Roseville City Council
October 15, 2025

16 4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading and (ii) since the date of the Appraisal they are not aware of any facts that would materially affect the conclusions of value set forth therein; (18) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and other documents as the Underwriter may reasonably request to evidence the truth and accuracy, as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date, of the statements and information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, of the City’s representations and warranties contained herein and the due performance or satisfaction by the City at or prior to the Closing of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the City and the District in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and by the Official Statement.

If the City shall be unable to satisfy the conditions to the obligations of the Underwriter to purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds contained in this Purchase Agreement, or if the obligations of the Underwriter to purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds shall be terminated for any reason permitted by this Purchase Agreement, this Purchase Agreement shall terminate and neither the Underwriter nor the City shall be under any further obligation hereunder, except that the respective obligations of the City and the Underwriter set forth in Section 5, Section 6 and Section 8 hereof shall continue in full force and effect.

5. Conditions of the City’s Obligations. The City’s obligations hereunder are subject to the Underwriter’s performance of its obligations hereunder, and are also subject to the following conditions:
(a) As of the Closing Date, no litigation shall be pending or, to the knowledge of the duly authorized officer of the City executing the certificate referred to in Section 4(d)(6) hereof, threatened, to restrain or enjoin the issuance or sale of the Bonds or in any way affecting any authority for or the validity of the Bonds, the Formation Documents, the District Documents or the existence or powers of the City or the District, including Improvement Area No. 2 therein; and (b) As of the Closing Date, the City shall receive the approving opinion of Bond Counsel referred to in Section 4(d)(3) hereof, dated as of the Closing Date.

6. Expenses. Whether or not the Bonds are delivered to the Underwriter as set forth herein:
(a) The Underwriter shall be under no obligation to pay, and the City shall pay or cause to be paid (out of any legally available funds of the District) all expenses incident to the performance of the City’s obligations hereunder, including, but not limited to, the cost of printing, engraving and delivering the Bonds to the Underwriter, the cost of preparation, printing, distribution and delivery of the Fiscal Agent Agreement, the Preliminary Official Statement, the Official Statement and all other agreements and documents contemplated hereby (and drafts of any thereof) in such reasonable quantities as requested by the Underwriter; and the fees and disbursements of the Municipal Advisor, the Special Tax Consultant, the Fiscal Agent, Bond Counsel, Disclosure Counsel and any accountants, engineers or any other experts or consultants the City has retained in connection with the Bonds; and

17 4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171
(b) The City shall be under no obligation to pay, and the Underwriter shall pay, any fees of the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission, the cost of preparation of any “blue sky” or legal investment memoranda and this Purchase Agreement; expenses to qualify the Bonds for sale under any “blue sky” or other state securities laws; and all other expenses incurred by the Underwriter in connection with its public offering and distribution of the Bonds (except those specifically enumerated in paragraph (a) of this section), including the fees and disbursements of its counsel and any advertising expenses.

7. Notices. Any notice or other communication to be given to the City under this Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to the City at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California 95678, Attention: Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer; and any notice or other communication to be given to the Underwriter under this Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to Piper Sandler & Co., 3626 Fair Oaks Blvd. Suite 100, Sacramento, Ca 95864, Attention: Dennis McGuire.

8. Parties in Interest. This Purchase Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the City, the District and the Underwriter (including their successors or assigns), and no other person shall acquire or have any right hereunder or by virtue hereof.

9. Survival of Representations and Warranties. The representations and warranties of the City set forth in or made pursuant to this Purchase Agreement shall not be deemed to have been discharged, satisfied or otherwise rendered void by reason of the Closing or termination of this Purchase Agreement and regardless of any investigations made by or on behalf of the Underwriter (or statements as to the results of such investigations) concerning such representations and statements of the City and regardless of delivery of and payment for the Bonds.

10. Effective. This Purchase Agreement shall become effective and binding upon the respective parties hereto upon the execution of the acceptance hereof by the City and shall be valid and enforceable as of the time of such acceptance.

11. No Prior Agreements. This Purchase Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations, agreements and understandings between the parties hereto in relation to the sale of Bonds for the City.

12. Governing Law. This Purchase Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State applicable to contracts made and performed in the State.

S-1
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

13. Counterparts. This Purchase Agreement may be executed simultaneously in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

Very truly yours,
PIPER SANDLER & CO., as Underwriter
By:

Authorized Officer
ACCEPTED:

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA, for and
on behalf of the City’s Amoruso Ranch
Community Facilities District No. 1 (Public
Facilities)
By:

Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial
Officer
Time: ____ p.m.

A-1
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

EXHIBIT A

MATURITY SCHEDULE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AMORUSO RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1 (PUBLIC FACILITIES) IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2

SPECIAL TAX BONDS
SERIES 2025
Maturity Date
(September 1)
Principal
Amount Interest Rate Yield Price
10% Test
Used
Hold the
Offering
Price Used
C Priced to the optional call date of September 1, 20__ at _____. T Term Bond.

The purchase price of the Bonds shall be $__________, which is the principal amount thereof ($___________) [plus/less] [net] original issue [premium/discount] of $__________ and less Underwriter’s discount of $__________.

Optional Redemption. The Bonds are subject to optional redemption from any source of available funds (other than Prepayments of the Special Tax by property owners), in whole or in part among maturities as specified by the City and by lot within a maturity, on any date on and after September 1, 20__ at the following respective redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed), plus accrued interest thereon to the date of redemption:

A-2
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171
Redemption Dates
Redemption
Price
September 1, 20__ through August 31, 20__ 103%
September 1, 20__ through August 31, 20__ 102
September 1, 20__ through August 31, 20__ 101
September 1, 20__ and any date thereafter 100
Mandatory Redemption from Prepayments. The Bonds are subject to mandatory redemption from Prepayments of the Special Tax by property owners, in whole or in part among maturities as specified by the City and by lot within a maturity, on any Interest Payment Date at the following respective redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed), plus accrued interest thereon to the date of redemption:

Redemption Dates Redemption Price
March 1, 2026 through and including March 1, 20__ 103%
September 1, 20__ and March 1, 20__ 102
September 1, 20__ and March 1, 20__ 101
September 1, 20__ and any Interest Payment Date thereafter 100 Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. The Term Bonds maturing September 1, 20__, and September 1, 20__ are subject to mandatory sinking payment redemption in part on September 1, 20__, and September 1, 20__, respectively, and on each September 1 thereafter to maturity, by lot, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed, without premium, in the aggregate respective principal amounts as set forth in the following tables:

Term Bonds Maturing September 1, 20__
Sinking Fund
Redemption Date
(September 1)
Sinking Fund
Payment
(maturity)
Term Bonds Maturing September 1, 20__
Sinking Fund
Redemption Date
(September 1)
Sinking Fund
Payment
(maturity)
The amounts in the foregoing tables will be reduced pro rata, in order to maintain substantially uniform debt service, as a result of any prior partial optional redemption or mandatory redemption of the Bonds.

B-1
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

EXHIBIT B

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AMORUSO RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1 (PUBLIC FACILITIES) IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2

SPECIAL TAX BONDS
SERIES 2025
RULE 15c2-12 CERTIFICATE
The undersigned hereby certifies and represents that he is the Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer of the City of Roseville, California (the “City”), and, as such, is duly authorized to execute and deliver this certificate and further hereby certifies that:
(1) this certificate is being delivered in connection with the sale and issuance of the City of Roseville Amoruso Ranch Community Facilities District No. 1 (Public Facilities) Improvement Area No. 2 Special Tax Bonds, Series 2025 (the “Bonds”) in order to enable the underwriter of the Bonds to comply with Rule 15c2-12 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Rule”);
(2) in connection with the sale and issuance of the Bonds, there has been prepared a Preliminary Official Statement dated ______, 2025 setting forth information concerning the Bonds and the City of Roseville Amoruso Ranch Community Facilities District No. 1 (Public Facilities) Improvement Area No. 2 (the “Preliminary Official Statement”); and (3) except for the Permitted Omissions, the Preliminary Official Statement is deemed final within the meaning of the Rule. As used herein, the term “Permitted Omissions” refers to the offering price(s), interest rates(s), selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, delivery dates, ratings and other terms of the Bonds depending on such matters, all as set forth in the Rule.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand as of _____, 2025.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
By:

Its: Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer

C-1
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

EXHIBIT C

FORM OF ISSUE PRICE CERTIFICATE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AMORUSO RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1 (PUBLIC FACILITIES) IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2

SPECIAL TAX BONDS
SERIES 2025
The undersigned, on behalf of Piper Sandler & Co. (“Piper”) hereby certifies as set forth below with respect to the sale and issuance of the above-captioned bonds (the “Bonds”).

1. Sale of the General Rule Maturities. As of the date of this certificate, for each Maturity of the General Rule Maturities, the first price at which at least 10% of such Maturity was sold to the Public is the respective price listed in Schedule A.

2. Initial Offering Price of the Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities. (a) Piper offered the Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities to the Public for purchase at the respective initial offering prices listed in Schedule A (the “Initial Offering Prices”) on or before the Sale Date. A copy of the pricing wire or equivalent communication for the Bonds is attached to this certificate as Schedule B.
(b) As set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, dated _____, 2025, by and between Piper and the Issuer, Piper has agreed in writing that, (i) for each Maturity of the Hold-theOffering-Price Maturities, it would neither offer nor sell any of the Bonds of such Maturity to any person at a price that is higher than the Initial Offering Price for such Maturity during the Holding Period for such Maturity (the “hold-the-offering-price rule”), and (ii) any selling group agreement shall contain the agreement of each dealer who is a member of the selling group, and any retail distribution agreement shall contain the agreement of each broker-dealer who is a party to the retail distribution agreement, to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule. Pursuant to such agreement, no Underwriter (as defined below) has offered or sold any Maturity of the Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities at a price that is higher than the respective Initial Offering Price for that Maturity of the Bonds during the Holding Period.

3. Reserve Fund.

The establishment of the Reserve Fund in the amount of the Reserve Requirement (as such terms are defined in the Fiscal Agent Agreement dated as of November 1, 2025, by and between the City and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as fiscal agent, pursuant to which the Bonds are being issued) was vital to the marketing of the Bonds and reasonably required to assure payment of debt service on the Bonds.

4. Defined Terms.
(a) General Rule Maturities means those Maturities of the Bonds listed in Schedule A hereto as the “General Rule Maturities.”

C-2
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171
(b) Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities means those Maturities of the Bonds listed in Schedule A hereto as the “Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities.” (c) Holding Period means, with respect to a Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturity, the period starting on the Sale Date and ending on the earlier of (i) the close of the fifth business day after the Sale Date), or (ii) the date on which Piper has sold at least 10% of such Hold-the-OfferingPrice Maturity to the Public at prices that are no higher than the Initial Offering Price for such Holdthe-Offering-Price Maturity. (d) Issuer means the City of Roseville.
(e) Maturity means Bonds with the same credit and payment terms. Bonds with different maturity dates, or Bonds with the same maturity date but different stated interest rates, are treated as separate Maturities.
(f) Public means any person (including an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation) other than an Underwriter or a related party to an Underwriter.

The term “related party” for purposes of this certificate generally means any two or more persons who have greater than 50 percent common ownership, directly or indirectly. (g) Sale Date means the first day on which there is a binding contract in writing for the sale of a Maturity of the Bonds. The Sale Date of the Bonds is _____, 2025. (h) Underwriter means (i) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract with the Issuer (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public, and (ii) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly with a person described in clause (i) of this paragraph to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public).

The representations set forth in this certificate are limited to factual matters only. Nothing in this certificate represents Piper’s interpretation of any laws, including specifically Sections 103 and 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations thereunder.

The undersigned understands that the foregoing information will be relied upon by the Issuer with respect to certain of the representations set forth in a Certificate as to Arbitrage and Tax Compliance Procedures for the Bonds and with respect to compliance with the federal income tax rules affecting the Bonds, and by Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation in connection with rendering its opinion that the interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the preparation of the Internal Revenue Service Form 8038-G, and other federal income tax advice that it may give to the Issuer from time to time relating to the Bonds.

PIPER SANDLER & CO.

By:

Name:

Dated: _____, 2025

C-3
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

SCHEDULE A

SALE PRICES OF THE GENERAL RULE MATURITIES AND INITIAL OFFERING

PRICES OF THE HOLD-THE-OFFERING-PRICE MATURITIES
(Attached)

C-4
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

SCHEDULE B

PRICING WIRE OR EQUIVALENT COMMUNICATION

D-1
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

EXHIBIT D

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AMORUSO RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1 (PUBLIC FACILITIES) IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2

SPECIAL TAX BONDS
SERIES 2025

LETTER OF REPRESENTATIONS OF BROOKFIELD SUNSET LLC
_____, 2025
In connection with the issuance and sale of the above-captioned bonds (the “Bonds”), and pursuant to Section 4(d)(11) of the Bond Purchase Agreement (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”) to be executed by and between City of Roseville, California (the “City”), for and on behalf of the City of Roseville Amoruso Ranch Community Facilities District No. 1 (Public Facilities) (the “District”), and Piper Sandler & Co. (the “Underwriter”), Brookfield Sunset LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Master Developer”), hereby represents, warrants and covenants to the City, the District and the Underwriter as of the date hereof as set forth herein. Unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms used herein and not defined have the meaning given to them in the Bond Purchase Agreement.

1. The Master Developer is duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and is registered to transact intrastate business in the State of California and has all requisite right, power, and authority to: (i) execute and deliver this Letter of Representations of Brookfield Sunset LLC (the “Letter of Representations”); (ii) to execute and deliver the Master Developer Continuing Disclosure Certificate prior to Closing; and (iii) undertake all of the transactions on its part described in the Preliminary Official Statement.

2. As set forth in the Preliminary Official Statement, certain of the property within Improvement Area No. 2 of the District is held in the name of the Master Developer or its Affiliates1 (herein, the “Property”). The undersigned, on behalf of the Master Developer, make the representations herein with respect to all such Property. 1 “Affiliate” means, with respect to the Master Developer, any other Person: (i) who directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, is currently controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Master Developer; and (ii) for whom information, including financial information or operating data, concerning such Person is material to potential investors in their evaluation of the Property and investment decision regarding the Bonds (i.e., information relevant to: (a) the Master Developer’s development plans with respect to the Property and ability to pay the Special Tax on the Property prior to delinquency; or (b) such Person’s assets or funds that would materially affect the Master Developer’s ability to develop the Property as described in the Preliminary Official Statement or to pay the Special Tax on the Property prior to delinquency). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Brookfield Sacramento HB LLC, a Delaware limited liability company is an Affiliate of the Master Developer. “Person” means an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a limited liability company, an association, a joint stock company, a trust, any unincorporated organization, or a government or political subdivision thereof. For purposes hereof, the term “control” (including the terms “controlling,” “controlled by” or “under common control with”) means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a Person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract or otherwise.

D-2
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

3. The Master Developer has, or will have prior to the Closing, duly authorized the execution and delivery of the Master Developer Continuing Disclosure Certificate at the Closing and the performance by the Master Developer of its obligations thereunder.

4. Except as disclosed in the Preliminary Official Statement, to the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned2, (a) the Master Developer and its Affiliates, are not in breach of or in default under any applicable judgment or decree or any loan agreement, option agreement, development agreement, indenture, bond, or note (collectively, the “Material Agreements”) to which the Master Developer or its Affiliates are a party or otherwise subject, which breach or default could reasonably be expected to materially and adversely affect the ability of the Master Developer or any of its Affiliates to develop the Property as described in the Preliminary Official Statement or to pay the Special Tax levied against the Property (to the extent responsibility of the Master Developer or its Affiliates) prior to delinquency; and (b) no event has occurred and is continuing that with the passage of time or giving of notice, or both, would constitute such a breach or default.

5. Except as described in the Preliminary Official Statement, there is no material indebtedness of the Master Developer or its Affiliates that is secured by an interest in the Property.

To the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, neither the Master Developer nor any of its Affiliates is in default on any obligation to repay borrowed money, which default is reasonably likely to materially and adversely affect the Master Developer or its Affiliates’ ability to develop the Property as described in the Preliminary Official Statement or to pay the Special Tax levied against the Property (to the extent the responsibility of the Master Developer or its Affiliates) prior to delinquency.

6. Except as set forth in the Preliminary Official Statement, no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation, at law or in equity, before or by any court, regulatory agency, public board or body is pending against the Master Developer (with proper service of process to the Master Developer having been accomplished) or, to the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, is pending against any Affiliate of the Master Developer (with proper service of process to such Affiliate having been accomplished) or to the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned is overtly threatened in writing against the Master Developer or any such Affiliate which, if successful, is reasonably likely to materially and adversely affect the ability of the Master Developer or any of its Affiliates to develop the Property as described in the Preliminary Official Statement.

7. As of the date thereof, to the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, the Preliminary Official Statement, solely with respect to information contained therein with respect to the Master Developer, its Affiliates, the Master Developer’s and its Affiliates’ development plan for the Property, the Master Developer’s or its Affiliates’ financing plan, the Master Developer’s or its Affiliates’ lenders, if any, and contractual arrangements of the Master Developer or any Affiliate of the Master Developer (including, if material to the Master Developer’s development plan or the 2 “Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned” means the actual (as opposed to constructive) knowledge that the individual signing on behalf of the Master Developer currently has as of the date of this Letter of Representations or has obtained through: (i) interviews with such current officers and responsible employees of the Master Developer and its Affiliates as the undersigned have determined are reasonably likely, in the ordinary course of their respective duties, to have knowledge of the matters that are set forth in this Letter of Representations; and/or (ii) review of documents that were reasonably available to the undersigned and which the undersigned has reasonably deemed necessary in order for the undersigned to obtain knowledge of the matters that are set forth in this Letter of Representations. The undersigned has not conducted any extraordinary inspection or inquiry other than such inspections or inquiries as are prudent and customary in connection with the ordinary course of the Master Developer’s current business and operations. Officers and employees no longer working for the Master Developer or its Affiliates have not been contacted.

D-3
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171
Master Developer’s financing plan, other loans of such Affiliates) as set forth under the captions entitled “THE AMORUSO RANCH DEVELOPMENT,” “THE MASTER DEVELOPER,” “MERCHANT BUILDER INFORMATION,” “SPECIAL RISK FACTORS—Property Values and Property Development—Endangered and Threatened Species, or “CONTINUING DISCLOSURE— The Master Developer” (excluding therefrom, in each case, information which is identified as having been provided by a source other than the Master Developer or its Affiliates), is true and correct in all material respects and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

8. The Master Developer covenants that, while the Bonds or any refunding obligations related thereto are outstanding, the Master Developer and its Affiliates which it controls will not bring any action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity, before any court, regulatory agency, public board or body that in any way seeks to challenge or overturn the formation of the District, to challenge the adoption of the ordinance of the City levying the Special Tax within Improvement Area No. 2 of the District, to invalidate the District or any of the Bonds or any refunding bonds related thereto, or to invalidate the special tax liens imposed under Section 3115.5 of the Streets and Highways Code based on recordation of the notice of special tax lien relating thereto.

The foregoing covenant shall not prevent the Master Developer or any Affiliate in any way from bringing any other action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity, before any court, regulatory agency, public board or body including, without limitation, (a) an action or suit contending that the Special Tax has not been levied in accordance with the methodologies contained in the District’s Rate, Method of Apportionment, and Manner of Collection of Special Tax pursuant to which the Special Tax is levied, (b) an action or suit with respect to the application or use of the Special Tax levied and collected, (c) an action or suit to enforce the obligations of the City and/or the District under the Formation Documents, the District Documents, or any other agreements among the Master Developer or its Affiliates, the City, and/or the District or to which the Master Developer or its Affiliates is a party or beneficiary (including, but not limited to, the Fiscal Agent Agreement).

9. Except as disclosed in the Preliminary Official Statement or as a matter of public record (including, without limitation, liens for ad valorem tax obligations), to the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, no public debt secured by a tax or assessment on the property in Improvement Area No. 2 of the District exists or is in the process of being authorized that would include any portion of such property.

10. To the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, the Master Developer and its Affiliates have not been delinquent to any material extent in the payment of any ad valorem property tax, special assessment or special tax on property owned by the Master Developer or its Affiliates during the period of its ownership included within the boundaries of a community facilities district or an assessment district within California within the last five (5) years that (a) caused a draw on a reserve fund relating to such assessment district or community facilities district financing or (b) resulted in a foreclosure action being commenced in a court of law against the Master Developer or its Affiliates.

11. The Master Developer and its Affiliates intend to comply with the provision of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, as amended relating to the Notice of Special Tax described in Government Code Section 53341.5 in connection with the sale of the Property, or portions thereof.

D-4
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

12. To the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, the Master Developer and its Affiliates are able to pay their bills as they become due and no legal proceedings are pending against the Master Developer or its Affiliates (with proper service of process to the Master Developer or its Affiliates, as applicable, having been accomplished) or, to the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, overtly threatened in writing in which the Master Developer or any of its Affiliates may be adjudicated as bankrupt or discharged from any and all of its debts or obligations, or granted an extension of time to pay its debts or obligations, or be allowed to reorganize or readjust its debts, or be subject to control or supervision of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

13. Based upon their respective current development plans, including, without limitation, their current budgets, and subject to economic conditions and risks generally inherent in the development of real property, many of which are beyond the control of the Master Developer and its Affiliates, and except as disclosed in the Preliminary Official Statement including in the sections entitled “THE AMORUSO RANCH DEVELOPMENT,” “THE MASTER DEVELOPER,” and “MERCHANT BUILDER INFORMATION,” to the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, the Master Developer ands its Affiliates currently expect that they will have sufficient funds and/or sources of funds to develop the Property as described in the Preliminary Official Statement. The Master Developer and its Affiliates reserve the right to change their respective development plans and financing plans for Improvement Area No. 2 of the District and the Property as a whole at any time without notice.

14. Solely as to the limited information described in Paragraph 6 above (and subject to the limitations and exclusions set forth in Paragraph 6), the Master Developer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law, the City, the District, and their officials and employees, and each Person, if any (each, an “Indemnified Party” and together, the “Indemnified Parties”), who controls any of the foregoing within the meaning of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or of Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against all claims, damages, or liabilities (collectively, “Claims”) incurred by an Indemnified Party under any statute or at law or in equity, to the extent that such Claims arise from an untrue statement by the Master Developer of a material fact contained in the information described in Paragraph 6 above (and subject to the limitations and exclusions set forth in Paragraph 6), as of the date of the Preliminary Official Statement, or the omission by the Master Developer to state in the Preliminary Official Statement, as of its date, a material fact necessary to make the statements made by the Master Developer contained therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made not misleading. This indemnity provision shall not be construed as a limitation on any other liability which the Master Developer may otherwise have to any Indemnified Party, provided that in no event shall the Master Developer be obligated for double indemnification. Further, in no event shall the Master Developer’s liability under this indemnification provision extend to any claims, damages, liability, losses or costs arising out of or related to the negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.

In the event that a covered Claim is brought against any Indemnified Party, such Indemnified Party shall promptly notify the Master Developer in writing; provided that the failure to notify the Master Developer shall not relieve it from any liability that it may have hereunder except to the extent that it has been materially prejudiced (through the forfeiture of substantive rights or defenses) by such failure; and provided, further, that the failure to notify the Master Developer shall not relieve it from any liability that it may have to an Indemnified Party otherwise than under the above paragraph unless such liability was also conditioned upon such notice. If any proceeding shall be brought or asserted against an Indemnified Party upon a covered Claim, and it shall have notified the Master Developer thereof, the

D-5
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171
Master Developer shall retain counsel reasonably satisfactory to the Indemnified Party (who may be counsel to the Master Developer) to represent the Indemnified Party in such proceeding regarding the covered Claim and shall pay the fees and expenses of such counsel solely with respect to such proceeding, as incurred. Any Indemnified Party shall have the right to retain its own counsel in such proceeding, but the fees and expenses of such counsel shall be at the expense of such Indemnified Party unless (i) the Master Developer and the Indemnified Party shall have mutually agreed to the contrary; (ii) the Master Developer has failed within a reasonable time to retain counsel reasonably satisfactory to the Indemnified Party; (iii) the Indemnified Party shall have reasonably concluded that there may be legal defenses available to it that are different from or in addition to those available to the Master Developer such that a material conflict of interest exists for such counsel; or (iv) the named parties in any such proceeding (including any impleaded parties) include both the Master Developer and the Indemnified Party and representation of both parties by the same counsel would be inappropriate due to actual or potential differing interest between them. It is understood and agreed that the Master Developer shall not, in connection with any proceeding or related proceedings in the same jurisdiction, be liable for the fees and expenses of more than one separate firm (in addition to any local counsel) for all Indemnified Parties, and that all such fees and expenses, to the extent reasonable, shall be paid or reimbursed as they are incurred. Any such separate firm shall be designated in writing by such Indemnified Parties. The Master Developer shall not be liable for any settlement of any proceeding effected without its written consent. The Master Developer shall not, without the written consent of the Indemnified Party, effect any settlement of any pending or threatened proceeding upon a covered Claim in respect of which any Indemnified Party is a party, unless such settlement (x) includes an unconditional release of such Indemnified Party, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to such Indemnified Party, from all liability on claims that are the subject matter of such proceeding and (y) does not include any statement as to or any admission of fault, culpability or a failure to act by or on behalf of any Indemnified Party.

15. If, between the date hereof and the Closing Date, to the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, any event relating to or affecting the Master Developer, its Affiliates, the Master Developer’s or its Affiliates’ development plan, the Master Developer’s or its Affiliates’ financing plan, the Master Developer’s or its Affiliates’ lenders, if any, and contractual arrangements of the Master Developer or any Affiliate of the Master Developer (including, if material to the Master Developer’s development plan or the Master Developer’s financing plan, other loans of such Affiliates) shall occur which the undersigned believe would cause the information under the sections of the Preliminary Official Statement indicated in Paragraph 6 hereof (and subject to the limitations and exclusions set forth in Paragraph 6), to contain an untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the undersigned shall notify the City and the Underwriter and if in the opinion of counsel to the City or the Underwriter, such event requires the preparation and publication of a supplement or amendment to the Preliminary Official Statement, the Master Developer shall reasonably cooperate with the City in the preparation of an amendment or supplement to the Preliminary Official Statement in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to counsel to the City and to the Underwriter.

16. On behalf of the Master Developer, we have reviewed the contents of this Certificate and have met with counsel to the Master Developer for the purpose of discussing the meaning of its contents.

D-6
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171
The undersigned has executed this Letter of Representations solely in his or her capacity as an authorized representative of the Master Developer and he or she will have no personal liability arising from or relating to this Letter of Representations.

BROOKFIELD SUNSET LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: _____________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________

E-1
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

EXHIBIT E
$__________

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AMORUSO RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1 (PUBLIC FACILITIES) IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2

SPECIAL TAX BONDS
SERIES 2025

CLOSING CERTIFICATE OF BROOKFIELD SUNSET LLC
Dated: _____, 2025
In connection with the issuance and sale of the above-captioned bonds (the “Bonds”), and pursuant to Section 4(d)(11) of the Bond Purchase Agreement (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”) executed by and between City of Roseville, California (the “City”), for and on behalf of the City of Roseville Amoruso Ranch Community Facilities District No. 1 (Public Facilities) (the “District”), and Piper Sandler & Co. (the “Underwriter”), Brookfield Sunset LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Master Developer”), hereby represents, warrants and covenants to the City, the District and the Underwriter as of the date hereof. Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Letter of Representations of Brookfield Sunset LLC, dated ______, 2025 (the “Letter of Representations”), delivered by the Master Developer.
(1) The undersigned is duly authorized to execute this Closing Certificate of Brookfield Sunset LLC (the “Closing Certificate”) on behalf of the Master Developer. (2) Except as disclosed in the final Official Statement relating to the Bonds (the “Final Official Statement”), to the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, no event has occurred since the date of the Preliminary Official Statement which has materially and adversely affected or is reasonably expected to materially and adversely affect the business, properties, operations or financial condition of the Master Developer or any of its Affiliates. (3) To the Actual Knowledge of the Undersigned, the representations and warranties made by the Master Developer in the Letter of Representations are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the date hereof, with the same effect as if made on the date hereof, except that all references to the Preliminary Official Statement in the Letter of Representations shall be deemed references to the Final Official Statement. (4) For the period through 25 days after the “end of the underwriting period” as defined in the Bond Purchase Agreement to mean the Closing Date, if any event relating to or affecting the Master Developer, its Affiliates, the Master Developer’s or its Affiliates’ development plan, the Master Developer’s or its Affiliates’ financing plan, the Master Developer’s or its Affiliates’ lenders, if any, and contractual arrangements of the Master Developer or any Affiliates of the Master Developer (including, if material to the Master Developer’s development plan or the Master Developer’s financing plan, other loans of such Affiliates) shall occur as a result of which it is necessary, in the opinion of the Underwriter or counsel to the City, to amend or supplement the Official Statement in order to make the

E-2
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171
information under the sections of the Official Statement indicated in Paragraph 6 of the Letter of Representations (and subject to the limitations and exclusions set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Letter of Representations) not misleading in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, the Master Developer shall reasonably cooperate with the City and the Underwriter in the preparation of an amendment or supplement to the Official Statement in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Underwriter and Disclosure Counsel which will amend or supplement the Official Statement so that it will not contain an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

The undersigned has executed this Closing Certificate solely in his or her capacity as an authorized representative of the Master Developer and he or she will have no personal liability arising from or relating to this Closing Certificate.

BROOKFIELD SUNSET LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: _____________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ____________________________

F-1
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171

EXHIBIT F

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AMORUSO RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1 (PUBLIC FACILITIES) IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2

SPECIAL TAX BONDS
SERIES 2025

FORM OF NEGATIVE ASSURANCE LETTER FROM COUNSEL TO THE MASTER

DEVELOPER
_____, 2025
City of Roseville Amoruso Ranch Community
Facilities District No. 1 (Public Facilities)
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California 95678
Piper Sandler & Co.
3626 Fair Oaks Blvd., Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95864
Re: $__________ City of Roseville Amoruso Ranch Community Facilities District No. 1 (Public Facilities), Improvement Area No. 2, Special Tax Bonds, Series 2025 Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have acted as special counsel to Brookfield Sunset LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Developer”), in connection with the development of certain property located within the boundaries of Improvement Area No. 2 of the City of Roseville Amoruso Ranch Community Facilities District No. 1 (Public Facilities) (the “Community Facilities District”), and in connection with the issuance by the Community Facilities District of the $___________ aggregate principal amount of City of Roseville Amoruso Ranch Community Facilities District No. 1 (Public Facilities), Improvement Area No. 2, Special Tax Bonds, Series 2025 (the “Bonds”). The Bonds are described in that certain Preliminary Official Statement dated _____, 2025 (the “Preliminary Official Statement”) and that certain Official Statement dated ______, 2025 (the “Official Statement”).

The Bonds are being sold to Piper Sandler & Co., as underwriter (the “Underwriter”), pursuant to that certain Bond Purchase Agreement, dated _____, 2025 (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”), by and between the Underwriter and the City of Roseville (the “City”) on behalf of the Community Facilities District. This letter is provided for the benefit of the Community Facilities District and the Underwriter pursuant to Section 4(d)(12) of the Bond Purchase Agreement.

We advise you that we are not general counsel to the Developer and do not represent the Developer on a continuing basis. Rather, we represent the Developer as requested from time to time on specific matters.

The primary purpose of our professional engagement was not to establish or confirm factual

F-2
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171
matters or quantitative information. We are not passing upon and do not assume any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or fairness of any of the statements contained in the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement and make no representation that we have independently verified the accuracy, completeness, or fairness of any such statements. However, in our capacity as special counsel to the Developer, we reviewed those sections of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement described below and we participated in conferences with representatives of the Developer, the Underwriter, Jones Hall LLP, as Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP, as Underwriter’s Counsel, and others, during which conferences the contents of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement and related matters were discussed. We have reviewed only the electronic versions of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement delivered to Robert M. Haight, Jr. ([email protected]) on ________, 2025 and _______, 2025, respectively, from _______ (the “Official Electronic Versions”), and we assume that any printed versions and all other electronic versions of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement are identical in all respects to the respective Official Electronic Versions. Our statements herein with respect to the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement do not pertain to any printed or electronic versions of the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement that are not identical in all respects to the respective Official Electronic Versions. We also reviewed certain written statements of officers and other representatives of the Developer and others as to the existence and consequence of certain factual and other matters.

Based on our participation, review, and reliance as described above, we advise you that no information came to the attention of the lawyers in our firm rendering legal services in connection with such representation that caused us to believe that the statements contained in the Preliminary Official Statement, as of its date (except as updated in the Official Statement), and the Official Statement, as of its date and as of the date hereof, relating to the Developer and its Affiliates (as defined in the Letter of Representations of Brookfield Sunset LLC, dated ______, 2025), the Developer’s and its Affiliates’ development plan for the Amoruso Ranch project, the Developer’s and its Affiliates’ financing plan, the Developer’s and its Affiliates’ lenders, if any, and contractual arrangements of the Developer or any Affiliate of the Developer (including, if material to the Developer’s development plan or the Developer’s financing plan, other loans of such Affiliates) as set forth under the captions of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement entitled “THE AMORUSO RANCH DEVELOPMENT,” “THE MASTER DEVELOPER,” and “MERCHANT BUILDER INFORMATION” (but, under all captions, excluding any information cited as coming from a source other than the Developer or its Affiliates, and excluding any information regarding any appraisal, any absorption study, and market value ratio and annual special tax ratio, and except that no belief or view is expressed as to (a) any financial statements and other financial, statistical, economic, demographic, or engineering data or forecasts, numbers, charts, tables, graphs, estimates, projections, assumptions, or expressions of opinion, or (b) any information about valuation, appraisals, market absorption, archaeological, or environmental matters), contained or contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted or omits a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. For purposes of this paragraph, “attention” refers to the conscious awareness of each of the lawyers in our firm who actively participated in rendering legal services in connection with such representation and “believe” refers to the actual, subjective, good faith belief of each of those lawyers. Please be advised that only Robert M. Haight, Jr. has rendered such legal services in connection with such representation.

We express no view or belief as to the applicability or effect on the subject transaction of the

F-3
4909-2793-7386v2/024667-0171
securities laws of the State of California or of the United States of America, including but not limited to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

No attorney-client relationship has existed or exists between our firm and the City, the Community Facilities District, or the Underwriter in connection with the Bonds or by virtue of this letter. This letter is delivered as of the date hereof and is furnished solely for the benefit of the addressees in connection with the subject transaction and may not be relied upon for any other purpose or furnished to, used, circulated, quoted, or referred to by any other person without our prior written consent, except that this letter may be copied and distributed as part of a closing book of the bond transaction documents, provided that such distribution shall not expand in any way the permitted uses of this letter. This letter is not intended to, and may not, be relied upon by any owners of the Bonds.

Our engagement with respect to this matter has terminated as of the date hereof, and we do not undertake to advise you of any matters that may come to our attention subsequent to the date hereof that may affect the statements set forth herein.

This letter is limited to the matters expressly set forth herein, and no belief or assurance is implied or may be inferred beyond the matters expressly stated herein.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 10/15/2025
Item #: VIII.27
File #:

Item ID: 2025-673
Title: Public Facilities Fee Update, Nexus Study Adoption, and Roseville Municipal Code Amendment
Contact: Jeannine Thrash 916-774-5473 [email protected]

SUMMARY
This item has been continued to the November 19, 2025 City Council Meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

BACKGROUND

FISCAL IMPACT

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS

1. Ensure a safe and healthy community

2. Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world

4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

6. Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeannine Thrash, Management Analyst
Scott Pettingell, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 25-329

2. Public Facility Fee Nexus Study 2025 updates

3. Ordinance
REVIEWERS:

Jeannine Thrash, Finance Department Created/Initiated - 9/24/2025

Scott Pettingell, Finance Department - Budget Approved - 9/26/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/30/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/30/2025 Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/30/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 10/2/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 10/2/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 10/7/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 10/7/2025

RESOLUTION NO. 25-329
ADOPTING THE 2025 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY WHEREAS, the Public Facilities Fee (PFF) is updated periodically to reflect changes in developable land, cost estimates, or outside funding sources; and WHEREAS, the most recent major update to the PFF Program occurred in 2020, when the Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study established the legal basis for the update; and WHEREAS, since the last update, Roseville’s continued growth has increased the demand for public facilities and the 2025 Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study (2025 Nexus Study) proposes updates to the PFF Program; and
WHEREAS, an adjustment to the fee is recommended to reflect changes in the building program and rising construction costs needed to deliver the public facilities required to serve the community and also ensures compliance with the provisions of AB 602; and WHEREAS, the 2025 Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said 2025 Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study is hereby adopted.

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

Public Review Draft Report
Public Facilities Impact Fee
Program Nexus Study—
2025 Update
Prepared for:

City of Roseville
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
EPS #242059
September 2025

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1
Purpose of This 2025 Nexus Study........................................................................ 1 Authority ........................................................................................................... 1 Summary .......................................................................................................... 2 Updates in the 2025 Program............................................................................... 5 Nexus Study Requirements .................................................................................. 6 Organization of Report ........................................................................................ 7

2. Fee Update Method, Land Use, and Service Population Assumptions 9 Fee Update Method ............................................................................................. 9 Cost Allocation Methodology................................................................................. 9 Land Use Assumptions ......................................................................................10 Population and Employment Assumptions ............................................................12

3. Planned Public Facilities 21
Planned Public Facilities Costs and Funding ..........................................................21 Planned Public Facilities Descriptions ...................................................................27

4. Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation 33

5. Implementation 37
Implementing Ordinances/Resolutions................................................................. 37 Fee Administration............................................................................................37 PFF Exemptions, Reimbursements, and Credits.....................................................38 Fee Program Update .........................................................................................38 Non-Fee Revenue Sources .................................................................................40

6. Nexus Findings 41
California Government Code Section 66001..........................................................41 California Government Code Section 66016.5 (AB 602) .........................................45 A. Land Use Assumptions 50
Residential Land Use Assumptions ......................................................................50 Nonresidential Land Use Assumptions..................................................................50 Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions
Appendix B: PFF Capital Improvement Program

List of Tables
Table 1-1 Summary of Proposed Fee Rates...................................................................3 Table 1-2 Public Facilities Fee Comparison by Component - Excluding Administration.........4 Table 2-1 Existing and Projected Development............................................................11 Table 2-2 Estimated Population/Employees ................................................................15 Table 2-3 Estimated Persons Served..........................................................................19 Table 3-1 PFF Fund Balance Distribution.....................................................................22 Table 3-2 Public Facilities Costs and Funding Sources Summary....................................23 Table 3-3 Planned Public Facilities Costs And Funding Sources ......................................25 Table 3-4 Interfund Loan Repayments and Bond Debt Service ......................................28 Table 3-5 PFF Summary Costs – Parks, Recreation, and Libraries ..................................31 Table 4-1 Cost Allocation for General City and Public Safety Facilities ............................35 Table 4-2 Cost Allocation for Parks, Recreation, and Libraries .......................................36

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
1 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

1. Introduction and Executive Summary
This 2025 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update Nexus Study (2025 Nexus Study) provides the City of Roseville (City) with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of an updated Public Facilities Fee (PFF). The City originally adopted a PFF Program in 1991 and subsequently updated the program in 2003, 2007, 2015, and 2020.

The PFF Program funds new development’s obligations to construct public facilities serving residents and employees in the City. Fee program–eligible public improvements include Police and Public Safety Facilities; General Public Facilities such as Civic Centers, Corporation Yards, and other basic infrastructure; and Community Facilities such as libraries, parks and recreation facilities, community centers, and cultural facilities.

This report provides the nexus findings and analysis and the associated calculations of the maximum supportable citywide fees that could be charged. The City may elect to adopt fees below the maximum supportable level based on economic or policy considerations. For example, the City may choose to reduce the fees in specific locations or on certain types of uses to encourage new development in underutilized areas or to promote certain residential densities. Such fee reductions would require either a reduction in the overall capital facilities standards or the identification of alternative sources of capital funding.

Purpose of T his 2025 Nexus Study
As a development impact fee, the PFF can be charged only to new development and must be based on the impact of new development on public facilities infrastructure.

The purpose of this 2025 Nexus Study is to update the nexus (or reasonable relationship) between new development that occurs in the City and the need for additional public facility improvements as a result of this new development. This PFF update is based on the standards identified in the City General Plan and the City’s planned public facility amenities.

Authority
This study serves as the basis for requiring development impact fees under Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 legislation, as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code sections 66000 et. seq.). This section of the Mitigation Fee Act sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. These procedures require that a reasonable relationship, or nexus, must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 2
Summary
As new development continues to occur in the City, additional public facilities will be required to serve future residents and employees. The public facility costs allocated to new development reflect the public facility improvements needed to accommodate future development. This 2025 Nexus Study computes future development’s share of future public facility improvement costs based on planned facilities as determined by the City and calibrated by existing level-of-service standards. The PFF will not fund the construction of public facility improvements required to cure existing level-ofservice deficiencies. Public facilities included in the PFF Program include the following general categories of facilities:
• General City and Public Safety Facilities, including civic centers, parking structures, and information technology infrastructure
• Community Facilities such as libraries, community centers, cultural facilities, parks, and recreational facilities
Table 1-1 summarizes the maximum justifiable PFF by cost component and land use category by square foot ranges for residential development and by building square foota for commercial development for this 2025 Nexus Study. Table 1-2 compares the total proposed PFF to the current PFF for each cost component. In total, the proposed fee ranges from approximately 22 to 85 percent greater than the current fee, depending on the land use.

In response to the provisions of AB 602, the PFF Fee has been updated to reflect a cost allocation methodology that calculates the fee by dwelling unit sizes.

In 2023, South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) staff, representatives from each member agency, and a consultant team started a process to update the SPRTA travel demand model (TDM) as well as the Tier I and II Regional Impact Fee programs. In January 2024, SPRTA updated the SPRTA Tier I fee, pursuant to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, including the new method of computing fees for residential land uses based on requirements mandated by AB-602 and SB-13, which went into effect in 2022. With the guidance of City Staff and stakeholders, the PFF study has adopted the same square foot ranges to calculate residential fees proportionately to the square footage of the dwelling units.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
3 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 1-1 Summary of Proposed Fee Rates
Land Use
General City
and Public
Safety Facilities
Parks,
Recreation,
and Libraries Subtotal
Administration
(2%)
Total
Proposed
Fee
Residential
Residential
<1,500 sq. ft. $1,873 $3,095 $4,968 $99 $5,067
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. $2,322 $3,836 $6,158 $123 $6,281 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. $2,516 $4,156 $6,672 $133 $6,805 >3,500 sq. ft. $2,656 $4,388 $7,044 $141 $7,185
Age-Restricted
<1,500 sq. ft. $1,275 $2,107 $3,382 $68 $3,450
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. $1,583 $2,616 $4,199 $84 $4,283
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. $1,715 $2,834 $4,549 $91 $4,640
>3,500 sq. ft. $1,759 $2,906 $4,665 $93 $4,758
Multifamily
<1,500 sq. ft. $1,264 $2,089 $3,353 $67 $3,420
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. $1,567 $2,589 $4,156 $83 $4,239
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. $1,697 $2,804 $4,501 $90 $4,591
>3,500 sq. ft. $1,792 $2,961 $4,753 $95 $4,848
Multifamily Age-Restricted
<1,500 sq. ft. $880 $1,453 $2,333 $47 $2,380
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. $1,068 $1,765 $2,833 $57 $2,890
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. $1,157 $1,912 $3,069 $61 $3,130
>3,500 sq. ft. $1,187 $1,961 $3,148 $63 $3,211
Nonresidential
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial $0.59 $0.47 $1.06 $0.02 $1.08
Community Commercial $0.59 $0.47 $1.06 $0.02 $1.08
Regional Commercial $0.59 $0.47 $1.06 $0.02 $1.08
Business Professional $0.79 $0.63 $1.42 $0.03 $1.45
Central Business District $0.79 $0.63 $1.42 $0.03 $1.45 Industrial
Light Industrial $0.40 $0.31 $0.71 $0.01 $0.72
General Industrial $0.24 $0.19 $0.43 $0.01 $0.44
Source: City of Roseville and EPS
Proposed Fees
Per Unit
Per Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
4 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 1-2 Public Facilities Fee Comparison by Component - Excluding Administration Land Use
General City
and Public
Safety Fac.

Parks,
Recreation,
and Libraries
Total
(eff. July 1, 2025)
General City
and Public
Safety Fac.

Parks,
Recreation,
and Libraries Total
General City
and Public
Safety Fac.

Parks,
Recreation,
and Libraries Total
General City
and Public
Safety Fac.

Parks,
Recreation,
and Libraries Total
Residential
Residential
<1,500 sq. ft. $1,873 $3,095 $4,968 ($181) $1,186 $1,005 (8.8%) 62.1% 25.4% 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. $2,322 $3,836 $6,158 $268 $1,927 $2,195 13.0% 101.0% 55.4% 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. $2,516 $4,156 $6,672 $462 $2,247 $2,709 22.5% 117.7% 68.4% >3,500 sq. ft. $2,656 $4,388 $7,044 $602 $2,479 $3,081 29.3% 129.9% 77.7% Age-Restricted
<1,500 sq. ft. $1,275 $2,107 $3,382 ($94) $835 $741 (6.8%) 65.6% 28.1% 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. $1,583 $2,616 $4,199 $214 $1,344 $1,558 15.7% 105.6% 59.0% 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. $1,715 $2,834 $4,549 $346 $1,562 $1,908 25.3% 122.7% 72.2% >3,500 sq. ft. $1,759 $2,906 $4,665 $390 $1,634 $2,024 28.5% 128.4% 76.6% Multifamily
<1,500 sq. ft. $1,264 $2,089 $3,353 ($105) $817 $712 (7.6%) 64.2% 27.0% 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. $1,567 $2,589 $4,156 $198 $1,317 $1,515 14.5% 103.5% 57.4% 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. $1,697 $2,804 $4,501 $328 $1,532 $1,860 24.0% 120.4% 70.4% >3,500 sq. ft. $1,792 $2,961 $4,753 $423 $1,689 $2,112 30.9% 132.7% 80.0% Multifamily Age-Restricted
<1,500 sq. ft. $880 $1,453 $2,333 ($489) $181 ($308) (35.7%) 14.2% (11.7%) 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. $1,068 $1,765 $2,833 ($301) $493 $192 (22.0%) 38.7% 7.3% 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. $1,157 $1,912 $3,069 ($212) $640 $428 (15.5%) 50.3% 16.2% >3,500 sq. ft. $1,187 $1,961 $3,148 ($182) $689 $507 (13.3%) 54.1% 19.2% Nonresidential
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial $0.51 $0.23 $0.74 $0.59 $0.47 $1.06 $0.08 $0.24 $0.32 15.2% 106.4% 43.2% Community Commercial $0.51 $0.23 $0.74 $0.59 $0.47 $1.06 $0.08 $0.24 $0.32 15.2% 106.4% 43.2% Regional Commercial $0.51 $0.23 $0.74 $0.59 $0.47 $1.06 $0.08 $0.24 $0.32 15.2% 106.4% 43.2% Business Professional $0.69 $0.31 $1.00 $0.79 $0.63 $1.42 $0.10 $0.32 $0.42 14.6% 103.0% 42.0% Central Business District $0.69 $0.31 $1.00 $0.79 $0.63 $1.42 $0.10 $0.32 $0.42 14.6% 103.0% 42.0% Industrial
Light Industrial $0.34 $0.15 $0.49 $0.40 $0.31 $0.71 $0.06 $0.16 $0.22 17.0% 109.3% 44.9% General Industrial $0.21 $0.09 $0.30 $0.24 $0.19 $0.43 $0.03 $0.10 $0.13 14.3% 104.6% 42.1% fee comp2
Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] Total difference may not exactly equal proposed fee less current fee because of rounding. 2024 Current Fee (excluding 2% admin.) Proposed Fee (excluding 2% admin.) Difference [1] Percentage Difference $2,054 $1,909 $3,963
Per Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Per Unit
$1,369 $1,272 $2,641
$1,369 $1,272 $2,641
$1,141 $1,060 $2,201

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
5 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Land Use Assumptions
The future land uses used in this study represent the growth the City is anticipated to experience through buildout of the General Plan in 2035. Future development projections are estimated as buildout development less existing development, with some adjustments to account for anticipated lower levels of development in some areas of the City than specified in the General Plan. The buildout development is based on the allocated development specified in the General Plan for each of the City’s 16 plan areas (14 Specific Plan Areas and 2 Planning Areas). The estimated existing development is based on building permit data from the City.

PFF Facilities Costs, Fee Calculation, and Cost Allocation This 2025 Nexus Study provides detail regarding facility requirements based on the fee methodology described above. Based on the future facility requirements and unit cost estimates as determined by EPS and the City, total facility costs and the proportion of the costs attributable to future development are calculated.

Costs are allocated to future development based on the benefit derived from the public facility improvement by land use category for each fee component. This study uses a persons-served cost allocation methodology to apportion public facility costs in accordance with the benefit received by land use category. PFF facility requirements, the associated costs, cost allocation, and fee calculations are discussed in more detail in the chapters to follow.

Updates in the 2025 Program
This 2025 Nexus Study updates the 2020 Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study (2020 Nexus Study) with the following information and revisions:
• Updated existing and future facility improvements and associated cost assumptions.
• Updated land use assumptions for existing and future development. • Updated fee calculations based on a housing development project’s proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the project.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 6
Nexus Study Requirements
California Government Code 66000
The purpose of a Nexus Study is to establish the legally required nexus (or reasonable relationship) between projected new residential and nonresidential development and the capital facilities that will be required to serve that new development.

As briefly described in the previous section, the nexus requirements for imposing development impact fees were established under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act; California Government Code section 66000 and following). The Act sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. The procedures require that a “reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.”1 Specifically, each local agency imposing a fee must:
• Identify the purpose of the fee.
• Identify how the fee is to be used.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. • Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. • Determine how a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility is attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Assembly Bill 602
In addition, in 2021, AB 602 amended the requirements that would apply to new or updated impact fees by creating a “standards and practices” section to the Act, codified as Government Code Section 66016.5. This section is both declaratory of previously existing law and has added certain new requirements. A new provision that pertains to this report requires that a nexus study “shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development” [66016.5(a)(5)(A)], and “large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study” [66016.5(a)(6)].

Water and sewer systems are specifically exempt from the requirements of Section 66016.5. An exemption to the square footage allocation method may be made for other backbone infrastructure if the nexus study makes the following three findings:
• An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.
1 Public Needs & Private Dollars; William Abbott, Marian E. Moe, and Marilee Hanson, page 109.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
7 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
• An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. • That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Section 66016.5 [66016.5(a)(5)(C)] also states that the square footage allocation method “does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments.”
In response to these provisions of AB 602, this Nexus Study Update provides findings that justify the use of the residential fee land uses summarized above for the various fee components. Chapter 6 details all required nexus findings.

Organization of Report
This report is divided into 6 chapters including this Introduction and Executive Summary:
• Chapter 2 describes the fee update methodology, land uses, and future development analyzed in this report.
• Chapter 3 describes the facility requirements and estimated facility costs. • Chapter 4 details the cost allocation methodology and calculation of the maximum justifiable fee for the PFF Program.
• Chapter 5 describes how the PFF Program will be implemented. • Chapter 6 presents the nexus findings for the PFF Program.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 8

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
9 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

2. Fee Update Method, Land Use, and
Service Population Assumptions
This chapter outlines the major assumptions used in this 2025 Nexus Study, including an overview of the fee update and cost allocation methodologies, land use assumptions for existing and future development, and population and employment growth calculations.

Fee Update Method
Development impact fees must be related to the demand for facilities generated by new development. As outlined in the previous chapter, several findings regarding the demand and need for new facilities generated by new land uses are required to levy a fee on future development. The fee imposed must demonstrate rough proportionality to the demand generated, or benefit received by each land use category on which the fee is imposed.

Several methods exist to determine impact fees for new development. This 2025 Nexus Study relies on a plan-based fee method to establish the relationship between costs and updated PFF. The plan-based fee method determines planned facilities based on a facility master plan that identifies facilities designed to serve a defined geographic area or specific service population. Planned facilities are determined based on an evaluation of the adequacy of existing facilities, location, and type of projected future development, additional demand to be generated, and facility improvements required to create sufficient capacity to meet demand. The City has identified a specific set of public facility needs, as well as new development’s proportionate share of those needs, further details can be found in Appendix B: PFF Capital Improvement Program. Because this nexus study utilizes the plan based approach and PFF costs are only being allocated to future development this study does not quantify the existing levels of service.

Cost Allocation Methodology
This 2025 Nexus Study employs a persons-served cost allocation methodology to apportion costs amongst the various land use categories based on each land use category’s proportionate benefit from each facility type.

Under the persons-served cost allocation methodology, public facility costs are allocated based on the City’s existing and future residential and employee populations. To comply with the requirements in AB 602, the residential land use categories are based on ranges of unit square feet and on nonresidential land uses in accordance with the number of employees per 1,000 building square feet.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 10
An adjustment factor is applied to the employee population to account for varying demand characteristics of nonresidential land uses as compared to residential land uses.

Land Use Assumptions
Working with the City Development Services Department, EPS established the existing, future, and 2035 General Plan buildout land use assumptions documented in Table 2-1. Appendix A offers a detailed description of the basis for these land use assumptions, discussed in summary form below.

Existing development estimates, current as of January 2025, were created based on building permit data provided by the City. Buildout land use assumptions were derived based on City analysis of development capacity by development area and land use allocation data by development area from the City’s General Plan, as well as a review of relevant Specific Plan data and land use plans. Projected future development was derived based on the difference between projected buildout and current development levels and reflects development anticipated to occur within the fee program planning horizon period of 2025 to 2035.

As shown in Table 2-1, the City is projected to add approximately 14,700 dwelling units between 2025 and 2035. Residential land uses include the following land use categories:
• Residential
— <1,500 sq. ft. Residential
— 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. Residential
— 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. Residential
— >3,500 sq. ft. Residential
• Age-Restricted
— <1,500 sq. ft. Age-Restricted
— 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. Age-Restricted
— 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. Age-Restricted
— >3,500 sq. ft. Age-Restricted
• Multifamily
— <1,500 sq. ft. Residential
— 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. Residential
— 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. Residential
— >3,500 sq. ft. Residential
• Multifamily Age-Restricted
— <1,500 sq. ft. Residential
— 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. Residential
— 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. Residential
— >3,500 sq. ft. Residential

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
11 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 2-1 Existing and Projected Development
Land Use Existing Future [1] Buildout
Residential
Source
Residential
Low Density 39,522 2,820 42,342
Medium Density 8,727 2,681 11,408
High Density 10,789 9,213 20,002
Subtotal Residential 59,038 14,714 73,752
Age-Restricted 3,210 - 3,210
Total Residential 62,248 14,714 76,962
Nonresidential
Source Table A-6 Table A-7
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial 128,125 207,681 335,806
Community Commercial 11,685,023 2,693,625 14,378,648
Regional Commercial 4,577,369 680,196 5,257,565
Business Professional 8,302,191 3,042,711 11,344,902
Central Business District 959,444 1,236,193 2,195,637
Subtotal Commercial 25,652,152 7,860,406 33,512,558
Industrial
Light Industrial 7,983,868 3,576,384 11,560,252
General Industrial 4,054,299 4,522,652 8,576,951
Subtotal Industrial 12,038,167 8,099,036 20,137,203
Total Nonresidential 37,690,319 15,959,442 53,649,761
Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] Future units estimated as buildout units less existing units.

Dwelling Units / Building Square Feet
dwelling units
bldg. sq. ft.

City of Roseville

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 12
Future nonresidential development consists of approximately 7.8 million square feet of commercial development and 8.1 million square feet of industrial development, for a total of 16.0 million square feet from 2025 through 2035. The categories of commercial and industrial development are listed below:
• Commercial
— Neighborhood Commercial
— Community Commercial
— Regional Commercial
— Business Professional
— Central Business District
• Industrial
— Light Industrial
— General Industrial
All impact fees have been calculated per residential dwelling unit and per nonresidential building square foot, based on the population and employment densities discussed in the section to follow.

Population and Employment Assumptions
PFF Program costs are allocated in accordance with the population or employees generated by each of the various land use categories discussed above. EPS estimated the existing population via a review of California Department of Finance population data. For each residential category, future population was estimated by applying persons-per-household assumptions to estimated future development. The persons-per-household data was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey. As shown in Table 2-2, the estimated current City population is roughly 154,000 residents. Future residential development is anticipated to generate an additional 35,000 residents, for a total residential population at General Plan buildout of roughly 189,000.

Existing and future employees were estimated by applying standard square feet per employee assumptions to each nonresidential land use category, as shown in Table 2-2. EPS and the City estimate that based on the existing nonresidential land use distribution and United States Census Bureau data, the current employee population totals approximately 89,000 employees. New nonresidential development will create an estimated 34,000 permanent jobs, generating a buildout General Plan employee population of approximately 123,000 employees.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
13 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Residential Estimates and Projections
This section details the methodology for estimating existing and projecting new residential development and population by residential land use through buildout.

Existing Estimates
The estimated existing dwelling units in the City reflect data provided by the City’s Development Services Department. The estimated total population in the City reflect data provided by the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates for Roseville as of January 1, 2024, the most recent DOF data available. The DOF reports population in total only, so a breakdown by single-family, multifamily, and agerestricted units is not available and is not shown in Table 2-2.

Projections Through Buildout
The remaining development and population projections through buildout are shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 in the “Future” columns. Note that these projections for new development in the City are used in the fee calculations.

Development
The projected new residential dwelling units through buildout are the estimated remaining dwelling units in the current City limits based on data provided by the City’s Development Services Department. The projections were derived from a variety of sources, including City staff, the General Plan, and respective specific area plans.

Population
For each land use, the population is estimated as the projected number of new dwelling units through City buildout multiplied by the estimated persons per household (PPH). The PPH factors vary for single-family and age-restricted units and were derived from the City’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget and sourced from ESRI and the US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data for the City.

Total Projections
The total projected dwelling units and population in the City at buildout are calculated as the sum of the estimated existing and new units and population, respectively. In total, it is projected that the City will have approximately 77,000 dwelling units and a population of 190,000 after buildout. The existing dwelling units and population estimates account for just over 80 percent of these totals.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 14
Nonresidential Estimates and Projections
This section details the methodology for estimating existing and projecting new nonresidential development and employees by nonresidential land use through buildout. The development estimates and projections shown in Table 2-1 are further detailed in Tables A-6 through A-10.

Existing Estimates
City staff provided existing nonresidential building square feet by nonresidential land use. Total existing employees were derived based on dividing existing building square feet by an estimate of the average building square feet per employee by commercial land use. These estimates were used to estimate the total number of employees through 2024 and is shown in Table 2-1.

Projections Through Buildout
The nonresidential development and employee projections through buildout are shown in Table 2-1 in the “Future” columns. Note that these projections for new development in the City are used in the fee calculations.

Development
The projected new nonresidential building square feet by land use through buildout are a combination of the estimated remaining building square feet in the current City. The projections were derived from subtracting the existing building square footage from the total building square footage at buildout. The projections are based on the remaining nonresidential acres by land use in the City. For each nonresidential development type, a floor area ratio (FAR) is applied to the remaining acres to estimate remaining building square feet.

Table A-6 summarizes the existing nonresidential square feet in the City by land use. Tables A-7 through A-10 provide the backup detail for future building sq. ft. plus any adjustments made to account for anticipated reduced levels of development as described in further detail in Appendix A.

Employees
For each nonresidential land use, the employees are estimated as the projected number of new building square feet through City buildout divided by an estimate of building square feet per employee. The building square feet per employee factors vary by nonresidential land use and are based on industry standards and the 2020 Nexus Study.

Total Projections
The total projected nonresidential building square feet and employees in the City after buildout are calculated as the sum of the estimated existing and new building square feet and employees, respectively. In total, it is projected that the City will have approximately 53.6 million nonresidential building square feet and 123,000 employees after buildout. The existing nonresidential development and employee estimates account for approximately 70 and 73 percent of this total respectively.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
15 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 2-2 Estimated Population/Employees
Land Use Existing Future Buildout Existing [3] Future Buildout Residential PPH
Single Family Residential
<1,500 sq. ft. 0.81 2.13 10,789 9,213 20,002 - 19,624 19,624 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. [4] 1.00 2.64 8,727 2,681 11,408 - 7,078 7,078 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. 1.08 2.86 39,522 2,820 42,342 - 8,065 8,065 >3,500 sq. ft. 1.14 3.02 - - - - - - Subtotal Residential 59,038 14,714 73,752 - 34,767 34,767 Age-Restricted
<1,500 sq. ft. 0.81 1.45 3,110 - 3,110 - - - 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. [5] 1.00 1.80 100 - 100 - - - 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. 1.08 1.95 - - - - - - >3,500 sq. ft. 1.11 2.00 - - - - - - Subtotal Age-Restricted 3,210 - 3,210 - - - Subtotal Residential [3] 62,248 14,714 76,962 154,329 34,767 189,096 Nonresidential Sq. Ft. per Emp.

Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial 400 128,125 207,681 335,806 320 519 839 Community Commercial 400 11,685,023 2,693,625 14,378,648 29,213 6,734 35,947 Regional Commercial 400 4,577,369 680,196 5,257,565 11,443 1,700 13,143 Business Professional 300 8,302,191 3,042,711 11,344,902 27,674 10,142 37,816 Central Business District 300 959,444 1,236,193 2,195,637 3,198 4,121 7,319 Subtotal Commercial 25,652,152 7,860,406 33,512,558 71,848 23,216 95,064 Industrial
Light Industrial 600 7,983,868 3,576,384 11,560,252 13,306 5,961 19,267 General Industrial 1,000 4,054,299 4,522,652 8,576,951 4,054 4,523 8,577 Subtotal Industrial 12,038,167 8,099,036 20,137,203 17,360 10,484 27,844 Subtotal Nonresidential 37,690,319 15,959,442 53,649,761 89,208 33,700 122,908 Total All Land Uses 243,537 68,467 312,004
Source: City of Roseville, EPS, and California Department of Finance (DOF) the 2023 American Housing Survey. See Table A-1 for additional detail. [2] Persons per Household is 2.64 as cited in the City's FY 2025-26 budget and is sourced from ESRI and the U.S. Census Bureau. [3] Existing population equals January 1, 2024 household population from CA DOF. Existing PPH assumptions applied to future dwelling units to derive future population. A breakdown of existing population by unit type is not available from CA DOF. Total buildout population is calculated as total existing population plus total future population. Development Impact Fees are based on net new population. [4] Assumed to be the average unit size. DOF PPH factors were based on 1,500-2,500 sq. ft. units. [5] Previous study established 1.8 PPH in single family age-restricted housing. This analysis assumes the same factor as the previous study. [1] PPH factors are based on the average person's per household based on the national average of persons per household by dwelling unit size category from Building Square Feet
Residents Employees
PPH Factor
[1]
PPH/
Sq. Ft.
per Emp. [2]
Dwelling Units / Square Feet Population / Employees
Dwelling Units

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
16 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Residential Demographic Information by Dwelling Unit Size Persons per Household Factors by Residential Unit Size Ranges As discussed in Chapter 1, in response to the provisions of AB 602, the singlefamily and multifamily fees charged by dwelling unit square foot range. These fee components and fee categories by square foot range are summarized below.

Note that single-family and multifamily development will each have the same fee categories. The square foot ranges were aligned between single-family and multifamily units based on available data and to simplify fee administration.

Single-Family, Multifamily, Single Family Age-Restricted, and Multifamily AgeRestricted Categories — <1,500 sq. ft. Residential
— 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. Residential
— 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. Residential
— >3,500 sq. ft. Residential
Persons per Household are used in cost allocations needed to establish the PFF fees. Because each of these fee components will have fees that are charged by dwelling unit square foot range, persons per household must be established for the single-family, age-restricted and multifamily square foot ranges summarized above. The methods for estimating the persons per household by square foot range are detailed below.

Persons per Household by Square Foot Range
Table 2-2 summarizes the calculation of the single-family and multifamily PPH by residential square foot range. The methodology for estimating the single-family and multifamily PPH by square foot range is outlined in the steps below:

1. Compile 2023 AHS national data on PPH by square foot range for all occupied units. Table A-1 summarizes the following data needed to calculate the PPH by square foot range:
‒ Number of households surveyed by number of persons per household (1 to 7 PPH) for each fee category square foot range.
‒ Resulting total number of units and persons per square foot range. ‒ Average national PPH for each square foot range, calculated as total persons divided by total units surveyed.
‒ Average PPH adjustment factor for each square foot range, calculated as average PPH for the square foot range divided by PPH for the 1,500 to 2,500 square foot range.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

2. Using the PPH adjustment factors from step 1, estimate PPH by fee category square foot range for single family and age-restricted units as shown in Table 2-2. This table includes the following pertinent information:
‒ PPH adjustment factor for each square foot range from step 1. ‒ Average PPH (2.64) and age-restricted PPH (1.8) by unit size. Recall the average persons per household in Roseville is 2.64 and is based on the City’s FY 2025-2026 Budget documents.
‒ PPH factor for each single-family square foot range, calculated as the average single-family PPH (2.64) multiplied by the PPH adjustment factor for the range.
‒ PPH factor for each age-restricted square foot range, calculated as the average age-restricted PPH (1.8) multiplied by the PPH adjustment factor for the range, with a maximum PPH for age-restricted set at 2.

Tables A-3 through A-5 detail the calculation of the multifamily PPH and multifamily age-restricted PPH by residential square foot range. The methodology for estimating the multifamily and multifamily age-restricted PPH is outlined below:

3. Compile 2023 AHS national data on PPH by square foot range for single family and multifamily units. Table A-4 summarizes the following data needed to calculate the PPH by square foot range:
‒ Number of households surveyed by number of persons per household (1 to 7 PPH) for each fee category, single family and multi-family. ‒ Resulting total number of units and persons per square foot range. ‒ Average national PPH calculated as total persons divided by total units surveyed.
‒ Adjustment factor for multifamily units calculated as dividing the average PPH for multifamily units by the average PPH for single family units.

4. Using the PPH adjustment factor from step 3, estimate average PPH for multifamily age-restricted units. Table A-5 summarizes the following data needed to calculate the PPH for multifamily age-restricted units. ‒ PPH adjustment factor for multifamily units step 1.
‒ Average age-restricted PPH (1.8) in single family age-restricted units. ‒ Multifamily age-restricted PPH, calculated as the average single-family PPH (1.8) multiplied by the PPH multifamily adjustment factor from step 3.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 18
Service Population Estimates
Table 2-3 provides the service population estimates used as the basis to allocate PFF Program costs. Service population estimates apply an adjustment factor to total employees to reflect their lower demand for public facilities as compared to residents. This study uses two service population estimates for purposes of cost allocation:

General City and Public Safety Facilities. These facilities include all facilities in the PFF Program excluding parks, recreation, and library facilities. The service population is derived assuming an employee weighting factor of 0.27, meaning that an employee generates roughly 27 percent of the demand generated by a resident.

As detailed in Table 2-3, this estimate is derived based on the estimated proportionate time spent in the jurisdiction by an employee relative to a resident.

Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities. Because the users of these facilities predominantly originate from residential uses, the employee weighting factor used to derive the service population for these facilities was reduced by 50 percent. For these facilities, the report is based on the assumption that an employee is equivalent to 0.13 residents.

For each of these service population estimates, Table 2-3 includes the percentage of the total service population at buildout that is attributable to existing and future development. For General City and Public Safety Facilities, approximately 80 percent of the buildout service population is attributable to existing development, and 20 percent is attributable to future development. For Parks, Recreation, and Libraries, approximately 81 percent of the buildout service population is attributable to existing development, and 19 percent is attributable to future development.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
19 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 2-3 Estimated Persons Served
Item Existing Future Buildout
Population/Employees
Residential Population 154,329 34,767 189,096
Nonresidential Employees 89,208 33,700 122,908
Persons Served - General City and Public Safety Facilities Residential 1.00 154,329 34,767 189,096
Nonresidential 0.27 24,086 9,099 33,185
Total 178,415 43,866 222,281
Percentage of Total (Rounded) 80% 20% 100%
Persons Served - Parks, Recreation, and Libraries
Residential 1.00 154,329 34,767 189,096
Nonresidential 0.13 11,597 4,381 15,978
Total 165,926 39,148 205,074
Percentage of Total (Rounded) 81% 19% 100%
Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] Persons served are based on the relative amount of time spent in the City and relative benefit received by residents and employees from public facilities, as detailed below:

Persons
Served
Factor [1]
Persons Served

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 20

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
21 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

3. Planned Public Facilities
As summarized in the previous chapter, the PFF-funded public facilities are classified into two categories for the purposes of establishing the PFF, as summarized below:
• General City and Public Safety Facilities
— General City Facilities such as civic centers, corporation yards, parking structures, and other basic infrastructure.
— Police and Public Safety Facilities.
• Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities
This chapter presents a list of City public facilities required to serve new development and are based on City staff estimates of public facilities needed to serve projected new residents and employees.

Planned Public Facilities Costs and Funding
As the City continues to grow, City staff anticipates that additional public facilities will be required to serve new residents, businesses, and employees at similar levels currently provided to existing residents and employees. The City provided an inventory of planned public facility amenities to be funded all or in part by the PFF Program.

Table 3-1 summarizes the net cost of the PFF-funded improvements by fee component. For each of the two fee components, the net cost is calculated as the PFF-funded improvement cost less the existing fund balance. The existing fund balance is distributed to each of the fee components based on the relative PFFfunded cost of each component and is included on Table 3-1.

Table 3-2 summarizes the total estimated cost of each public facility, new development’s share of that cost included in the fee program, and other funding sources that have been identified either to fund existing development’s share of the costs or to reduce future development’s cost share. See Table 3-3 for additional details on other funding sources.

The net cost of planned public facilities attributable to future development and included in the PFF Program total approximately $121.1 million (see Table 3-1).

This cost estimate takes into account existing development’s share of total costs, other available funding sources, and application of the existing fund balance to offset PFF Program costs.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 22
Table 3-1 PFF Fund Balance Distribution
Item
PFF-Funded
Improvement
Cost [1]
Available Fund
Balance [2] Total
General City and Public Safety Facilities $56,573,484 ($17,991,295) $38,582,189 PR&L Development Projects $64,524,384 ($7,637,296) $56,887,089 Total PFF Funded Cost $121,097,869 ($25,628,591) $95,469,278 Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] See Table 3-2.
[2] See Table B-3 for additional details regarding current fund balances.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
23 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 3-2 Public Facilities Costs and Funding Sources Summary Facility
Total
Cost
% New
Development
[1]
PFF
Funded
Other
Funding
Remaining Public Facilities
Downtown Development Projects
316 Vernon Street - Interfund Loan Repayment [2] [3] $1,236,194 100.0% $1,236,194 $0 316 Vernon Street - Debt Service [2] [3] $3,812,081 100.0% $3,812,081 $0 Oak Street Parking Garage - Interfund Loan Repayment [2] [3] $364,746 100.0% $364,746 $0 Historic Old Town Parking Structure $26,500,000 54.1% $14,344,729 $12,155,271 Subtotal $31,913,021 $19,757,751 $12,155,271
Public Safety Facilities
Public Safety Expansion [4] $43,274,213 70.3% $30,413,333 $12,860,880 Animal Control Facility Phase 2 $12,000,000 50.0% $6,000,000 $6,000,000 Subtotal $55,274,213 $36,413,333 $18,860,880
IT Projects
East Site Communication Tower $2,965,306 n/a $402,401 $2,562,905 Subtotal $2,965,306 $402,401 $2,562,905
Total Planned General City and Public Safety Facilities $90,152,540 $56,573,484 $33,579,056 PR&L Development Projects [5]
Pistachio Regional Park [6] $132,209,440 35.0% $46,273,304 $85,936,136 Splash Pad and Playground at Pistachio Regional Park $2,496,946 35.0% $873,931 $1,623,015 West Roseville Skate Park $6,609,962 22.2% $1,465,441 $5,144,521 Universally Accessible and Destination Playgrounds $3,400,000 35.0% $1,190,000 $2,210,000 Citywide Park $94,003,300 15.7% $14,721,708 $79,281,592 Total PR&L Development Projects $238,719,648 $64,524,384 $174,195,264 Total Planned Public Facilities $328,872,188 $121,097,869 $207,774,319 Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] Costs attributable to new development are equal to the percentage allocation from the 2020 Nexus Study Update unless otherwise indicated.
[2] See Table 3-4 for details on remaining debt service payments. [3] 316 Vernon Street and the Oak Street Parking Garage are completed projects. Costs listed here are equal to the total construction costs and do not include interest payments as a result of paid, and remaining, debt service payments. [4] See Table B-1 for detailed information on the breakdown in cost allocation for the public safety expansion. [5] PFF Funded Costs are based on future persons served as percentage of total persons served. See Table B-2 for detailed cost allocation and Table 2-3 for service population estimates. [6] Pistachio Park includes the following facilities: West Roseville Community Center & Library, BMX, Pickleball Complex, and Parking.

Improvement Cost

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 24

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
25 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 3-3 Planned Public Facilities Costs And Funding Sources Facility
Total
Cost
% New
Development
[1]
PFF
Funded [2]
Other
Funding
Existing
Development
[2]
WRSP Citywide Park
Fund
SVSP Citywide Park
Fund
Strategic
Improvement
Fund
Other Funding
[3]
General City and Public Safety Facilities
Downtown Development Projects
316 Vernon Street - Interfund Loan Repayment [4] $1,236,194 100% $1,236,194 - - - - - - 316 Vernon Street - Debt Service [4] $3,812,081 100% $3,812,081 - - - - - - Oak Street Parking Garage - Interfund Loan Repayment [4] $364,746 100% $364,746 - - - - - - Historic Old Town/Amtrak Parking Lot and Structure [5] $26,500,000 54% $14,344,729 $12,155,271 $12,155,271 - - - - Subtotal $31,913,021 $19,757,751 $12,155,271 $12,155,271 - - - - Public Safety Facilities
Police Department Expansion & Alterations [6] $43,274,213 70% $30,413,333 $12,860,880 $12,860,880 - - - - Animal Control Facility Phase 2 $12,000,000 50% $6,000,000 $6,000,000 - - - - $6,000,000 Subtotal $55,274,213 $36,413,333 $18,860,880 $12,860,880 - - - $6,000,000 IT Projects
East Site Communication Tower $2,965,306 n/a $402,401 $2,562,905 - - - $1,513,414 $1,049,491 Subtotal $2,965,306 $402,401 $2,562,905 - - - $1,513,414 $1,049,491 Total Planned General City and Public Safety Facilities $90,152,540 $56,573,484 $33,579,056 $25,016,151 - - $1,513,414 $7,049,491 PR&L Development Projects
Pistachio Regional Park [7] $132,209,440 35% $46,273,304 $85,936,136 $58,627,386 $4,000,000 - - $23,308,750 West Roseville Community Center & Library $123,308,750 35% $43,158,063 $80,150,688 $56,841,938 $23,308,750 BMX, Pickleball Complex, and Parking $8,900,690 35% $3,115,241 $5,785,448 $1,785,448 $4,000,000 Splash Pad and Playground at Pistachio Regional Park $2,496,946 35% $873,931 $1,623,015 $623,015 $1,000,000 - - - West Roseville Skate Park $6,609,962 22% $1,465,441 $5,144,521 - $5,144,521 - - - Universally Accessible and Destination Playgrounds $3,400,000 35% $1,190,000 $2,210,000 $2,210,000 - - - - Citywide Park $94,003,300 16% $14,721,708 $79,281,592 - - $34,281,592 - $45,000,000 Total PR&L Development Projects $238,719,648 $64,524,384 $174,195,264 $61,460,401 $10,144,521 $34,281,592 - $68,308,750 Total Planned Public Facilities $328,872,188 $121,097,869 $207,774,319 $86,476,551 $10,144,521 $34,281,592 $1,513,414 $75,358,241 Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] See Table B-1 and Table B-2 for cost allocation details. [2] PFF Funded Costs are based on future persons served as percentage of total persons served. See Table 2-3 for service population estimates. [4] Costs reflect net present value of outstanding interfund loan repayments and outstanding debt service. See Table 3-4. [5] PFF Funded Costs are based on the same future persons served cost allocation as the 2020 Nexus Study Update. See Table B-1 for detailed cost allocation details. [6] Phases 1 and 2 are expansions and all costs are allocated to future development. Phase 3 alterations are based on future persons served as percentage of total persons served. See Table B-1 for detailed cost allocation and Table 2-3 for service population estimates. [7] Pistachio Park includes the following facilities: West Roseville Community Center & Library, BMX, Pickleball Complex, and Parking.

Other Funding Sources
[3] Other funding sources could include general fund revenue, development exactions, other fee programs, general obligation bonds, joint use facilities/partnerships, grants, donations, or other sources.

The City will likely rely on a combination of many funding sources to fully finance projects in the PFF Capital Improvement Plan and will continue to seek and leverage all available funding mechanisms for public facility development.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
27 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
27 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Planned Public Facilities Descriptions
Each improvement included in Table 3-3, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is described below.

Downtown Development Projects
Civic Center Expansion—316 Vernon Street
The 316 Vernon Street project consists of an approximately 80,000-square-foot 4-story building on the site of the existing City Hall Annex. The project has been completed and provides downtown office space necessary to house City staff and administration functions through 2035. Currently some of the existing square footage is being used for additional training rooms and the City is considering options for the remaining square footage. Ground-floor retail also will be provided, as required by the Downtown Code, but the cost to construct this portion of the project is not included in the PFF Program.

The total remaining PFF-funded cost reflects the net present value of the remaining payments on an interfund loan from the Strategic Improvement Fund and a portion of the debt service on the bonds that were issued to fund the project. The scheduled loan and debt service payments are detailed in Table 3-4 and have a total estimated net present value of $5 million.

Oak Street Parking Garage
The Oak Street Parking Garage is a seven-story, 429-space parking garage located between Oak Street and the 200-block of Vernon Street. The project has been completed and provides free public parking for the downtown community. The PFFeligible improvements include pedestrian connections between the parking garage and Oak, Lincoln, and Vernon Streets.

The total remaining PFF-funded cost reflects the net present value of the remaining payments on an interfund loan from the Automobile Replacement Fund. The scheduled payments are detailed in Table 3-4 and have a total estimated net present value of $365,000.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 28
Table 3-4 Interfund Loan Repayments and Bond Debt Service Historic Old Town Parking Structure
The Historic Old Town Parking Structure is planned to be a multi-story 297 space parking garage located to the east of Lincoln Street, south of Sierra Boulevard, and west of and adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The total estimated cost of the project is $26.5 million, with PFF funding of $14.3 million.

Oak Street
Parking Garage [1]
316 Vernon
Street [2]
316 Vernon Street
Debt Svc.[3]
2025 $41,955 $431,711 $400,000
2026 $41,173 $424,154 $400,000
2027 $40,390 $416,598 $400,000
2028 $39,607 - $400,000
2029 $38,824 - $400,000
2030 $38,042 - $400,000
2031 $37,259 - $400,000
2032 $36,476 - $400,000
2033 $35,694 - $400,000
2034 $34,911 - $400,000
2035 $34,128 - $400,000
Total $418,459 $1,272,463 $4,400,000
NPV of Loan Repayments (@3%) $364,746 $1,236,194 $3,812,081 Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] Interfund loan from Automobile Replacement Fund.
[2] Interfund loan from Strategic Improvement Fund.
[3] Reflects remaining debt service to be paid out of PFF Debt service payments will extend beyond 2035, but only payments through 2035 are included since the fee update is based on development through the General Plan timeframe of 2035.
[3] Total debt service to be paid out of PFF = $12 million. $2,515,034.67 has been paid to date, leaving $9,484,965 to be paid. Debt service payments will extend beyond 2035, but only payments through 2035 are included since the fee update is based on development through the General Plan timeframe of 2035.

Fiscal Year
Interfund Loan and Debt Service Payment Schedules

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
29 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Public Safety Facilities
Public Safety Expansion
The Police Department has continued to grow and expand since moving in its current location in 1998. In addition, the Public Safety IT team was moved to the police department several years ago and that division also continues to grow. Existing facilities are near capacity, and as new public safety personnel are added to serve the resident and employee population generated by new development, existing facilities will require expansion. Although the Professional Standards Unit was previously relocated, available space will not be sufficient to accommodate the personnel that will be needed to support projected growth.

The total cost to expand the public safety facilities is estimated at $43.3 million.

Animal Control Facility
Public safety facility needs include development of a new Domestic Animal Care Facility, which will be located on a 2.2-acre site located at the corner of Yosemite Street and Tahoe Avenue. Fee program–eligible costs include the following improvements:
• Renovation and conversion of an existing 15,818-square-foot 1-story building into a public-orientated Adoption Center and administrative area. • Expansion of an existing 1,770-square-foot mezzanine to 4,370 square feet. • Addition of a new 20,334-square-foot, 1-story building to house a Holding and Support Area, Educational Center, and a public Veterinary Clinic.

Phase 1 of this project has been completed, including the existing building renovation, the new Education Center, and the majority of the site work (parking, drive aisle, new underground utilities). The Veterinary Clinic component is already funded and currently under construction. Phase 2 will include the Holding and Support Area at an estimated cost of $12.0 million, with half of the cost ($6 million) to be PFF-funded and the remaining half to be funded by leveraging multiple revenue sources, as identified in Chapter 5 and Appendix B.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 30
Information Technology Projects
East Site Communication Tower
Because of the current East site limitations and resulting lack of standards to meet Public Safety needs, a new communications site is needed in East Roseville. The project requires property acquisition and an 180-foot tower along with a shelter, generator and fuel tank to meet the City’s short and long-term needs. The existing East site has limitations including lack of:
• Radio coverage
• Emergency power
• Capacity for growth both within the electrical closet and on top of the building • City control resulting in operational and financial risk The new communications site is estimated to cost approximately $3 million.

Approximately $400,000 is allocated for land acquisition of the still undetermined site, and the remainder is for construction. The City Strategic Improvement Fund and other sources of funding as identified in Chapter 5 and Appendix B will provide funding for approximately $2.6 million of the tower.

Parks, Recreation, and Library Development Projects
Citywide Park and Community Facilities
The City has plans to construct a variety of park and community facilities. A portion of these facilities will be funded by the PFF. Potential Citywide park and community facilities are listed below:
• Pistachio Regional Park
— West Roseville Community Center and Library
— BMX, Pickleball Complex, and Parking
• Water/Splash Pad
• West Roseville Specific Plan Skate Park
• Universally Accessible and Destination Playgrounds
• Citywide Park (Parcel KT-50)
Table 3-5 summarizes the costs of each of these facilities. The total cost is estimated at $238.8 million with 27 percent of the costs, or approximately $64.6 million, to be funded by the PFF.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
31 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Citywide Park Parcel KT-50
Located in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, KT-50 is envisioned as a regional multiplefield baseball facility, including a stadium. Total costs are anticipated to be approximately $94.0 million, with partial funding of approximately $34.3 million provided by the Citywide park fund. The PFF Program will fund an estimated cost of $14.7 million and $45.0 million of the remaining costs are anticipated to be funded by leveraging multiple revenue sources as identified in Chapter 5 and Appendix B.

Table 3-5 PFF Summary Costs – Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Facilities Total Costs
Pistachio Regional Park
West Roseville Community Center & Library $123,308,750
BMX, Pickleball Complex, and Parking $8,900,690
Subtotal Pistachio Regional Park $132,209,440
Splash Pad and Playground at Pistachio Regional Park $2,496,946 West Roseville Skate Park $6,609,962
Universally Accessible and Destination Playgrounds $3,400,000 Citywide Park $94,003,300
Total Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities $238,719,648 Source: City of Roseville and EPS

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 32

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
33 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

4. Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation
Having established the costs of planned public facilities needed to serve new development, those costs need to be distributed equitably over various anticipated land uses in the form of a maximum justifiable fee per unit by sq. ft. range for residential development, and a fee per square foot for nonresidential development.

This section describes the methodology used to allocate the cost of future development’s share of planned public facility costs to residential and nonresidential land uses. These calculations result in a maximum justifiable fee per residential unit and per nonresidential square foot.

The purpose of allocating certain improvement costs among the various land uses is to provide an equitable method to fund required facilities. The keys to apportioning the cost of citywide improvements to different land uses are the assumptions that the demands placed on public facilities are related to land use type and that such demands can be stated in relative terms for all land uses. It is by relating demand for facilities to land use types that a nexus, or reasonable relationship, can be established to apportion the fair share costs to that land use.

This study uses a common-use factor to relate the demand for public facilities generated by residents and employees. Public facility costs are allocated to residential and nonresidential land uses on a “persons-served basis.” whereby costs are attributed to both future residents and employees. The common-use factor for residential land uses is the number of persons per household for each residential land use category.

The general steps to allocate the costs and estimate the fees shown in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 for each backbone infrastructure and public facilities fee component are outlined below:

1. Determine the PFF Program costs. These costs were detailed in the previous chapter.

2. Determine the PPH/Bldg. sq. ft. factor for each land use that serves as a measure of demand placed on the improvement relative to the demand of a Single-family 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. dwelling unit.

3. For each land use, multiply the factor by the number of PPH/Emp. per sq. ft. (dwelling units or 1,000 commercial bldg. sq. ft.) and sum across land uses to derive the total service population.

4. Calculate the cost per person as the total cost divided by the total service population.

5. For each land use, calculate the cost per unit by range or building square foot as the PPH/Emp. per sq. ft. multiplied by the cost per person. — Multifamily fees by sq. ft. range are calculated by multiplying each single family fee by sq. ft. range by the multifamily adjustment factor, shown in Table A-4.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 34
— Multifamily age-restricted fees by sq. ft. range are calculated by multiplying each single family fee by sq. ft. range by the multifamily age-restricted adjustment factor, shown in Table A-5
Cost Allocation by Component
As outlined above, PPH/Emp. by sq. ft. factors are used to allocate improvement costs to each land use based on the land use’s demand placed on an improvement type relative to the demand from a single-family unit.

The common-use factor for nonresidential land uses is based on the number of employees generated per 1,000 sq. ft. for commercial, office, and industrial development. For purposes of the facility cost allocation, the total number of projected employees is adjusted to reflect the demand for public facilities by an employee as it relates to the demand for the facilities generated by a resident. For purposes of cost allocation, the employee adjustment factor varies depending on the type of facility:
• General City and Public Safety Facilities. The relative demand of an employee for all public facilities excluding parks, recreation, and library facilities is calculated based on time spent in the jurisdiction as compared to that of a resident. Assuming one employee spends 45 hours per week in the jurisdiction, one employee is assumed to equal 0.27 residents (45 hours per week divided by 168 hours per week).
• Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities. This study is based on the assumption that the benefit an employee derives from parks, recreation, and library facilities will be substantially lower than that derived from other public facilities. For cost allocation purposes, therefore, the employee adjustment factor is reduced by 50 percent, and one employee is assumed to equal 0.13 residents.

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 detail the allocation of costs for each category of public facilities. The total service population generated by each land use category is estimated based on the total number of future residential units or nonresidential square feet and the corresponding resident or employee density. The appropriate adjustment factor is applied to the number of employees generated by each land use category to derive the total service population. Public facility costs then are distributed to each land use category based on that land use category’s percentage share of the total service population. Dividing by the total number of projected future units or nonresidential square footage generates the total public facility cost per residential unit by square foot range or nonresidential square foot. Addition of a 2 percent administration charge generates the total maximum justifiable fee for each land use category.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
35 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 4-1 Cost Allocation for General City and Public Safety Facilities Land Use
Costs Per
person
PPH/
Bldg. Sq.

Ft. Factor
PPH/
Emp. Per
Sq. Ft.

Employee
Weight
Factor
Cost
Per Unit/
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Total Cost $56,887,089
Service Population 39,148
Cost Per Person $1,453
Residential PPH per unit
Residential
<1,500 sq. ft. 0.81 2.13 - $3,095
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. 1.00 2.64 - $3,836
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. 1.08 2.86 - $4,156
>3,500 sq. ft. 1.14 3.02 - $4,388
Age-Restricted
<1,500 sq. ft. 0.81 1.45 - $2,107
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. 1.00 1.80 - $2,616
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. 1.08 1.95 - $2,834
>3,500 sq. ft. [1] 1.11 2.00 - $2,906
Multifamily [2]
<1,500 sq. ft. 0.81 1.44 - $2,089
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. 1.00 1.78 - $2,589
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. 1.08 1.93 - $2,804
>3,500 sq. ft. 1.14 2.04 - $2,961
Multifamily Age-Restricted [3]
<1,500 sq. ft. [4] 0.82 1.00 - $1,453
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. 1.00 1.21 - $1,765
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. 0.74 1.32 - $1,912
>3,500 sq. ft. 0.76 1.35 - $1,961
Nonresidential
emp per 1,000
sq ft per bldg. sq. ft.

Commercial Weighting Factor A B = 1,000 / A C = B * 0.13 D = 1,533 * C / 1,000 Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial 400 2.50 0.33 $0.47
Community Commercial 400 2.50 0.33 $0.47
Regional Commercial 400 2.50 0.33 $0.47
Business Professional 300 3.33 0.43 $0.63
Central Business District 300 3.33 0.43 $0.63
Subtotal Commercial
Industrial
Light Industrial 600 1.67 0.22 $0.31
General Industrial 1,000 1.00 0.13 $0.19
Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] The PPH Factor has been adjusted downward to cap the maximum persons per household at two for age-restricted units.
[2] The multifamily fee is calculated by multiplying the single family fee in each sq. ft. range by the multifamily adjustment factor of 0.67. See Table A-4 for details.
[3] The multifamily age-restricted fee is calculated by multiplying the single family age restricted fee in each sq. ft. range by the multifamily age-restricted adjustment factor of 0.67. See Table A-5 for details. [4] The PPH Factor has been adjusted upward to set the minimum persons per household to one for multifamily age-restricted units.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 36
Table 4-2 Cost Allocation for Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Land Use
Costs Per
person
PPH/
Bldg. Sq.

Ft. Factor
PPH/
Emp. Per
Sq. Ft.

Employee
Weight
Factor
Cost
Per Unit/
Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Total Cost $56,887,089
Service Population 39,148
Cost Per Person $1,453
Residential PPH per unit
Residential
<1,500 sq. ft. 0.81 2.13 - $3,095
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. 1.00 2.64 - $3,836
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. 1.08 2.86 - $4,156
>3,500 sq. ft. 1.14 3.02 - $4,388
Age-Restricted
<1,500 sq. ft. 0.81 1.45 - $2,107
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. 1.00 1.80 - $2,616
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. 1.08 1.95 - $2,834
>3,500 sq. ft. [1] 1.11 2.00 - $2,906
Multifamily [2]
<1,500 sq. ft. 0.81 1.44 - $2,089
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. 1.00 1.78 - $2,589
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. 1.08 1.93 - $2,804
>3,500 sq. ft. 1.14 2.04 - $2,961
Multifamily Age-Restricted [3]
<1,500 sq. ft. [4] 0.82 1.00 - $1,453
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. 1.00 1.21 - $1,765
2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. 0.74 1.32 - $1,912
>3,500 sq. ft. 0.76 1.35 - $1,961
Nonresidential
emp per 1,000
sq ft per bldg. sq. ft.

Commercial Weighting Factor A B = 1,000 / A C = B * 0.13 D = 1,533 * C / 1,000 Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial 400 2.50 0.33 $0.47
Community Commercial 400 2.50 0.33 $0.47
Regional Commercial 400 2.50 0.33 $0.47
Business Professional 300 3.33 0.43 $0.63
Central Business District 300 3.33 0.43 $0.63
Subtotal Commercial
Industrial
Light Industrial 600 1.67 0.22 $0.31
General Industrial 1,000 1.00 0.13 $0.19
Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] The PPH Factor has been adjusted downward to cap the maximum persons per household at two for age-restricted units.
[2] The multifamily fee is calculated by multiplying the single family fee in each sq. ft. range by the multifamily adjustment factor of 0.67. See Table A-4 for details.
[3] The multifamily age-restricted fee is calculated by multiplying the single family age restricted fee in each sq. ft. range by the multifamily age-restricted adjustment factor of 0.67. See Table A-5 for details. [4] The PPH Factor has been adjusted upward to set the minimum persons per household to one for multifamily age-restricted units.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
37 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

5. Implementation
The PFF presented in this report is based on the best facility improvement cost estimates, funding source information, administrative cost estimates, and land use information available at this time. If costs change significantly, if the type or amount of new development changes, if other assumptions significantly change, or if other funding becomes available (as a result of legislative action on state and local government finance, for example), the fee program should be updated accordingly.

After the fees presented in this report are established, the City should conduct periodic reviews of facility improvement costs and other assumptions used as the basis of this nexus study. Based on these reviews, the City may make necessary adjustments to the fee program through subsequent fee program updates.

The cost estimates presented in this report are in constant 2025 dollars. The City may automatically adjust the costs and fees for inflation each year as outlined in this chapter.

Implementing Ordinances/Resolutions
The proposed fee would be adopted by the City through one or more ordinances authorizing collection of the fee and through one or more fee resolutions establishing the fee. The fee will be effective 60 days following the City’s final action on the ordinances authorizing collection of the fee and on the fee resolutions establishing the fee. The new ordinances or resolutions should reference the automatic inflation adjustment factor discussed in this chapter.

Fee Administration
The PFF will be collected from new development in areas subject to the fee at the time of the building permit issuance; use of these funds may need to wait until a sufficient fund balance can be accrued. According to Government Code Section 66000, the City is required to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees in a prescribed manner.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 38
PFF Exemptions, Reimbursements, and
Credits
Under certain and limited circumstances, as determined by the City, the Impact Fee Resolution could allow developers subject to the fee to obtain credits, reimbursements, or exemptions.

As more specifically set forth in the authorizing ordinance, projects that rebuild or remodel without increasing the square footage of the project will be exempt from the PFF, except under the following circumstances:

1. If the development or project changes to a different land use, it shall be charged the appropriate fee for the new land use category less any PFF amount previously paid.

2. Where the development or project expands or remodels the same land use, only the expanded square footage would be subject to the PFF.

3. Remodeling or expansion of an existing dwelling unit shall be exempt from fee payments, unless additional dwelling units are added.

All other fee credits, reimbursements, or exemptions should not be allowed by right but rather should be subject to review by City staff and the City Council to ensure that such credits or reimbursements are warranted and appropriate. Exemptions where the City elects not to impose fees for certain categories of development are an option, though alternative funding sources to offset a loss in fee revenue would need to be provided.

Furthermore, the developer of any project subject to the PFF may apply for a reduction or adjustment to the fee based on the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the impacts of the project and either the amount of the fee or the facilities to be financed by the fee. The City will consider any such applications in accordance with the implementing fee program ordinance.

Fee Program Update
The PFF is subject to automatic annual inflation adjustments, periodic updates, and a 5-year review requirement. The purpose of each update is described in this section.

Automatic Annual Inflation Adjustment
The proposed fee shall be automatically adjusted by the City annually to account for the inflation of construction, land acquisition, and environmental or design costs.

This 2025 Nexus Study recommends that in June of each calendar year, using the procedures set forth in California Government Code Section 66017, the PFF should be adjusted by the average of the change in the San Francisco Construction Cost Index (CCI) and the change in the 20-city CCI as reported in the Engineering News Record for the 12-month period ending May of each year.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
39 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Periodic Fee Updates
The proposed PFF is subject to periodic update based on changes in developable land, cost estimates, or outside funding sources. The City will periodically review the costs and fee to determine if any updates to the fee are warranted. During the periodic reviews, the City will analyze the following items:
• Changes to the required facilities listed in the 2025 Nexus Study. • Changes in the cost to update or administer the fee.
• Changes in costs greater than inflation.
• Changes in assumed land uses.
• Changes in other funding sources.

Any changes to the fee based on the periodic update will be presented to the City Council for approval before an increase or decrease in the fee.

The City Council also may specify during a periodic update which improvements should receive funding from the PFF Program before other improvements. Based on facility evaluations, the location of approved new development that will add significant housing or jobs, or other considerations, the City has the ability to spend the fee revenues on any of the projects identified in the PFF Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) regardless of project location and the location of collected fees.

Five-Year Review
Fees will be collected from new development in the City immediately; use of these funds, however, may need to wait until a sufficient fund balance can be accrued.

According to Government Code Section 66006, the City is required to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees in a prescribed manner. The fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fee account or fund, and every 5 years thereafter, the City is required to make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended:
• Identify the purpose for which the fee is to be put.
• Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
• Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete plan area improvements.
• Designate the approximate dates the funding referred to in the above paragraph is expected to be deposited in the appropriate account or fund.

The City must refund the unexpended or uncommitted revenue portion of the fee for which a need could not be demonstrated in the above findings, unless the administrative costs exceed the amount of the refund.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 40
Non -Fee Revenue Sources
The City has and will continue to rely on multiple funding sources, including the PFF, to fund development of public facilities. Costs attributable to existing development must be funded from non-fee program sources. This study identifies several revenue sources that, when combined with the proposed impact fees, result in a full funding for all CIP facilities with the exception of Citywide park improvements. For those improvements for which full funding has been identified, if the City were to increase the scope of planned improvements, it would be necessary to fund existing development’s fair share of the additional costs with non-fee funding sources. Major sources of funding for existing development’s share of public facilities costs may include the following mechanisms:
• General Fund Revenue is generated primarily by property taxes, sales taxes, and transient occupancy taxes and is used for operational and capital facility uses.
• Development Exactions are conditions imposed by land use jurisdictions on development to mitigate anticipated impacts on public facilities and infrastructure.
• Other Fee Programs (e.g., park development fee program) has been identified as funding a portion of the PFF Program costs.
• General Obligation Bonds are voter-approved bonds that are used for capital improvements and then repaid through property tax assessments. A two-thirds voter majority is required to approve General Obligation bonds. • Joint Use Facilities/Partnerships can be an effective way to combine the resources of multiple agencies. For example, school districts frequently partner with park and recreation departments to maximize usage of ball fields, community centers, etc.
• Grants can be obtained from a variety of public and private sources. • Donations can be made by philanthropic organizations and individuals. • Other sources include public land trusts, property exchanges, exactions, and revenue bonds.

As is the case with all municipalities, the City does not control the future availability of funds for capital facility development from most sources. Grants are competitive, bonds require voter approval, and General Fund resources are used to meet a variety of operational and capital facility needs. The City will continue to seek and leverage all available funding mechanisms for public facility development. The City likely will rely on a combination of many funding sources to fully finance projects in the PFF Capital Improvement Plan.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
41 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

6. Nexus Findings
Government Code Section 66000 et seq. establishes specific requirements for the imposition of impact fee programs. To impose development impact fees, the local jurisdiction must establish the necessary “nexus” between new development and the proposed facilities funded by the fee program. Nexus findings address (1) the purpose of the fee and a related description of the facility for which fee revenue will be used, (2) the specific use of fee revenue, (3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development, (4) the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development, and (5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to new development.

In particular, CGC Section 66001 includes specific requirements for establishing a reasonable relationship or nexus between the development impact fee, and CGC Section 66016.5 (added in 2021 to address the newly enacted AB 602) includes additional requirements for development impact fees. The remainder of this chapter addresses the requirements of CGC Section 66001 and CGC Section 66016.5.

California Government Code Section 66001
CGC Section 66001 requires that a “reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.”2 Specifically, each local agency imposing a development impact fee must make the following findings:
• Identify the purpose of the fee.
• Identify how the fee is to be used.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. • Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. • Demonstrate how a reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

This section details these findings for each PFF Fee Program component that is addressed in this report.
2 Public Needs & Private Dollars; William Abbott, Marian E. Moe, and Marilee Hanson, page 109.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 42
General City and Public Safety Facilities
Purpose of Fee
The proposed General City and Public Safety Facilities component of the PFF Fee will fund public safety infrastructure and general city facilities necessary to serve new residential and nonresidential development in the City. New development in the City will increase the service population and, therefore, the need for new or expanding public facilities.

Use of Fees
The General City and Public Safety Facilities component of the PFF Infrastructure Facilities Fee charged to new development will be used to fund needed additions and improvements to public safety and general city facilities to accommodate the expansion and alterations to facilities as public safety personnel and city staff are added to serve the resident and employee population generated by new development.

General city and public safety additions and improvements may include land acquisition, planning, engineering, and design of public facilities, infrastructure, utilities, and other site improvements, vertical construction, capital equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and financing costs associated with the above (if applicable).

Relationship between Use of Fees and Type of Development The PFF Program General City and Public Safety fees will be used to construct general city and public safety improvements needed to adequately serve an increased service population as the result of the new development. A reasonable relationship exists between the use of the General City and Public Safety fee and the residential and commercial development on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the general city and public safety facilities needed to serve the new residents and employees generated by the new development.

Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Project New residential and commercial development in Roseville will need a police station and associated vehicles and equipment to provide expanded law enforcement and services and meet required emergency response times.

A reasonable relationship exists between the need for a new police station, vehicles, and equipment and the type of new residential and nonresidential development projects because the police station must be expanded to accommodate the new development.

New residential and nonresidential development in Roseville will need new government facilities and associated vehicles and equipment so that the City can continue to provide general City services at the current levels of service to the new residents and employees.

A reasonable relationship exists between the need for improved government facilities and equipment and the type of new residential and nonresidential development projects because the improvements are necessary to serve the new development.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
43 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Relationship between Amount of Fees and Cost of or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development on which Fee is Imposed
The total cost of improvements funded by the General City and Public Safety Facility Fee is allocated among the projected new residential and nonresidential land uses in the City at buildout based on the relative demand each land use is anticipated to place upon the improvements. Cost allocation factors based on persons per household and employees per 1,000 commercial building square feet are used to measure the relative demand generated by each land use and to allocate the public safety expansion costs and general city facility costs across all benefiting land uses in the City. A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the General City and Public Safety Facility fees and the costs of the facilities attributable to the new residential and nonresidential development on which the fees are imposed because the fees are derived using appropriate cost allocation factors as measures of the proportional demand generated by each development type.

Parks
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the PFF Fee Program Parks, Recreation and Library Facilities fee is to provide funding to construct new parks, recreation, and library facilities required to serve new residents.

Use of Fees
The PFF Fee Program Parks, Recreation and Library Facilities Fees will be used to construct park improvements needed to accommodate increased demand projected as a result of new development. The park fees will be used to fund construction of Pistachio Regional Park, West Roseville Community Center and Library, BMX, Pickleball Complex, and Parking at Pistachio Park, a Water/Splash Pad, the West Roseville Specific Plan Skate Park, Universally Accessible and Destination Playgrounds and a Citywide Park.

Relationship between Use of Fees and Type of Development The PFF Fee Program Parks, Recreation and Library Facilities Fees will be used to construct the parks system needed to adequately serve the new residents and employees as a result of new development. A reasonable relationship exists between the use of the Parks, Recreation and Library Facilities Fees and the development on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the parks needed to serve the new residents and employees generated by new development.

Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Project New development in the City will generate new residents and employees that will result in the need for new neighborhood and community parks. A reasonable relationship exists between the need for new parks and the type of new development projects because the new parks must be constructed to accommodate the new development types that will benefit from the parks.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 44
Relationship between Amount of Fees and Cost of or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development on which Fee is Imposed
The facilities funded by the PFF Fee Program Parks, Recreation and Library Facilities Fees is allocated among the projected new remaining land uses in the City at buildout based on the relative demand each land use is anticipated to place upon the improvements. Cost allocation factors based on people who will use the parks, as measured by persons per household and employees per 1,000 commercial building square feet and applying an adjustment factor to total employees to reflect a lower demand for public facilities as compared to residents, are used to measure the relative demand generated by each land use and to allocate the park costs across all benefitting land uses in the City. A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the PFF Fee Program Parks, Recreation and Library Facilities Fees and the costs of the improvements attributable to the new development on which the fees are imposed because the fees are derived using appropriate cost allocation factors as measures of the proportional demand generated by each development type.

Administration
The administration component of the PFF funds City costs associated with fee program administration and implementation, including credit and reimbursement agreement negotiations and implementation, credit and reimbursement tracking, annual reporting requirements, periodic updates to the Nexus Study, and other related costs. Collection and implementation of the PFF Program fees, inclusive of the constituent fee components described above, is reliant upon funding from the administration component.

For each land use, the administration component is calculated as two percent of the total of all other PFF Program components. Costs of the administration component are therefore based on each fee component and subcomponent, and associated nexus findings for the administration component are established by the nexus finding for each fee component documented above.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
45 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
California Government Code
Section 66016.5 (AB 602)
As noted earlier in this document, this nexus analysis must consider the newly created CGC Section 66016.5. This section stipulates that a jurisdiction must calculate residential development impact fees proportionately to the square footage of the dwelling units, with the exception of water and sewer fees and any other fees for which specific findings can be made as to why the fees should not be enacted on a square foot basis.

In this report, residential fees are calculated as shown below:
• General City and Public Safety Facilities
Fees by dwelling unit square foot ranges
• Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities
Fees by dwelling unit square foot ranges
The required findings detailed in CGC Section 66016.5 must be made for General City and Public Safety Facilities, and Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities. The specific requirements and findings for the components listed above are detailed in the remainder of this chapter.

Requirements for Exceptions to Fee Proportional to Housing Square Footage
CGS Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) states, among other things, that fees “imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.” However, Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) states that a nexus study “is not required to comply with this proportionality requirement if the local agency makes the following findings:
a. An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.
b. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. c. That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 46
General City and Public Safety Facilities
a) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.

The PFF Program General City and Public Safety Facilities costs are allocated to dwelling units on a persons served basis in the form of persons per unit. The persons per household data provided in this report supports identification of an increasing number of people per household as a dwelling unit size increases. However, the data present limitations on both the lower/smaller unit size range and on the higher/larger unit size range. For example, regardless of how small a dwelling unit may be, the minimum assumed persons per unit would be 1. Similarly, as home size continues to increase, the data are not as conclusive that the number of persons per unit continues to increase in a linear or otherwise determinant fashion. For these reasons, deriving a fee directly calculated on residential building square footage alone is not an appropriate metric to calculate the PFF Program General City and Public Safety Facilities fees.
b) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.

As detailed in Chapter 2, the number of people per household shows a pattern of increasing as unit size increases. Thus, implementing the fee based on ranges of building square feet for residential development bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development because units that fall in the lower building unit size range pay a lower fee than units that fall in a higher building unit size range, which is proportional to the estimated number of people per household by unit size within each size range. c) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Implementation of the PFF Program General City and Public Safety Facility fees for residential development by building square foot range achieves the objective that smaller residential units would be charged a lower fee than larger units and ensures proportionality of fees based on relative demand for the facilities, as documented in this report.

Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
September 2025
47 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities
a) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.

The PFF parks, recreation, and library facility costs are allocated to dwelling units on a persons served basis in the form of persons per unit. The persons per household data provided in this report supports identification of an increasing number of people per household as a dwelling unit size increases. However, the data present limitations on both the lower/smaller unit size range and on the higher/larger unit size range. For example, regardless of how small a dwelling unit may be, the minimum assumed persons per unit would be 1. Similarly, as home size continues to increase, the data are not as conclusive that the number of persons per unit continues to increase in a linear or otherwise determinant fashion. For these reasons, deriving a fee directly calculated on residential building square footage alone is not an appropriate metric to calculate the PFF parks, recreation, and library facility fees. b) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.

As detailed in Chapter 2, the number of people per household shows a pattern of increasing as unit size increases. Thus, implementing the fee based on ranges of building square feet for residential development bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development because units that fall in the lower building unit size range pay a lower fee than units that fall in a higher building unit size range, which is proportional to the estimated number of people per household by unit size within each size range. c) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Implementation of the PFF parks, recreation, and library facility fees for residential development by building square foot range achieves the objective that smaller residential units would be charged a lower fee than larger units and ensures proportionality of fees based on relative demand for the facilities, as documented in this report.

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions
Appendix B: PFF Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)

APPENDIX A:

Land Use Assumptions
Table A-1 Persons per Household Factors by Residential Square Foot Size Category........................................................ A-3 Table A-2 Single Family Persons per Household .............................. A-4 Table A-3 Multifamily Persons per Household.................................. A-5 Table A-4 Persons per Household—Multifamily Adjustment............... A-6 Table A-5 Persons per Household—Multifamily Age Restricted Adjustment.................................................................. A-7 Table A-6 Existing Nonresidential Development............................... A-8 Table A-7 Buildout Nonresidential Development .............................. A-9 Table A-8 Adjusted Buildout Nonresidential Development— Infill Area .................................................................. A-10 Table A-9 Adjusted Buildout Nonresidential Development— Downtown Specific Plan............................................... A-11 Table A-10 Adjusted Buildout Nonresidential Development — Other Plan Areas (Not DT/Infill).................................... A-12

A. Land Use Assumptions
EPS worked with City Development Services Department staff to develop the land use assumptions for purposes of the PFF Program. This appendix details the methodology EPS and the City used to arrive at updated existing, future, and buildout land use assumptions, which are discussed in summary form in Chapter 2.

Residential Land Use Assumptions
The City provided existing and buildout single-family and multifamily dwelling units by unit type and plan area. The existing units are based on City building permits and records of residential development in each plan area. The buildout units are based on the number of units allocated to each plan area in the General Plan and on subsequent amendments to some plan area allocations. The future units by unit type are calculated as buildout units less existing units.

The residential units are summarized by land use type in Table 2-1. No backup tables are needed, so there are not further residential tables included in this appendix.

Nonresidential Land Use Assumptions
The existing and buildout nonresidential building square feet by nonresidential land use were derived from a variety of sources. The future building square feet by land use are calculated as buildout building square feet less existing building square feet.

The tables in this appendix detail the existing and buildout building square feet estimates.
• Table A-6 summarizes the existing nonresidential building square feet by land use. The existing building square feet are calculated as the sum of the following two components:

1. Building square feet the 2020 Nexus Study.

2. Building square feet constructed through 2024 based on City building permit records.
• Table A-7 summarizes the buildout nonresidential building square feet by land use. The following steps are taken to estimate the buildout square feet.

1. The 2015 Nexus Study floor area ratio (FAR) and base buildout acres and buildout square feet prior to any adjustments are obtained from the 2015 Nexus Study.

2. The buildout acres are obtained from the City’s General Plan. The General Plan categorizes the acres into Commercial, Business Professional, and Industrial land uses. The acres are distributed to the more detailed land uses in this Nexus Study based on the proportional distribution of the acres from the 2020 Nexus Study (discussed in Step 1).

3. The buildout square feet by land use are estimated by applying the FAR from Step 1 to the buildout acres.

4. Adjustments are made to the buildout square feet to account for anticipated reduced levels of development in the Infill Area and the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), and Other Plan Areas. These adjustments are detailed in Table A-4, Table A-5, and Table A-6. The final buildout building square feet are estimated as the building square feet in Step 3 adjusted downward by the Infill Area and DTSP reductions.
• Table A-8 details the Infill Area adjustment. The following steps are taken to estimate the Infill Area adjusted building square feet.

1. The Infill Area building square feet by nonresidential land use at buildout are obtained from the 2020 Nexus Study.

2. The existing building square feet by land use are deducted from the buildout building square feet to obtain the future building square feet by land use prior to an adjustment. Table A-4 details the calculation of the existing building square feet for the Infill Area.

3. A 25 percent reduction is applied to the future building square feet to estimate the adjusted future building square feet for the Infill Area. This percentage reduction is consistent with the reduction established in the 2015 Nexus Study.
• Table A-9 details the DTSP adjustment. The following steps are taken to estimate the DTSP adjusted building square feet.

1. The DTSP building square feet by nonresidential land use at buildout are obtained from the 2020 Nexus Study.

2. The existing building square feet by land use are deducted from the buildout building square feet to obtain the future building square feet by land use prior to an adjustment.

3. A 75 percent reduction is applied to the future building square feet to estimate the adjusted future building square feet for the DTSP. This percentage reduction is consistent with the reduction established in the 2020 Nexus Study.
• Table A-10 details the adjustment for all other plan areas. The existing building square feet are calculated as:

1. Total general plan buildout net DTSP buildout and infill area buildout.

2. The existing building square feet by land use are deducted from the buildout building square feet to obtain the future building square feet by land use prior to an adjustment.

3. No reduction is applied to the future building square feet for all other plan areas as all other plan areas were not adjusted downward in 2015 and 2025

Table A-1
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Persons per Household Factors by Residential Square Foot Size Category [1] Persons per Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Household Units of Units Units of Units Units of Units Units of Units Units of Units Formula B C = B / Σ B E F = E / Σ E H I = H / Σ H J K = J / Σ J L = B + E + H + J M = L / Σ L 1 23,688 41% 8,722 21% 1,912 14% 1,211 14% 35,532 29%
2 18,533 32% 15,840 38% 5,234 39% 3,060 35% 42,666 35%
3 7,720 13% 6,726 16% 2,013 15% 1,228 14% 17,687 14%
4 5,052 9% 6,274 15% 2,515 19% 1,683 20% 15,523 13%
5 2,214 4% 2,839 7% 1,105 8% 888 10% 7,046 6%
6 752 1% 912 2% 389 3% 351 4% 2,403 2%
7+ 459 1% 534 1% 195 1% 201 2% 1,388 1%
Total 58,418 100% 41,847 100% 13,361 100% 8,620 100% 122,245 100% Average PPH 2.10 2.61 2.82 2.98 2.42
PPH Factor 0.81 1.00 1.08 1.14
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2023 National Household Demographics, All Occupied Units; EPS [1] Includes data for both Multifamily and Single Family (Attached and Detached).

Less than 1,500 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. to 2,500 sq. ft. 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. Greater than 3,500 sq. ft. Total Prepared by EPS 9/23/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m07 - 9-18-25 A-3

Table A-2
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Single Family Persons per Household
Persons per Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Household Units of Units Units of Units Units of Units Units of Units Units of Units Formula B C = B / Σ B E F = E / Σ E H I = H / Σ H H I = H / Σ H L = B + E + H + J M = L / Σ L 1 10,771 32% 8,124 20% 1,907 14% 1,211 14% 22,012 23%
2 11,170 33% 15,144 38% 5,234 39% 3,060 35% 34,607 36%
3 5,087 15% 6,596 16% 2,013 15% 1,228 14% 14,924 16%
4 3,688 11% 6,114 15% 2,515 19% 1,683 20% 13,999 15%
5 1,848 5% 2,798 7% 1,105 8% 888 10% 6,639 7%
6 752 2% 912 2% 389 3% 351 4% 2,403 3%
7+ 459 1% 534 1% 195 1% 201 2% 1,388 1%
Total 33,775 100% 40,222 100% 13,356 100% 8,620 100% 95,972 100% Average PPH 2.37 2.63 2.82 2.98 2.60
PPH Factor 0.90 1.00 1.07 1.13
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2023 National Household Demographics, All Occupied Units; EPS [1] Includes data for both attached and detached single family units.

Less than 1,500 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. to 2,500 sq. ft. 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. Greater than 3,500 sq. ft. Total Prepared by EPS 9/23/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m07 - 9-18-25 A-4

Table A-3
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Multifamily Persons per Household
Persons per Percent Percent Percent
Household Units of Units Units of Units Units of Units
Formula B C = B / Σ B E F = E / Σ E L = B + E + H + J M = L / Σ L 1 12,917 52% 598 37% 13,520 51%
2 7,363 30% 696 43% 8,059 31%
3 2,633 11% 130 8% 2,763 11%
4 1,364 6% 160 10% 1,524 6%
5 366 1% 41 3% 407 2%
6 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
7+ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 24,643 100% 1,625 100% 26,273 100%
Average PPH 1.74 1.98 1.75
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2023 National Household Demographics; EPS [1] Multifamily PPH data for sq. ft. ranges above 2,500 sq ft. is a very small number, i.e. five units, and are not shown here but are included in the total.

Less than 1,500 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. to 2,500 sq. ft. Total [1] Prepared by EPS 9/23/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m07 - 9-18-25 A-5

Table A-4
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Persons per Household - Multifamily Adjustment
Persons per Percent Percent Percent
Household Units of Units Units of Units Units of Units
Formula B C = B / Σ B E F = E / Σ E H I = H / Σ H
1 22,012 23% 13,520 51% 35,532 29%
2 34,607 36% 8,059 31% 42,666 35%
3 14,924 16% 2,763 11% 17,687 14%
4 13,999 15% 1,524 6% 15,523 13%
5 6,639 7% 407 2% 7,046 6%
6 2,403 3% 0 0% 2,403 2%
7+ 1,388 1% 0 0% 1,388 1%
Total 95,972 100% 26,273 100% 122,245 100%
Average PPH 2.60 1.75 2.42
Adjustment Factor 0.67
Single Family Multifamily Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2023 National Household Demographics, All Occupied Units; EPS
Prepared by EPS 9/23/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m07 - 9-18-25 A-6

Table A-5
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Persons per Household - Multifamily Age-Restricted Adjustment Persons per
Household Age-Restricted [1]
Average PPH [1] 1.80 1.21
Adjustment Factor [2] 0.67
homes based on the average multifamily PPH of 1.75 divided by the national average of 2.6 PPH in single family homes. See Table A-4.

This analysis applies the multifamily adjustment factor of 67 percent to the average PPH for single family age-restricted units to estimate the average PPH for multifamily age-restricted units.
[2] Average multifamily PPH is 67 percent of average PPH for single-family Age-Restricted
Source: City of Roseville; EPS.

Single Family Multifamily
[1] The 2020 PFF Nexus study established 1.8 PPH in single family age-restricted housing. This analysis assumes the same factor.

Prepared by EPS 9/23/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m07 - 9-18-25 A-7

DRAFT
Table A-6
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Existing Nonresidential Development (as of 12/31/2023)
Land Use Downtown Infill All Other Plan Areas Total
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial - 114,325 13,800 128,125
Community Commercial 189,523 2,472,872 9,022,628 11,685,023 Regional Commercial - - 4,577,369 4,577,369
Business Professional - 789,611 7,512,580 8,302,191
Central Business District 959,444 - - 959,444
Subtotal Commercial 1,148,967 3,376,808 21,126,377 25,652,152 Industrial
Light Industrial 2,152,591 - 5,831,277 7,983,868
General Industrial 140,190 - 3,914,109 4,054,299
Subtotal Industrial 2,292,781 - 9,745,386 12,038,167
Total Nonresidential 3,441,748 3,376,808 30,871,763 37,690,319 Source: City of Roseville; EPS
Existing Building Square Feet
Prepared by EPS 9/23/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m07 - 9-18-25 A-8

Table A-7
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Buildout Nonresidential Development
Land Use Acres Sq. Ft. Acres [2] Sq. Ft. Infill DTSP Other Plan Areas Total Source Table A-8 Table A-9
Formula A=C/B/43,560 B C D E=A*D*43,560 F G H I = F+G+H E+I Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial 0.37 23 365,720 23 373,533 (37,727) - - (37,727) 335,806 Community Commercial 0.20 1,814 16,187,915 1,869 16,278,761 (692,594) (1,207,520) - (1,900,114) 14,378,648 Regional Commercial 0.35 335 5,062,509 345 5,259,140 (1,575) - - (1,575) 5,257,565 Central Business District [4] 2.59 38 4,305,998 39 4,436,906 (134,323) (2,106,946) - (2,241,269) 2,195,637 Subtotal 2,210 25,922,142 2,276 26,348,340 (866,219) (3,314,465) - (4,180,684) 22,167,656 Business Professional 0.34 786 11,527,491 792 11,729,837 (384,935) - - (384,935) 11,344,902 Subtotal Commercial 2,995 37,449,633 3,068 38,078,177 (1,251,154) (3,314,465) - (4,565,619) 33,512,558 Industrial
Light Industrial 0.21 1,375 12,848,566 1,298 11,876,738 (316,486) - - (316,486) 11,560,252 General Industrial 0.21 1,134 10,595,327 1,071 9,793,927 (1,190,731) (26,245) - (1,216,976) 8,576,951 Subtotal Industrial 2,509 23,443,893 2,369 21,670,664 (1,507,216) (26,245) - (1,533,461) 20,137,203 Total Nonresidential 5,504 60,893,526 5,437 59,748,841 (2,758,370) (3,340,710) - (6,099,080) 53,649,761 Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] FAR at buildout based on 2015 Nexus Study buildout acres and building square feet prior to adjustments. Rounded to nearest hundredth.

Note that FARs shown in Table 2-1 and Table A-1 of the 2015 Nexus Study are based on existing development and differ in some cases from the FARs in this table. [2] Acres from Land Use Element of Roseville General Plan (through 2035). General Plan acres categories are Commercial, Business Professional, and Industrial. Commercial and Industrial General Plan acres spread proportionately to subcategories based on the 2015 Nexus Study distribution [3] 2015 Nexus Study acres and square feet are sum of infill and downtown square feet. Acres exclude approximately 20 acres of downtown multifamily development. [4] Building square footage adjustments are equal to the remaining, buildout less existing, square footage multiplied by the reduction percentage as defined the 2015, and 2020 PFF Nexus Study Updates. For additional detail regarding dial down reductions see source tables for respective areas.

Buildout Nonresidential Development
Adjusted
Buildout Sq. Ft.

FAR at
Buildout [1]
General Plan
2015 Nexus Study
Prior to Adjustments Building Square Feet Adjustments [4] Prepared by EPS 9/23/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m07 - 9-18-25 A-9

Table A-8
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Adjusted Buildout Nonresidential Development - Infill Area Land Use
Buildout
Sq. Ft. [1]
Less Existing
Sq. Ft.

Future
Sq. Ft.

Less
Reduction
Adjusted
Future Sq. Ft.

Percentage Adjustment [2] 25%
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial 265,231 (114,325) 150,906 (37,727) 113,180 Community Commercial 5,243,248 (2,472,872) 2,770,376 (692,594) 2,077,782 Regional Commercial 6,300 - 6,300 (1,575) 4,725
Business Professional 2,329,351 (789,611) 1,539,740 (384,935) 1,154,805 Central Business District 537,293 - 537,293 (134,323) 402,970 Subtotal Commercial 8,381,423 (3,376,808) 5,004,615 (1,251,154) 3,753,461 Industrial
Light Industrial 3,418,533 (2,152,591) 1,265,942 (316,486) 949,457 General Industrial 4,903,112 (140,190) 4,762,922 (1,190,731) 3,572,192 Subtotal Industrial 8,321,645 (2,292,781) 6,028,864 (1,507,216) 4,521,648 Total Nonresidential 16,703,068 (5,669,589) 11,033,479 (2,758,370) 8,275,109 Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] From 2015 Roseville PFF Nexus Study Update (Table A-2). [2] Percentage adjustment from 2015 Roseville PFF Nexus Study Update for Infill Area development through 2025.

Infill Area
Prepared by EPS 9/23/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m07 - 9-18-25 A-10

Table A-9
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Adjusted Buildout Nonresidential Development - Downtown Specific Plan Land Use
Buildout
Sq. Ft. [1]
Less Existing
Sq. Ft.

Future
Sq. Ft.

Less
Reduction
Adjusted
Future Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Percentage Adjustment [2] 75%
Neighborhood Commercial - - - - -
Community Commercial 1,799,549 (189,523) 1,610,026 (1,207,520) 402,507 Regional Commercial - - - - -
Business Professional - - - - -
Central Business District [3] 3,768,705 (959,444) 2,809,261 (2,106,946) 702,315 Subtotal Commercial 5,568,254 (1,148,967) 4,419,287 (3,314,465) 1,104,822 Industrial
Percentage Adjustment [2] 50%
Light Industrial - - - - -
General Industrial 52,490 - 52,490 (26,245) 26,245
Subtotal Industrial 52,490 - 52,490 (26,245) 26,245
Total Nonresidential 5,620,744 (1,148,967) 4,471,777 (3,340,710) 1,131,067 Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] From 2015 Roseville PFF Nexus Study Update (Table A-3). [2] Percentage adjustment from 2015 Roseville PFF Nexus Study Update for DTSP development through 2025. [3] Excludes approximately 20 acres of CBD development that is planned for multifamily units.

Building Square Feet
Prepared by EPS 9/23/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m07 - 9-18-25 A-11

Table A-10
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Adjusted Buildout Nonresidential Development - Other Plan Areas (Not DT/Infill) Land Use
Buildout
Sq. Ft.

Less Existing
Sq. Ft.

Future
Sq. Ft.

Less
Reduction [1]
Adjusted
Future Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Percentage Adjustment [1] 0%
Neighborhood Commercial 108,302 (13,800) 94,502 - 94,502 Community Commercial 9,235,964 (9,022,628) 213,336 - 213,336 Regional Commercial 5,252,840 (4,577,369) 675,471 - 675,471 Business Professional 9,400,486 (7,512,580) 1,887,906 - 1,887,906 Central Business District 130,908 - 130,908 - 130,908
Subtotal Commercial 24,128,500 (21,126,377) 3,002,123 - 3,002,123 Industrial
Percentage Adjustment [1] 0%
Light Industrial 8,458,205 (5,831,277) 2,626,928 - 2,626,928 General Industrial 4,838,325 (3,914,109) 924,216 - 924,216 Subtotal Industrial 13,296,529 (9,745,386) 3,551,143 - 3,551,143 Total Nonresidential 37,425,029 (30,871,763) 6,553,266 - 6,553,266 Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] In the 2015 and 2020 Nexus Study Updates did not adjust downward for other plan areas.

Building Square Feet
Prepared by EPS 9/23/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m07 - 9-18-25 A-12

APPENDIX B:

Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Table B-1 Public Safety Facilities Cost Summary and Allocation............. B-2 Table B-2 PR&L Facilities Cost Summary and Allocation ....................... B-3 Table B-3 CIP Detailed Costs - Downtown Development Projects........... B-4 Table B-4 CIP Detailed Costs - Parks, Recreation, & Libraries................ B-5 Table B-5 CIP Detailed Costs - Public Safety Facilities.......................... B-7 Table B-6 CIP Detailed Costs - IT Projects ......................................... B-9

Table B-1
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update Public Safety Facilities Cost Summary and Allocation
Facilities Total Cost Allocation PFF Funded
Downtown Development Projects
Historic Old Town/Amtrak Parking Lot and Structure [1] $26,500,000 54% $14,344,729 Public Safety Costs
Expansion [2]
Phase 1 $9,198,113 100% $9,198,113
Phase 2 $18,000,000 100% $18,000,000
Subtotal Expansion $27,198,113 $27,198,113
Alterations [3]
Phase 3 $16,076,100 20% $3,215,220
Subtotal Phases 1, 2, and 3 $43,274,213 70% $30,413,333 Animal Control Facility $12,000,000 50% $6,000,000
Total Public Safety Costs $55,274,213 $36,413,333
Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] Assumes the same future development cost allocation as the 2020 PFFP Nexus Study Update. [2] Assumes that expansion costs are 100% attributable to new development as a result in the increased demand from growth in new development requires new/expanded facilities that would otherwise not be required if there was no new growth.
[3] 20 percent of the service population for Public Safety is a result of growth from new development. Alteration costs attributable to new development is equal to the percentage of growth as a result of new development. 2025
Improvement Costs
Prepared by EPS 9/10/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m04 - 9-09-25 final B-2

Table B-2
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update PR&L Facilities Cost Summary and Allocation
Facilities Total Cost Allocation PFF Funded
Pistachio Regional Park
West Roseville Community Center and Library $123,308,750 35% $43,158,063 BMX, Pickleball Complex, and Parking $8,900,690 35% $3,115,241 Subtotal Pistachio Regional Park $147,986,779 35% $46,273,304 Splash Pad and Playground at Pistachio Regional Park $2,496,946 35% $873,931 West Roseville Skate Park $6,609,962 22% $1,465,441
Universally Accessible and Destination Playgrounds $3,400,000 35% $1,190,000 Citywide Park $94,003,300 16% $14,721,708
Total Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities $386,706,427 $64,524,384 Source: City of Roseville and EPS
2025
Improvement Costs
Prepared by EPS 9/10/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m04 - 9-09-25 final B-3

Table B-3
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update CIP - Downtown Development Projects
Facility
Cost Per
SF/LF/Unit SF/LF/Unit Total Cost
Future Downtown Development Projects
Historic Old Town Parking Structure/Amtrak Parking Lot - - $26,500,000 Total Downtown Development Project Costs $26,500,000
Source: City of Roseville and EPS
Improvement Costs
2025
Prepared by EPS 9/10/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m04 - 9-09-25 final B-4

Table B-4
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update CIP Detailed Costs - Parks, Recreation, & Libraries
Facilities
Cost Per
SF/LF/Unit SF/LF/Unit Total Cost
Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities
Pistachio Regional Park
West Roseville Community Center & Library
Building - 1st Floor $1,150 55,000 $63,250,000
Building - 2nd floor $1,210 27,500 $33,275,000
Foundation & Site Work $50 82,500 $4,125,000
Design & Eengineering - - $350,000
Permitting - - $650,000
Special Inspections - - $275,000
Secondary Labor - - $300,000
FF&E - - $5,000,000
Subtotal $107,225,000
Contingency 15% - $16,083,750
Total Cost $123,308,750
BMX, Pickleball Complex, and Parking
BMX $104 10,100 $1,050,400
Pickleball Courts $300,000 6 $1,800,000
Fencing $275 550 $151,250
Parking $2,500 250 $625,000
Lighting - - $750,000
Restroom - - $250,000
Futsol $200,000 2 $400,000
Shade Structures $80,000 4 $320,000
Walkways & Plazas - - $1,530,000
Subtotal BMX, Pickleball Complex, and Parking - - $6,876,650 4 Year Escalation 3% $7,739,730
Contingency 15% - $1,160,960
Total BMX, Pickleball Complex, and Parking $8,900,690
Total Pistachio Regional Park $147,986,779
2025
Costs
Prepared by EPS 9/10/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m04 - 9-09-25 final

B-5

Table B-4
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update CIP Detailed Costs - Parks, Recreation, & Libraries
Facilities
Cost Per
SF/LF/Unit SF/LF/Unit Total Cost
2025
Costs
Splash Pad and Playground at Pistachio Regional Park
Splash Pad - - $1,092,048
Playground - - $200,000
Play area containment - - $214,000
Walkways $15 3,500 $52,500
Lighting - - $45,650
Fencing $60 1,100 $66,000
Subtotal Splash Pad and Playground $1,670,198
Soft Costs 30% - $501,059
Subtotal Splash Pad and Playground (Plus Soft Costs) $2,171,257 Contingency 15% - $325,689
Total Splash Pad and Playground $2,496,946
West Roseville Skate Park
Skate and pump track $104 32,310 $3,360,240
Parking Lot $2,500 150 $375,000
Fencing - - $438,000
Walkways $15 32,240 $483,600
Lighting - - $250,000
Restroom - - $200,000
Subtotal Skate Park $5,106,840
4 Year Escalation 3% $5,747,793
Contingency 15% - $862,169
Total Skate Park $6,609,962
Universally Accessible and Destination Playgrounds $3,400,000 Citywide Park
Baseball Facilites - - $63,042,000
Field House $1,100 17,000 $18,700,000
Subtotal Citywide Park $81,742,000
Contingency 15% - $12,261,300
Total Citywide Park $94,003,300
Total Parks, Recreation, and Library Facilities $247,887,025 Source: City of Roseville and EPS
Prepared by EPS 9/10/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m04 - 9-09-25 final

B-6

Table B-5
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update CIP Detailed Costs - Public Safety Facilities
Facilities
Cost Per
SF/LF/Unit SF/LF/Unit Total Cost
Public Safety Expansion 1A
Parking Lot Expansion
Parking Development (86,223 SF +/-) $25 86,223 $2,155,575 Gateways $60,000 2 $120,000
Fencing/Perimeter Walls 10' height (LF) $350 1,000 $350,000 Electrical Infrastructure only (L2) $8,000 20 $160,000
Electrical Infrastructure only (DCFC 60KW) $10,000 15 $150,000 Electrical Infrastructure only (DCFC 150KW) $25,000 10 $250,000 Transformers and Switchgear $400,000 1 $400,000
Security $100,000 1 $100,000
Solar, ESS, and Canopy $500,000 1 $500,000
Landscape $200,000 1 $200,000
Subtotal Parking Lot Expansion Costs $4,385,575
Corporation Yard Road
North Side Gutter $150 810 $121,500
Culvert Extension and Storm Drain $250,000 1 $250,000
Dig-outs and Repave - Road Repairs $80,000 1 $80,000
Cap and Seal $40,000 1 $40,000
Guardrails and Incidental $20,000 1 $20,000
Subtotal Corporation Yard Road Costs $511,500
Relocation and Expansion of Street Maintenance Building New PEMB Building (Equivalent SF) $120 3,000 $360,000
Site Development (driveway/parking/infrastructure) $25 33,000 $825,000 Landscape $50,000 1 $50,000
Subtotal Relocation and Expansion Costs $1,235,000
Subtotal Phase 1A $6,132,075
Contingency 30% $1,839,623
Permitting and Design 20% $1,226,415
Total Phase 1A Costs $9,198,113
Phase 2
RPD Expansion $600 20,000 $12,000,000
Contingency 30% $3,600,000
Permitting and Design 20% $2,400,000
Total Phase 2 $18,000,000
2025
Improvement Costs
Prepared by EPS 9/10/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m04 - 9-09-25 final

B-7

Table B-5
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update CIP Detailed Costs - Public Safety Facilities
Facilities
Cost Per
SF/LF/Unit SF/LF/Unit Total Cost
2025
Improvement Costs
Phase 3 - Building Alternations
1st Floor
Mark White Meeting room (Front) $1,100 1,151 $1,266,100 Side Meeting Room Addition $800 346 $276,800
Property Storage $600 1,725 $1,035,000
Evidence Transfer $350 127 $44,450
Dispatch Remodel $600 2,215 $1,329,000
Dispatch Addition $900 315 $283,500
IT Expansion $1,200 268 $321,600
Subtotal 1st Floor Costs $4,556,450
2nd Floor
Locker Room $500 3,774 $1,887,000
Lactation $250 87 $21,750
Gym (Converted from Locker Room) $500 656 $328,000
Gym Addition over (E) floor $800 1,134 $907,200
Gym/Locker addition over roof $1,000 2,018 $2,018,000
Restroom Remodels $900 1,110 $999,000
Subtotal 2nd Floor Costs $6,160,950
Subtotal Building Alteration Costs $10,717,400
Contingency 30% $3,215,220
Permitting and Design 20% $2,143,480
Subtotal Phase 3 $16,076,100
Total Public Safety Expansion $43,274,213
Animal Control Facility
City Portion - - $12,000,000
Land Acquisition [1] - - $0
Subtotal Animal Control Facility $12,000,000
Total Public Safety Expansion Costs $55,274,213
Source: City of Roseville and EPS
[1] Assumes dedication of land at no cost to the City.

Prepared by EPS 9/10/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m04 - 9-09-25 final B-8

Table B-6
Roseville Public Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update CIP Detailed Costs - IT Projects
Facilities
Cost Per
SF/LF/Unit SF/LF/Unit Total Cost
IT Projects
East Site Communication Tower - - $2,965,306
Total IT Projects $2,965,306
Source: City of Roseville and EPS
Improvement Costs
2025
Prepared by EPS 9/10/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242059 Roseville Master Services Agreement FY 2024\Task 1 - Roseville PFFP\Models\242059-1 m04 - 9-09-25 final B-9

ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTIONS 4.52.010, 4.52.020, 4.52.040, 4.52.050, 4.52.060, 4.52.070, 4.52.080, 4.52.090 AND 4.52.130 OF CHAPTER 4.52 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The sections of the Roseville Municipal Code listed above are hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment “A”.

SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective January 5, 2026.

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

ATTACHMENT "A"

§ 4.52.010. Purpose.

The city council finds and declares that the purpose of this chapter is as follows:

A. The city must be provided, in a time frame related to its development, with an adequate level of public facilities so as to maintain adequate levels of public services.

B. New development, and the expansion of existing development, within the city imposes a burden on the existing public facilities and creates a need for additional public facilities. Such burdens may vary by the type of land use.

C. Analysis of the current land use within the city makes it possible to estimate the burden or need for various public facilities generated by different types of land uses. Analysis of the land use expected at buildout of the city pursuant to the general plan makes it possible to estimate the type and amount of public facilities necessary to support that additional land use.

It is therefore possible to construct a fee, imposed on new development, which equitably spreads the burden of public facilities to development which creates the need for them. It is the intent of this chapter to create such a fee, spreading costs of public facilities to development which creates the need for such public facilities, without generating any surplus to the general fund. It is the further purpose of this chapter to implement the general plan by assuring that adequate public facilities are financed and provided to serve the city.

D. The fee established by this chapter has been calculated in the manner set forth in the study, as hereinafter defined, so as to pay for those facilities listed in the study.

E. The fee established by this chapter is in addition to any other fees or charges required by law as a condition of development.

F. The fee established by this chapter is to be collected for public facilities for which an account has been established.

G. That the failure to impose the conditions and regulations of this chapter relating to payment of the fee on building permits, or as soon as otherwise authorized by law, would jeopardize residents of the community, in that it would permit construction to proceed without adequate public facilities or means of financing said public facilities.

H. The requirement of this chapter to pay the fee is necessary in order to assure compliance with the applicable zoning ordinance and general plan requirements for the facilities funded by this chapter.

I. That for a period of greater than 10 days prior to adoption of this chapter, data has been available to the public and to developers and their representatives indicating the cost or estimated cost of all the facilities to be funded, the revenue sources anticipated and the means of spreading these costs.

J. That the city council has considered the effect of the fee imposed by this chapter with respect to the housing needs of the city as a whole and of the region, particularly as required by the housing element of the general plan, and the city council finds that this chapter does not unduly adversely affect the city’s ability to provide for such needs.

K. That the establishment of the fee is for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects,

necessary to maintain service required by the general plan within existing service areas and existing portions of the city which are developed or for which land use has already been granted.
§ 4.52.020. Definitions.

The following words are defined for purposes of this chapter as follows:
“Building permit” means the permit issued or required by the city for the construction of any structure pursuant to and as defined by the building code. “Director” means the administrative services director/city treasurer of the City of Roseville. “Facilities” mean those public facilities, improvements or infrastructure shown and included in the study, including ancillary uses and appurtenances.
“Fee” or “public facilities fee” means the fee established by this chapter. The fee shall be collected prior to the approval of any building permit, or as soon as otherwise authorized by law. The fee shall be used solely to finance the facilities.
“Improvement plan” means a site plan of property proposed for development showing all required improvements that must be approved by the city prior to the issuance of a building permit for the property.
“Public facilities fund” means that special interest-bearing fund established pursuant to Section

4.52.030.
“Public facilities” mean buildings or other improvements owned by the City of Roseville or Placer County.
“Study” means the “Public Facilities Fee Impact Study” prepared by MuniFinancial and dated November 20, 2003, and the Public Facilities Fee Impact Fee Update prepared by MuniFinancial and dated November 7, 2007, and the Public Facilities Fee Update prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. prepared for the fee increase effective October 1, 2015, and the Public Facilities Fee Update prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. prepared for the fee increase effective January 4, 2021, and the Public Facilities Fee Update prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. prepared for the fee increase effective January 5, 2026. The Study and Fee Update are on file in the office of the city clerk.
§ 4.52.040. Payment of public facilities fee.

Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, the fee imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be paid at or prior to the issuance of any building permit, or as soon as otherwise authorized by law.

Calculation of the fee shall be determined in accordance with the Study and this chapter, the type of development and the extent of development. Descriptions of land use categories in this chapter,

except as otherwise noted, are utilized in the same manner as in the general plan. Public facilities are exempt from the public facilities fee.
§ 4.52.050. Public facilities fee—Residential.

Effective January 45, 20212026, the fee for residential development shall be: Low density residential
<1,500 sq. ft. shall be $5,067 per dwelling unit;
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. shall be $6,281 per dwelling unit 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. shall be $6,805 per dwelling unit >3,500 sq. ft. shall be $7,185 per dwelling unit
Effective January 5, 2026, the fee for (LDR) shall be $3,528.00 per dwelling unit; Medium density residential (MDR) shall be
$3,266.00 per dwelling unit; Ssingle-family agerestrictedage-restricted residential development shall be:
$2,352.00 per dwelling unit<1,500 sq. ft. shall be $3,450 per dwelling unit; 1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. shall be $4,283 per dwelling unit 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. shall be $4,640 per dwelling unit >3,500 sq. ft. shall be $4,758 per dwelling unit
§ 4.52.060. Public facilities fee—Commercial and unspecified development.

Effective January 5, 20212026, the fee for commercial or unspecified development shall be $1.080.66 per square foot of structure.
§ 4.52.070. Public facilities fee—Industrial.

Effective January 5, 20212026, the fee for light industrial development shall be $0.7244 per square foot of structure and for general industrial the fee shall be $0.4427 per square foot of structure. § 4.52.080. Public facilities fee—Business/professional.

Effective January 5, 20212026, the fee for business/professional and central business district development shall be $1.450.89 per square foot of structure. § 4.52.090. Public facilities fee—Multifamily-HDR and HDR-age restricted.

Effective January 5, 20212026, the fee for multifamily development shall be:
<1,500 sq. ft. shall be $3,420 per dwelling unit;
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. shall be $4,239 per dwelling unit 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. shall be $4,591 per dwelling unit >3,500 sq. ft. shall be $4,848 per dwelling unit
$2,352.00 per dwelling unit. Effective January 5, 20212026, the fee for multifamily age- restricted development shall be:
<1,500 sq. ft. shall be $2,380 per dwelling unit;
1,500 to 2,500 sq. ft. shall be $2,890 per dwelling unit 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. shall be $3,130 per dwelling unit >3,500 sq. ft. shall be $3,211 per dwelling unit $1,959.00 per dwelling unit § 4.52.130. Fee adjustments.

A. A developer of any project subject to the fee established by this chapter may apply to the director for a reduction or adjustment to the fee based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the impacts of the project and either the amount of the fee or the facilities to be financed by the fee. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the director not later than 20 calendar days after notification of the amount of the fee. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of reduction or adjustment and the amount of the proposed reduction or adjustment. The director shall consider the application and render his or her decision in writing not later than 45 calendar days after the filing of the fee adjustment request. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the director may, within 20 calendar days thereafter, appeal the decision in writing to the city council by filing an appeal with the city clerk. The city council shall consider such appeals within 45 calendar days after filing. The decision of the city council shall be final. No building permit, unless as otherwise required by law, shall be issued for the project until the final decision pursuant to this section has been made. No application for a project shall be considered final or complete for purposes of the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 et seq.), or any other purpose, until a final decision pursuant to this section has been made.

B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A, a project proponent or applicant may pay the fee “under protest” and receive a building permit; provided, however, that the application for reduction or adjustment shall thereafter be filed within 10 calendar days or any objection shall be deemed waived. If a reduction or adjustment is received after payment pursuant this subsection is made, a refund to the applicant shall be made of that amount by which the fee is reduced or adjusted.

C. The project proponent or applicant applying for a reduction or adjustment shall have

the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a reasonable relationship or nexus is lacking between the fee, or the facilities to be financed by the fee, and the particular project.

D. In the event of any reduction or adjustment in the fee granted pursuant to this section, any later change in the use, zoning, or land use designation for the property involved shall subject the then owner to payment of the then applicable fee for such new uses, zoning, or land use designation, whether or not a building permit is required.

D.E. The protest procedures set forth in this section are administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to the institution of any judicial proceeding concerning the fees protested.