ePlus, and no additional or contrary terms referenced in a purchase order, document, or electronic communication shall apply. In no event shall ePlus performance under a purchase order be deemed to constitute acceptance of any terms and conditions set forth therein. ePlus offers flexible and easy leasing options for your IT equipment. Use leasing to increase your IT acquisition capability, overcome limited budgets, and manage the lifecycle of your assets. Contact an ePlus Leasing Coordinator at 1-703-984-8021 or [email protected] to receive a lease quote today.
Customer Acceptance Bill To Ship To
Signature: ____________________________________
Name: _______________________________________
Title: _________________________________________
Date: ________________________________________
Customer PO #: _______________________________
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
311 VERNON ST
FINANCE- 1ST FLOOR
ROSEVILLE CA 95678
UNITED STATES
ACCOUNT PAYABLE
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
311 Vernon St
ROSEVILLE CA 95678-2649
UNITED STATES
Cesar Gamez
©2025 ePlus inc. All rights reserved.
*NGDC P2 4.2.2.9
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
Docusign Envelope ID: EC53AB9F-2DF4-424F-AC16-5A983F75278D
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VII.9
File #: 0323
Item ID: 2025-646
Title: Ammunition - Sole Source Purchase Orders
Contact: Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of sole source purchase orders with Miwall Corporation in the amount of $112,058.93 and San Diego Police Equipment in the amount of $81,936.31, for a combined total of $193,995.24 to provide Police Duty Ammunition. Miwall Corporation is the exclusive distributor for Hornady 9mm ammunition and San Diego Police Equipment is the exclusive distributor for Speer LE .223 Ammunition. Funding is included in the Police Department's FY2025-26 budget in the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Sole Source Purchase Orders with Miwall Corporation in the amount of $112,058.93 and San Diego Police Equipment in the amount of $81,936.31, for a combined total of $193,995.24 in the current fiscal year to provide Police Duty Ammunition.
BACKGROUND
The Police Department has an ongoing requirement for ammunition for its Police personnel. The purchases are for pistol and rifle ammunition to be used in Glock Model 45, 17, and 34 duty pistols and AR-15 and M4 rifles. These weapons are used by the City's patrol officers and regional SWAT team.
The FBI and the International Wound Ballistics Association have established criteria for bullet/ammunition performance. The Hornady Critical Duty handgun ammunition and Speer LE rifle ammunition have undergone extensive testing by the FBI and meets and/or exceeds all of their ballistic testing criteria. The testing criteria includes terminal performance into ballistic gelatin after penetrating through established barriers such as: Auto Glass, Drywall, Plywood, Sheet Metal, and heavy clothing. The Roseville Police Department has conducted the same testing process as described above and agree/concur with the findings and/or performance of the Hornady and Speer LE ammunition. Additionally, the Hornady and Speer LE ammo is extremely reliable and rarely malfunctions/jams.
Hornady Ammunition has an exclusive distributorship with Miwall Corporation for the Northern California area, and therefore is the City's only available source for the purchase of the Hornady ammunition.
Speer LE Ammunition has an exclusive distributorship with San Diego Police Equipment for the State of California, and therefore is the City's only available source for the purchase of the Speer LE ammunition.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of pistol ammunition from Miwall Corporation is $112,058.93 and the total cost of rifle ammunition from San Diego Police Equipment is $81,936.31, for a combined total of $193,955.24. Funding is included in the Police Department's FY2025-26 budget in the General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The purchase of ammunition meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
1. Ensure a safe and healthy community
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Peinado, Management Analyst
Troy Bergstrom, Police Chief
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 9mm ammo Quote
2. .223 Ammo Quote
REVIEWERS:
Mark Peinado, Police Department Created/Initiated - 8/27/2025 Liz Luevano, Police Department Approved - 8/27/2025
Troy Bergstrom, Police Department Approved - 8/28/2025
Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/28/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/3/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/3/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/4/2025
Quote
Date
8/11/2025
Quote #
3462
Name / Address
CITY OF ROSEVILLE PD
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
311 VERNON ST
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-2649
Ship To
CITY OF ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
1051 JUNCTION BLVD
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-7191
Miwall Corporation
PO BOX 2809
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Terms
30 Rep
SR
Comment
530-273-1047
[email protected]
Total
(0.0%)
Item Description QtyCost Total
90215C HORN 9mm +P 124gr CRIT DUTY 500 RDS 350 297.14 103,999.00T Sales Tax 8,059.93 8,059.93
$112,058.93
$0.00
TO: SHIP TO:
AGENCY: ATTN:
PHONE:
FAX: PO / REF#:
EMAIL: AUTH BY:
QTY UNIT EXT. PRICE
234 CS/500 SPEER GOLD DOT .223 62GR GDSP $76,042.98
NOTES: $76,042.98
TAX% 0.07750 $5,893.33
$0.00
$81,936.31
No freight charge for drop shipment from factory.
NET 30
$324.97 CCI-24445SP
QUOTE
[email protected]
OFC TIM WILLIAMS
08/11/25
10/11/25
QUOTED BY: RYAN
DATE:
EXPIRES:
TERMS:
TO PROCEED WITH ORDER AS QUOTED, PLEASE PROVIDE SHI PPING INFORMATION AND SIGN FORM
UNIT PRICE
Phone: (858)974-8500 Toll Free: (800)367-8989 Fax : (858)974-8530 San Diego Police Equipment Co. Inc., 8205-A Ronson Road, San Diego CA 92111 E-mail: [email protected]
SUBTOTAL:
FREIGHT:
TOTAL:
Sales tax will be charged at the rate for the delivery address.
ALL ORDERS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING
FOR DEPARTMENT PURCHASE ONLY
DESCRIPTION
ROSEVILLE PD
916-774-5099
PRODUCT CODE
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VII.10
File #: 0323
Item ID: 2025-647
Title: All Band Portable Radio - Sole Source Purchase Order Contact: Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of a sole source purchase order with Motorola Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $531,477.30 in the current fiscal year to provide All Band Portable Radios. Motorola Solutions, Inc. is the manufacturer of the APX 8000 All Band Portable Radio, which contains proprietary hardware and software components that are only available through Motorola. Funding of $500,000 for this purchase was included in the Police Portable Radio Replacement project, through the Equipment Replacement Fund, in the adopted FY2025-26 budget. Staff will be bringing forward a recommended budget adjustment for Council consideration at an upcoming Council meeting to fund the additional costs.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a sole source purchase order to Motorola Solutions, Inc. for the purchase of 57 All Band Portable Radios in the amount of $531,477.30.
BACKGROUND
The Roseville Police Department has relied on Motorola Solutions portable radios for over 20 years to ensure effective communication for public safety operations. The department currently operates (150) APX 7000 portable radios, many of which have been in service since 2010. These units have reached the end of their operational life, as Motorola Solutions no longer manufactures the APX 7000 model or provides parts and accessories for its maintenance. The Police Department plans to replace all APX 7000 portable radios with the new Motorola Solutions APX 8000 All Band Portable Radio over a three-year period. The APX 8000 radio meets the Police Department's need for reliable, secure, and interoperable communication. The purchase of (57) APX 8000 radios will replace the department's oldest units.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. is the manufacturer of the APX 8000 All Band Portable Radio, which contains proprietary hardware and software components that are only available through Motorola Solutions, Inc.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of this Portable Radio purchase is $531,477.30. Funding of $500,000 for this purchase was included in the Police Portable Radio Replacement project, through the Equipment Replacement Fund, in the adopted FY2025-26 budget. Staff will be bringing forward a recommended budget adjustment for Council consideration at an upcoming Council meeting to fund the additional costs.
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 purchase of radios meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental
review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
1. Ensure a safe and healthy community
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Peinado, Management Analyst
Troy Bergstrom, Police Chief
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Quote
REVIEWERS:
Mark Peinado, Police Department Created/Initiated - 8/27/2025 Liz Luevano, Police Department Approved - 8/27/2025
Troy Bergstrom, Police Department Approved - 8/28/2025
Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/3/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/3/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/4/2025
QUOTE-3121823
ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPT, CITY OF
Copy of (57) APX 8000
06/27/2025
The design, technical, pricing, and other information (“Information”) furnished with this submission is confidential proprietary information of Motorola Solutions, Inc. or the Motorola Solutions entity providing this quote (“Motorola”) and is submitted with the restriction that it is to be used for evaluation purposes only. To the fullest extent allowed by applicable law, the Information is not to be disclosed publicly or in any manner to anyone other than those required to evaluate the Information without the express written permission of Motorola.
MOTOROLA, MOTO, MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, and the Stylized M Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Motorola Trademark Holdings, LLC and are used under license. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. © 2020 Motorola Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
06/27/2025
ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPT, CITY OF
311 VERNON ST STE 206
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678
RE: Motorola Quote for Copy of (57) APX 8000
Dear Mark Peinado,
Motorola Solutions is pleased to present ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPT, CITY OF with this quote for quality communications equipment and services. The development of this quote provided us the opportunity to evaluate your requirements and propose a solution to best fulfill your communications needs.
This information is provided to assist you in your evaluation process. Our goal is to provide ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPT, CITY OF with the best products and services available in the communications industry. Please direct any questions to Ashton Dunnigan at [email protected].
We thank you for the opportunity to provide you with premier communications and look forward to your review and feedback regarding this quote.
Sincerely,
Ashton Dunnigan
QUOTE-3121823
Billing Address:
ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPT, CITY
OF
311 VERNON ST STE 206
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678
US
Quote Date:06/27/2025
Expiration Date:09/19/2025
Quote Created By:
Ashton Dunnigan
Ashton.Dunnigan1@
motorolasolutions.com
End Customer:
ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPT, CITY OF
Mark Peinado
[email protected]
(916) 774-5488
Contract: 17724 - HGAC (TX)-RA05-21
Summary:
Any sales transaction resulting from Motorola's quote is based on and subject to the applicable Motorola Standard Terms and Conditions, notwithstanding terms and conditions on purchase orders or other Customer ordering documents.
Motorola Standard Terms and Conditions are found at www.motorolasolutions.com/product-terms.
Line
#
Item Number
Description
Qty
List Price
Contract
Price
Disc %
Sale Price
Ext. Sale Price
APX™ 8000 Series
APX8000
1 H91TGD9PW6AN
PORTABLE RADIO APX
8000 ALL BAND MODEL
2.5 57
$8,226.00
$6,004.98
27.0%
$6,004.98
$342,283.86
1a
H869BW
SOFTWARE LICENSE ENH:
MULTIKEY
57 $388.00
$283.24
27.0%
$283.24
$16,144.68
1b
Q806CB
ADD: ASTRO DIGITAL CAI
OPERATION
57 $607.00
$443.11
27.0%
$443.11
$25,257.27
1c
Q361AN
ADD: P25 9600 BAUD
TRUNKING
57 $353.00
$257.69
27.0%
$257.69
$14,688.33
1d
Q58AL
ADD: 3Y ESSENTIAL
SERVICE
57 $184.00
$184.00
0.0%
$184.00
$10,488.00
1e
QA05509AA
DEL: DELETE UHF BAND
57 -$800.00
-$584.00
0.0%
-$584.00
-$33,288.00
1f
H38BS
ADD: SMARTZONE
OPERATION
57 $1,766.00
$1,289.18
27.0%
$1,289.18
$73,483.26
1g
G996AP
ADD: PROGRAMMING
OVER P25 (OTAP)
57 $118.00
$86.14
27.0%
$86.14
$4,909.98
1h
Q629AH
SOFTWARE LICENSE ENH:
AES ENCRYPTION AND
ADP
57 $560.00
$408.80
27.0%
$408.80
$23,301.60
QUOTE-3121823
Copy of (57) APX 8000
Any sales transaction following Motorola's quote is based on and subject to the terms and conditions of the valid and executed written contract between Customer and Motorola (the ""Underlying Agreement"") that authorizes Customer to purchase equipment and/or services or license software (collectively ""Products""). If no Underlying Agreement exists between Motorola and Customer, then Motorola's Standard Terms of Use and Motorola's Standard Terms and Conditions of Sales and Supply shall govern the purchase of the Products.
Motorola Solutions, Inc.: 500 West Monroe, United States - 60661 ~ #: 36-1115800
Line
#
Item Number
Description
Qty
List Price
Contract
Price
Disc %
Sale Price
Ext. Sale Price
1i
QA09113AB
ADD: BASELINE RELEASE
SW
57 $0.00
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
$0.00
2 PMMN4084A
AUDIO ACCESSORY-
HEADSET,PLUS RSM NC
IP54 THRD 3.5MM JACK
RX
57 $109.78
$82.34
25.0%
$82.34
$4,693.38
3 RLN4941A
REC ONLY EARPIECE W/
TRANSLUCET TUBE
57 $82.13
$61.60
25.0%
$61.60
$3,511.20
4 NNTN8860B
CHARGER, SINGLE-UNIT,
IMPRES 2, 3A, 115VAC,
US/NA
57 $199.56
$149.67
25.0%
$149.67
$8,531.19
Subtotal
$494,004.75
Estimated Tax
$37,472.55
Grand Total
$531,477.30(USD)
Notes:
QUOTE-3121823
Copy of (57) APX 8000
Any sales transaction following Motorola's quote is based on and subject to the terms and conditions of the valid and executed written contract between Customer and Motorola (the ""Underlying Agreement"") that authorizes Customer to purchase equipment and/or services or license software (collectively ""Products""). If no Underlying Agreement exists between Motorola and Customer, then Motorola's Standard Terms of Use and Motorola's Standard Terms and Conditions of Sales and Supply shall govern the purchase of the Products.
Motorola Solutions, Inc.: 500 West Monroe, United States - 60661 ~ #: 36-1115800
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VII.11
File #: 0323
Item ID: 2025-650
Title: Police Body Armor Helmets - Purchase Order
Contact: Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of a purchase order with Black Box Safety, Inc. for the purchase of Police Body Armor Helmets in the amount of $75,500.43. Funding for this purchase in the amount of $40,000 was included in the Police Department's FY2025-26 departmental budget in the General Fund. The remaining $35,500.43 will be funded by the Police Equipment Replacement project in the Equipment Replacement Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a purchase order to Black Box Safety, Inc. for the purchase of Police Body Armor Helmets in the amount of $75,500.43.
BACKGROUND
The Police Department has an ongoing requirement for body armor. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sets safety standards for law enforcement body armor, including the replacement of body armor every five years. Currently, the Department has 91 helmets that are due for replacement. The Police Department is requesting approval of a purchase order to Black Box Safety, Inc. to purchase the helmets for a total amount of $75,500.43
This Purchase Order will "piggyback" off of a competitively-selected Nationwide Sourcewell Body Armor Contact: 091924-BBS.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost for this purchase is $75,500.43. Funding for this purchase in the amount of $40,000 was included in the Police Department's FY2025-26 Departmental budget in the General Fund. The remaining $35,500.43 will be funded by the Police Equipment Replacement project in the Equipment Replacement 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 purchase of body armor helmets meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
1. Ensure a safe and healthy community
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Peinado, Management Analyst
Troy Bergstrom, Police Chief
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Sales - Quote - Body Armor Helmets
REVIEWERS:
Mark Peinado, Police Department Created/Initiated - 8/27/2025 Liz Luevano, Police Department Approved - 8/27/2025
Troy Bergstrom, Police Department Approved - 8/28/2025
Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/2/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Dominick Casey, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/4/2025
Bill to
Ship to
Roseville Police Department
Roseville Police Department
1051 Junction Blvd
Nicholas Hom
Roseville, CA 95678
1051 Junction Blvd
US
Roseville, CA 95678
US
Shipment Method
FOB Destination
Document Date
05/2/2025
Shipment Date
5/2/2025
Valid to
10/23/2025
SKU
Description
Quantity
Unit of
Measure
Unit Price
Amount
OPERATOR ELITE W/ FS
Paraclete MICH high cut w/ dial liner and rails, No
NVG mount and HLMRRFAC00
91 Each
770.00
70,070.00
Subtotal
70,070.00
Total Tax (7.75%)
5,430.43
Total $ Incl. Tax
75,500.43
Nationwide Sourcewell Body Armor Contract: 091924-BBS
Sales Quote - SQ-100305
Black Box Safety, Inc.
1950 Cordell Court, Suite 103
https://blackboxsafety.com/
(619) 499-7943
El Cajon, CA 92020
[email protected]
Page
1 /
1
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VII.12
File #: 0501-01
Item ID: 2025-569
Title: 2025 Building Standards Code Adoption
Contact: Michael Bradley 916-774-5400 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Title 16 of the Roseville Municipal Code, which prescribes regulations governing building standards and conditions hazardous to life and property, as well as adopt an urgency ordinance to be effective September 17, 2025. The fiscal impact on the City includes new code resources and staff training on the updated Building Code Standards. These costs have been accounted for within the current budgets of both the Fire Department and the Development Services Department in the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an urgency ordinance amending Title 16 of the Roseville Municipal Code, which prescribes regulations governing building standards and conditions hazardous to life and property, and declaring the ordinance to be effective September 17, 2025 as an urgency ordinance.
Staff also recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Title 16 of the Roseville Municipal Code, which prescribes regulations governing building standards and conditions hazardous to life and property.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 17958, the updated Building Standards Code becomes the City’s default rules for building matters on January 1, 2026. While local agencies have historically been allowed to adopt their own local amendments, the California Legislature recently enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 130, which has significant impacts on local agencies’ ability to adopt local amendments. Most significantly, AB 130 implements a 6-year freeze on new local building code updates, meaning that cities and counties are prohibited from making any modifications to the building code standards for residential projects within their jurisdiction from October 1, 2025, through June 1, 2031 – absent some limited exceptions. One of those exceptions, however, does allow local amendments that are “substantially equivalent” to changes or modifications that were previously adopted by the city and county and were in effect as of September 30, 2025.
The City has historically adopted some local amendments to the Building Standards Code, as those amendments are necessary due to the geological, topographical, and climactic conditions of the City of Roseville. The ordinance being presented for consideration is composed primarily of local amendments that have been adopted by the City with each triennial Building Standards Code update. The only substantive update is a clarification with respect to drowning prevention safety features for pools in residential areas.
To ensure the City’s local amendments are adopted and are made part of the City’s updated California Building Standards Code, and to ensure compliance with all applicable timelines – including AB 130 – it is recommended that the City Council adopt both an urgency ordinance and a non-urgency ordinance.
Because an urgency ordinance is effective immediately, the City will have adopted its local amendments well before the traditional January 1st deadline, and also before the September 30th deadline possibly imposed by AB 130.
Thus, the items before the City Council are the adoption of an urgency ordinance, and the introduction and first reading of a non-urgency ordinance, both of which will amend Title 16 of the Roseville Municipal Code to adopt the 2025 Building Standards Code and necessary local amendments. It is recommended that the Council take both actions.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact on the City includes new code resources and staff training on the updated Building Code Standards. These costs have been accounted for within the current budgets of both the Fire Department and the Development Services Department in the General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378.
Adoption of the Building Standards Code meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
1. Ensure a safe and healthy community
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael Bradley, Fire Division Chief
Ryan Harrigan, Fire Chief
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance 6990
2. draft Regular Ordinance for Building and Fire Codes (CORRECTED - 9.2.2025)
REVIEWERS:
Michael Bradley, Fire Department Created/Initiated - 9/3/2025 Deanna Schondelmayer, Fire Department Approved - 9/3/2025 Ryan Harrigan, Fire Department Approved - 9/3/2025
Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/3/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/3/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025
Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/5/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 9/5/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/5/2025
ORDINANCE NO. 6990
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE RE-ADOPTING AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 16.04 AND 16.16 OF TITLE 16 OF THE ROSEVILLE
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION AND THE FIRE CODE, AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 17, 2025
AS AN URGENCY ORDINANCE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 16.04 of Title 16 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby re- adopted in part, and amended in part, to read as follows:
16.04.100 California Building Standards Code—Adopted.
A. The 2025 California Building Standards Code is hereby adopted by the City of Roseville and incorporated by reference into the City of Roseville Municipal Code, as amended by this chapter. The 2025 California Building Standards Code includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. 2025 California Building Code-Volumes 1 and 2 of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 2.
2. 2025 California Residential Code of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 2.5.
3. Appendix BF, Patio Covers of the 2025 California Residential Code of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 2.5.
4. 2025 California Electrical Code of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part
3. 5. 2025 California Mechanical Code of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 4.
6. 2025 California Plumbing Code of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 5, including appendix A and M of the 2025 California Plumbing Code.
7. 2025 California Energy Code of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6.
8. 2025 California Historical Building Code of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 8.
9. 2025 California Existing Building Code of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 10.
10. 2025 California Green Building Standards Code of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 11.
2 11. 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 7.
B. There is at least one copy of said code on file in the office of the building official for use and examination by the public.
16.04.105 Housing Law regulations—Adopted.
The city hereby adopts and enforces the California State Housing Law, California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Division 1, Subchapter 1, current provisions. There is one copy of said regulations on file in the office of the building official for use and examination by the public.
16.04.110 Board of appeals.
Appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code shall be referred to the board of appeals.
16.04.120 Fees.
Requests for permits under this chapter shall be subject to payment of fees by the permit applicant as established by resolution adopted by the city council, as amended from time to time.
16.04.310 Findings and modifications.
A. The city council of the City of Roseville finds and declares that the additions, modifications, and changes made to these codes are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare due to climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. These amendments are authorized under Health and Safety Code Section 17958 and are identified as follows:
1. Climatic. Average yearly rainfall for the city is approximately 18 inches; with the majority occurring between October and April. During the summer months, there is generally no measurable precipitation and temperatures for this dry period range from 70 to 112 degrees Fahrenheit. Pools are common as a result of the high summer temperatures. High summer month temperatures are frequently accompanied by light to gusty westerly and northerly winds. The relative humidity during the summer months averages from two to 30 millimeters of mercury (Hg), which is considered arid. The city is surrounded by thousands of acres of grasslands which, during the summer months are dried to the point at which they are exceedingly combustible and easily ignited.
2. Topographical. The city is segmented by several topographical and physical features, including minor rivers, steep canyons, natural parkways, open space, freeways, railroad tracks, drainage canals, and sprawling industrial facilities. Heavy traffic congestion on city streets acts as a barrier for fire and emergency vehicles providing timely response. Preservation of wetland areas, natural parkways, riparian corridors, vernal pools, open space, and endangered species’ habitats have all contributed to access problems while also resulting in exemptions from vegetation reduction programs. These situations, though environmentally important, increase the demands on the fire department due to extreme fire hazards created by increased fuel loading and
3 access limitations. These conditions also result in natural aquifers that the city uses for water, resulting in differing water sources.
3. Geological. The city is located within a Seismic Design Category D area and is subject to ground tremors. Flooding has occurred in the portions of the city that lie adjacent to Roseville’s numerous creeks and streams.
B. The building official is authorized to render interpretations of this code and make and enforce rules and supplemental regulations in order to carry out its application. The building official maybe guided by future supplements to the California Building Code. Such interpretations, rules and regulations and supplements shall conform with the intent and purpose of the California Building Code and shall be available to the public during normal business hours.
C. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official may grant modifications for individual cases. The building official shall first find that a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and that the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen any fire-protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity. The details of any action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the City of Roseville.
16.04.410 Maximum number of disconnects.
Section 230-71 of the California Electric Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
(a) General. The service disconnecting means for each service permitted by Section 230-2, or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by Section 230-40, Exception No. 1, shall consist of not more than one switch or one circuit breaker mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard. There shall be no more than one disconnect per service grouped in any one location.
Exception No. 1: For the purpose of this section, disconnecting means installed as part of listed equipment and used solely for the following shall not be considered a service disconnecting means:
(1) Power monitoring Equipment
(2) Surge-protective device(s)
(3) Control circuit of the ground-fault protection system
(4) Power-operable service disconnecting means
Exception No. 2: For an apartment complex with not more than four units total, each unit may have a separate disconnect.
4 (b) [reserved]
Informational Note: See Section 408.36 for service equipment in certain panel-boards, and see Section 430-95 for service equipment in motor control centers
16.04.870 Swimming pool and spa enclosures.
Section 3109.2 of the California Building Code is amended to add the following language at the end of Section 3109.2
Notwithstanding the foregoing, with regard to Health and Safety Code section 115922 requiring at least two of seven drowning prevention safety features, at least one of the two drowning prevention safety features required must be an enclosure that meets the requirements of Section 115923 and isolates the swimming pool or spa from any private single-family home. The intent of this section is to ensure that when a building permit is issued for the construction of a new swimming pool or spa or the remodeling of an existing swimming pool or spa at a private single- family home, the respective swimming pool or spa shall have an enclosure that meets the requirements of Section 115923 and isolates the swimming pool or spa from neighboring private single-family homes.
SECTION 2. Chapter 16.16 of Title 16 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby re- adopted in part, and amended in part, to read as follows:
16.16.010 Short title.
This chapter may be referred to as the “Roseville Fire Code.”
16.16.020 California Fire Code and International Fire Code—Adopted by reference.
The 2025 California Fire Code Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations, together with Appendices B, BB, C, CC, D, as well as the 2024 International Fire Code, save and except such portions as are hereunder deleted, modified, or amended, are hereby adopted by reference.
16.16.030 Findings.
The city council of the City of Roseville finds and declares that the additions, modifications, and changes made to these codes are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare due to climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. These amendments are authorized under Health and Safety Code Section 17958 and are identified as follows:
A. Climatic. Average yearly rainfall for the city is approximately 18 inches; with the majority occurring between October and April. During the summer months, there is generally no measurable precipitation and temperatures for this dry period range from 70 to 112 degrees Fahrenheit. High summer month temperatures are frequently accompanied by light to gusty
5 westerly and northerly winds. The relative humidity during the summer months averages from two to 30 millimeters of mercury (Hg), which is considered arid. The city is surrounded by thousands of acres of grasslands which, during the summer months are dried to the point at which they are exceedingly combustible and easily ignited.
B. Topographical. The city is segmented by several topographical and physical features, including minor rivers, steep canyons, natural parkways, open space, freeways, railroad tracks, drainage canals, and sprawling industrial facilities. Heavy traffic congestion on city streets acts as a barrier for fire and emergency vehicles providing timely response. Preservation of wetland areas, natural parkways, riparian corridors, vernal pools, open space, and endangered species’ habitats have all contributed to access problems while also resulting in exemptions from vegetation reduction programs. These situations, though environmentally important, increase the demands on the fire department due to extreme fire hazards created by increased fuel loading and access limitations.
C. Geological. The city is located within a seismic design category D area and is subject to ground tremors. Flooding has occurred in the portions of the city that lie adjacent to Roseville’s numerous creeks and streams.
16.16.040 Permits and fees.
A. Chapter 1, Section 108 of the California Fire Code, as adopted by the city, is hereby amended to read as follows:
108 Fees. Each person who applies for, requests, or receives a permit, permit amendment, or service furnished by the fire department shall, at such time, pay the applicable fee or fees provided for by resolution of the city council.
B. Minimum Fee Remittance. Prior to providing service, except for emergency services, a minimum fee remittance is required based on the approved fee established for said service(s). The minimum amount for an estimated fee calculation is required at the time of request for service. Adjustments to the estimated fee may be made depending upon work required.
C. Modification of Fees. The fire chief shall have the authority to waive or modify any fee imposed due to services provided by the fire department as stated herein and established by resolution of the city council for good cause providing such waiver or modification request is submitted in writing, stating the reason such waiver or modification is necessary, prior to the payment of the fee.
16.16.050 Appeals.
Chapter 1, Section 112.1 of the California Fire Code, as adopted by the city, is hereby amended to read as follows:
112.1 Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any decision or action of the Chief or designated representative may appeal the decision or action subject to the provisions of Section 16.04.110 of the Municipal Code referring to the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals designated therein shall also serve as the Board of Appeals under the California
6 Fire Code. The fire chief or his or her designee shall serve as ex-officio member of the Board of Appeals in all appeals under the California Fire Code.
16.16.060 Violations.
Chapter 1, Section 113.4 of the California Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
113.4 Violation penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of this code, shall be charged with either an infraction or a misdemeanor at the discretion of the city attorney.
16.16.070 Open burning, recreational fires, and portable outdoor fireplaces.
Chapter 3, Section 307.1.1 of the California Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
307.1.1 Prohibited open burning. Open burning shall be prohibited within the city.
Exception: When authorized by the fire chief in accordance with the California Fire Code.
16.16.080 General storage.
Mobile Storage Racks. Mobile storage racks shall have a minimum six-inch fixed separation every four feet of storage.
16.16.090 Fire apparatus access roads.
Chapter 5, Section 503.2.3 of the California Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced with an AC pavement or equivalent surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
16.16.100 Premises identification.
A. Multiple Tenant Buildings. Multiple tenant buildings shall contain the following features:
1. Multiple tenant spaces serviced by vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot shall have numbers or addresses placed prior to occupancy on
7 all new and existing buildings as to be plainly visible and legible from the rear access way when deemed necessary by the fire chief.
2. Multiple tenant spaces serviced by rear access through a corridor, exit passageway, exit court, or exit yard shall have approved numbers or addresses displayed on the rear of the tenant space, when deemed necessary by the fire chief.
3. Multiple tenant spaces that front on interior walkways or pedestrian malls shall have approved numbers or addresses placed near the entrance door in all new and existing buildings.
4. Illuminated directory boards shall be provided at vehicular access entrances to multiple building complexes as deemed necessary by the fire chief.
B. Illumination. Addressing shall be illuminated at night in all new buildings. Address signs shall be internally or externally illuminated. When the luminance provided for the face of an address sign is from an external source, it shall have an intensity sufficient so as to be visible at night from the adjoining access roadway. Internally illuminated address signs shall be provided with equivalent luminance.
16.16.110 Fire protection systems.
A. Fire Control Room. An approved fire control room shall be provided for all buildings protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system. Fire control rooms shall meet the following requirements:
1. Fire control rooms shall contain only fire system control valves, fire alarm control panels and other related fire system equipment.
2. The location of the fire control room shall be approved by the fire code official.
3. Fire control rooms shall have minimum dimensions of five feet by seven feet.
4. Fire control rooms shall be constructed with a one-hour fire rating.
5. Fire control rooms shall be provided with an exterior access door approved by the fire code official.
6. Durable signage shall be provided on the exterior side of the access door.
7. Storage of materials in fire control rooms is prohibited.
B. New Buildings. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in every new building where the total fire area is 3,600 square feet or greater.
C. Passive Purge Sprinkler System. One- and two-family dwellings designed and installed with a sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13D shall utilize passage purge on a remote domestic plumbing fixture.