Project, authorization for the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville, and authorization for staff to approve change orders in the amount not-to-exceed 10% of the contracted amount. Funding is from The Courts at Gibson Park Frontage project. Staff also recommends approval of a budget adjustment in the amount of $172,500 from the General Fund to The Courts at Gibson Park Frontage project, increasing the total project budget to $622,500. The budget adjustment will (1) transfer $170,000 from the General Fund Capital Reserve Fund to the General Fund and (2) increase the General Fund revenue budget for rent received in the amount of $2,500, to fund the project.
CONTACT: Josh Cervantes 916-746-1233 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-337 approving an agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and Frontline General Engineering Construction, Inc., and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville; and
b. Adopt Ordinance No. 7007 authorizing certain amendments to the fiscal year 2025-26 budget and declaring this ordinance to be immediately effective as an appropriation measure.
8. Parks Contractor Pre-Qualifications (PARKS, RECREATION, AND LIBRARIES DEPARTMENT - PARK
DEVELOPMENT)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of the pre-qualification process set forth by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) publication, including the approval of the DIR uniform rating system and modified experience ratings, for the City's Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department capital projects to be bid and/or begin construction in the 2026 calendar year. Staff also recommends approval of the appeals process set forth in the Notice to Contractors, and to authorize the City Manager to appoint an Appeals Panel consisting of one Assistant City Manager, the Director of Parks, Recreation & Libraries, and one member of staff experienced in the public works bidding process. There is no direct fiscal impact in approving the pre- qualification and appeals process.
CONTACT: Tara Gee 916-774-5253 [email protected]
The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-348 approving the pre-qualifications procedure for certain Parks, Recreation & Libraries projects and approving the administrative hearing process for appeals; and
b. Approve the pre-qualification process set forth in the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) publication, including the approval of the DIR uniform rating system and modified experience ratings, for Parks, Recreational & Libraries capital projects to be bid and/or begin construction in the 2026 calendar year; and
c. Approve the appeals process set forth in the Notice to Contractors; and
d. Authorize the City Manager to appoint an appeals panel consisting of the Assistant City Manager, the Director of Parks, Recreation & Libraries and one member of staff experienced in the public works bidding process.
9. Riego Creek Park Turf Conversion - Notice of Completion (PARKS, RECREATION, AND LIBRARIES
DEPARTMENT - PARK DEVELOPMENT)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of the Notice of Completion for the Riego Creek Turf Conversion Project. The total cost of the construction contract with Brightview Landscape Development, Inc. is $288,685. Funding for this project was included in the Neighborhood Park - West Roseville Specific Plan Fund.
CONTACT: Heather Buck 916-774-5254 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-339 accepting the public work known as Riego Creek Park Turf Conversion Project, approving the “Notice of Completion”, and authorizing the Parks, Recreation and Libraries Director to execute said notice on behalf of the City of Roseville.
10. Fleet Services Parts - Sole Source Purchase Order (PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - FLEET) Summary: Staff recommends approval of a sole source purchase order with One Source Parts LLC in the amount of $120,000 for the purchase of refuse truck parts. One Source Parts LLC is the sole authorized provider of many of the parts used on the City's fleet of Bridgeport refuse trucks.
These parts are crucial in the maintenance of the City’s growing refuse fleet. Funding for these parts will come from the Fleet Services Fund budget.
CONTACT: Josh Brooks 916-746-1731 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Approve a Sole Source purchase order with One Source Parts, LLC for the procurement of critical parts used to maintain the City’s refuse fleet.
11. Public Safety Vehicle Parts and Services – Contract Purchase Agreement (PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT - FLEET)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of a contract purchase agreement utilizing Placer County’s contract# SCN108420 for one year from October 1, 2025, to September 30, 2026, with LEHR Upfitters OpCo LLC dba LEHR. This contract will provide upfitting services for public safety vehicles, which includes the materials and labor needed to provide features not available directly from the vehicle manufacturers. The total cost of parts and services during the contract period will not exceed $1,000,000. Funding for the LEHR contract purchase agreement is included in the FY2025-26 Fleet Replacement Fund budget and will be recommended in the proposed FY2026-27 budget.
CONTACT: Lea Schroeder 916-774-5503 [email protected]
The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-340 approving a contract purchase agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and Lehr Upfitters Opco LLC dba Lehr, and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
12. Roseville Police Department Expansion Project - Professional Design Services Agreement Amendment (PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - FACILITIES)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of a first amendment to the professional design services agreement with 19Six Architects in the amount of $879,511 for the completion of the Police Department Expansion Project construction documents and to incorporate the design of three life-cycle system replacement projects. A discretionary 10% contingency is also requested to cover the cost of unforeseen conditions. The costs of the additional services are covered by the Police Department Facility Expansion, Design and Construction Project with a current project budget of $11,130,000, which includes both design and construction, in the Public Facilities and Facility Rehabilitation funds.
CONTACT: Andre Baranov 916-774-5342 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-343 approving a first amendment to professional design services agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and 19six Architects, and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
13. Backflow Program Technology Project - Budget Adjustment (ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT - WATER)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of a budget adjustment in the amount of $245,000 for Information Technology Department secondary labor costs to complete integrations and upgrades to the City’s asset management and billing systems for cross-connection control and backflow prevention program compliance. Funding is available in the Water Operations Fund.
CONTACT: Rachel Tooker 916-746-1712 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Ordinance No. 7008 authorizing certain amendments to the fiscal year 2025-26 budget and declaring this ordinance to be immediately effective as an appropriation measure.
14. SB 1383 Compliance – Professional Services Agreement (ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT - SOLID WASTE)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of a professional services agreement with SMART Compliance for the procurement of solid waste compliance software, two field printers, and up to 100 hours of software customization. These services are needed to streamline regulatory compliance and to effectively manage programs, documents, and operations. The contract cost
of $110,500 is included in the FY2025-26 Waste Services Operations Fund budget and is funded by the CalRecycle Local Assistance Grant.
CONTACT: Michelle White 916-774-5774 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-344 approving a professional services agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and SMART Compliance, and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
15. Housing Inspection Services - Professional Services Agreement (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT - HOUSING)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of a professional services agreement with CSG Consultants for the purpose of providing Housing Inspection Services funded by Community Development Block Grant, Home Investment Partnerships Program, CalHome, and Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods (BEGIN) Program funds. The not-to-exceed amount per year is $20,000, while the total not-to-exceed maximum for the five-year contract term is $100,000. No General Fund resources will be used.
CONTACT: Kristine Faelz 916-774-5451 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-338 approving a professional services agreement by and between the City of Roseville and CSG Consultants, Inc., and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
16. Purchase of Natural Gas - Base Contract (ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT - FINANCIAL &
ADMINISTRATIVE)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas with ARM Energy Management LLC.
Executing this NAESB Base Contract will expand Roseville’s pool of pre-approved natural gas counterparties, enhancing procurement flexibility during periods of market volatility. There is no cost associated with the execution of this contract, as these documents serve as enabling agreements.
CONTACT: Patrick Zanardelli 916-774-5673 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-345 approving a Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas, by and between the City of Roseville and Arm Energy Management, Inc., and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
17. Light Duty Steel Poles (RFQ 10-3425) — Purchase Orders (FINANCE DEPARTMENT -
PURCHASING)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of purchase orders with MVA Power, Inc. for the purchase of light-duty steel poles in response to Request for Quotations (RFQ) No. 10-3425. The estimated cost for FY2025-26 is $500,000. Estimated spending for the optional renewal years of FY2026-27 through FY2029-30 is $900,000 per fiscal year. Funding for this purchase is included in the FY2025-26 Electric Fund budget.
CONTACT: Sue Jessup 916-746-1107 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-336 approving a purchase order for light duty steel poles.
18. Cost Allocation Plan and Indirect Cost Rate Proposal - Professional Services Agreement Amendment (FINANCE DEPARTMENT - BUDGET)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of the final optional renewal of the professional services agreement with MGT Impact Solutions, LLC, in the amount of $33,720 which is included in the Finance Department’s FY2025-26 budget to prepare the City’s Cost Allocation Plan and Indirect Cost Rate Proposals for the FY2026-27 budget.
CONTACT: Nancy Rothlisberger 916-774-5314 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-341 approving a third amendment to professional services agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and MGT Impact Solutions, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, successor in interest to MGT of America Consulting, LLC, and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
VIII. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
19. Creekview Phase 5 Community Facilities District No. 1 - Bond Issuance (FINANCE
DEPARTMENT)
Summary: Staff recommends Council authorization for the issuance of special tax bonds for and on behalf of the Creekview Phase 5 Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 1 (Public Facilities), and approving the Fiscal Agent Agreement, Bond Purchase Agreement, Acquisition Agreement, and Preliminary Official Statement. The Series 2025 Bonds are being issued at the developer’s request in an amount not to exceed $18,000,000. Special taxes levied within the Creekview Phase 5 Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 1 will be paid by property owners and will be sufficient to cover debt service, CFD administration, and any authorized pay-as-you-go facilities, as well as to provide future funding for maintenance and replacement of constructed facilities.
Issuance of these bonds will have no impact on the City’s General Fund.
CONTACT: Jeannine Thrash 916-774-5473 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-347 authorizing the issuance of special tax bonds for and on behalf of the City of Roseville Creekview Phase 5 Community Facilities District No. 1 (public facilities), approving and directing the execution of a fiscal agent agreement, bond purchase agreement and acquisition agreement, approving the form of preliminary official statement, approving sale of such bonds, and approving other related documents and actions.
Finance Director Scott Pettingell made the presentation to the City Council.
No public comment received.
Motion by Councilmember Alvord, seconded by Councilmember Houdesheldt, to adopt Resolution No. 25-347 authorizing the issuance of special tax bonds for and on behalf of the City of Roseville Creekview Phase 5 Community Facilities District No. 1 (public facilities), approving and directing the execution of a fiscal agent agreement, bond purchase agreement and acquisition agreement, approving the form of preliminary official statement, approving sale of such bonds, and approving other related documents and actions. The motion passed.
Ayes: Vice Mayor Alvord, Councilmember Houdesheldt, Councilmember Mendonsa, Councilmember Roccucci, Mayor Bernasconi.
20. Campaign Contribution Limitation and the Levine Act - Roseville Municipal Code Amendments (CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT)
Summary: Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance to amend Section 2.60.065 of Chapter 2.60 of Title 2 of the Roseville Municipal Code (RMC), to remove the odd-year CPI-based adjustment language and align with the current Levine Act limitation amount ($500). Senate Bill (SB) 1439 (2022), as amended by SB 1243 (2024) and SB 1181 (2024), expanded the coverage of the Levine Act to apply to local officials. The Levine Act functions as a campaign contribution limit and conflict of interest scheme to prevent “pay-to- play” practices by limiting the use of campaign contributions as a way to influence the outcome of certain discretionary approvals that may come before agency officials. The proposed RMC amendments are intended to help ensure compliance and prevent violations, make the limitation amount more transparent for candidates, officials, and the community, and align more closely with current law and regulations.
CONTACT: Jonathan Levy 916-774-5325 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Introduce, for first reading, an ordinance to amend Section 2.60.065 of Chapter 2.60 of Title 2 of the Roseville Municipal Code, to remove the odd-year CPI-based adjustment language and make other Levine Act-related conforming amendments.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Jonathan Levy made the presentation to the City Council.
No public comment received.
Motion by Councilmember Mendonsa, seconded by Councilmember Roccucci, to introduce for first reading an Ordinance to amend Section 2.60.065 of Chapter 2.60 of Title 2 of the Roseville Municipal Code to remove the odd-year CPI-based adjustment language and make other Levine Act-related conforming amendments. The motion passed.
Ayes: Vice Mayor Alvord, Councilmember Houdesheldt, Councilmember Mendonsa, Councilmember Roccucci, Mayor Bernasconi.
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Public Hearing Process
City Council, when considering the matter, will take the following actions:
1. Open the Public Hearing
2. Presentation by staff
3. Presentation by applicant or appellant
4. Accept public testimony
5. Appellant or applicant rebuttal period
6. Close the Public Hearing
7. City Council comments and questions
8. City Council action
Any challenges in court about public hearing matters noticed on this agenda may be limited to only those issues, that were raised orally at the public hearing or in written form received by the City on or before the hearing.
Public Hearings listed for continuance will be continued and posting of this agenda will serve as notice of continuation.
21. Prohousing Designation Application Renewal (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING) Summary: Staff recommends Council authorize staff to apply for renewal to participate in the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Prohousing Designation Program. Jurisdictions must complete an application and provide documentation of their policies, publish the application for a 30-day public review period, hold an informational workshop, publish any revisions, and adopt a Resolution prior to submitting the complete application to HCD. The City's draft application was published for a 30-day review period which closed on September 29, 2025. The project has no negative impacts on the City's General Fund and renewal of the City's Prohousing designation makes the City eligible to receive various grant funding sources.
CONTACT: Lauren Hocker 916-774-5272 [email protected] The City Council will consider the recommendation to:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-346 authorizing an application and participation in the Prohousing Designation Program, and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.
Mayor Bernasconi opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m.
Planning Manager Greg Bitter introduced Senior Planner Lauren Hocker.
Senior Planner Lauren Hocker made the presentation to the City Council.
No public comment received.
Mayor Bernasconi closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.
Motion by Councilmember Houdesheldt, seconded by Councilmember Roccucci, to adopt Resolution No. 25-346 authorizing an application and participation in the Prohousing Designation Program, and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville. The motion passed.
Ayes: Vice Mayor Alvord, Councilmember Houdesheldt, Councilmember Mendonsa, Councilmember Roccucci, Mayor Bernasconi.
X. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the second opportunity to make a public comment on non-agenda items.
No public comment received.
XI. STAFF/COUNCIL REPORTS
Placer County AIr Pollution Control District Meeting - Vice Mayor Alvord reported on attendance.
Councilmember Roccucci reported on various community events.
Economic Development Advisory Committee - Councilmember Mendonsa reported on attendance.
Councilmember Houdesheldt reported on various community events.
Greater Sacramento Economic Council Event - Mayor Bernasconi reported on attendance.
Mayor Bernasconi reported on various community events.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bernasconi adjourned the meeting at 6:54 p.m.
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 11/19/2025
Item #: VII.19
File #: 0102-06
Item ID: 2025-841
Title: Proclamation - Global Entrepreneurship Week November 17-23, 2025 Contact: Arleta Wagenhals 916-774-5200 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Proclaim November 17-23, 2025 as Global Entrepreneurship Week and encourage the community to support our local entrepreneurs and small business innovators by recognizing the value they bring to our community.
RECOMMENDATION
Proclaim November 17-23, 2025 as Global Entrepreneurship Week and encourage the community to support our local entrepreneurs and small business innovators by recognizing the value they bring to our community.
BACKGROUND
Not Applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only applies to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)).
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
6. Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Arleta Wagenhals, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proclamation - Global Entrepreneur Week
REVIEWERS:
Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Created/Initiated - 11/12/2025 Helen Dreyer, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 11/13/2025
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 11/19/2025
Item #: VIII.20
File #: 0114
Item ID: 2025-812
Title: Government Relations 2025 Legislative Review
Contact: Rob Baquera 916-746-1170 [email protected]
SUMMARY
This staff report provides updates to the City Council on priorities outlined in the City of Roseville’s Legislative Platform. This includes state and federal legislative, regulatory, and other relevant activities being tracked and acted on by the City's Government Relations Team.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council accept an informational report on state and federal activities that staff have been engaged in and legislation that staff has identified as potentially having a significant impact on the City.
BACKGROUND
This report will encompass three elements related to government relations legislation, law, and regulation:
1. Citywide
2. Environmental Utilities
3. Electric Utility
Citywide Government Relations 2025 Legislative Report
Introduction
This report provides the City Council with updates on recently signed and vetoed state legislation, along with a federal legislative and funding overview. The report highlights laws of potential significance to the City of Roseville, including those that may influence operational practices, fiscal planning, workforce management, or service delivery.
State Legislative Calendar
October 12, 2025 – Final day for Governor to sign or veto 2025 bills January 1, 2026 – Most 2025 statutes take effect
January 5, 2026 – Legislature reconvenes for the 2026 session
Legislative Context
The 2025 session marks the first year of California’s two-year legislative cycle, meaning bills introduced this year that did not advance may still be acted upon in 2026. These “two-year bills” often re-emerge with amendments or renewed momentum in the second year, providing additional opportunities for stakeholder engagement, advocacy, and refinement before final consideration by the Legislature and Governor.
State Legislative Update: Recently Signed or Vetoed Legislation
During the 2025 California Legislative Session, lawmakers introduced more than 2,600 bills addressing issues ranging from housing, homelessness, and infrastructure to public safety, labor, and environmental protection. Of those measures, the Governor signed approximately 1,050 bills into law and vetoed around 150, with the remainder failing to advance by legislative deadlines.
The City’s Government Relations Team actively tracked approximately 350 bills throughout the session, identifying those with potential operational, fiscal, or policy implications for City departments. Of those, the City took formal positions on roughly 75 bills, either in support, opposition, or seeking amendment.
The following section highlights the most significant newly enacted or vetoed bills with potential citywide impact, providing a summary of each measure and an overview of potential implications for Roseville’s operations, programs, and services.
NEW Laws
AB 339 (Ortega) Local public employee organizations: notice requirements (Oppose) This bill expands the Meyers–Milias–Brown Act to require at least 45 days’ written notice to recognized employee organizations before a city or other local agency issues a Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for Quotes (RFQ), or renews or extends contracts that involve services performed by represented classifications. The notice must include the scope, duration, and purpose of the proposed contract.
Emergency exceptions apply but must provide as much notice as practicable.
Staff Comments: This bill sought to increase transparency in public sector contracting and may extend procurement timelines where labor groups represent impacted classifications. The City may see operational implications where contracted services overlap union positions.
AB 370 (Carrillo) California Public Records Act: cyberattacks (Support) This bill amends the California Public Records Act to classify cyberattacks that disable electronic servers or systems as an “unusual circumstance,” allowing local agencies additional time beyond the standard 10 days to respond to public records requests until access is restored.
Staff Comments: This law provides clarity during cybersecurity incidents, allowing temporary timeline extensions without violating the PRA. It highlights coordination between IT, the City Clerk’s Office, and Communications when outages affect transparency obligations.
AB 486 (Lackey) Crimes: burglary tools (Support)
This bill expands the definition of burglary tools to include key programming devices, key duplicating devices, and signal extenders commonly used in vehicle thefts.
Staff Comments: The measure strengthens enforcement against technology-enabled vehicle theft, providing clearer statutory footing for investigations and prosecutions.
AB 492 (Valencia) Alcohol and drug programs: licensing (Support) This bill requires the Department of Health Care Services to notify cities or counties when licensing a substance use disorder recovery or treatment facility, including licensee name, mailing address, and facility location.
Staff Comments: This bill provides earlier notification which enhances local awareness of new facilities and supports zoning verification, community engagement, and interdepartmental coordination.
AB 538 (Berman) Public works: payroll records (Watch)
This bill requires awarding bodies that receive requests for certified payroll records but do not possess the documents to obtain them from contractors within 10 days and release them to the requester.
Staff Comments: This bill increases administrative responsibility for public agencies by requiring active retrieval of contractor payroll records. It underscores the importance of strong documentation processes to meet transparency deadlines.
AB 875 (Muratsuchi) Vehicle removal (Support)
This bill authorizes removal of vehicles with fewer than four wheels that are powered by an electric motor capable of exceeding 20 mph when operated by an unlicensed driver and authorizes removal of Class 3 e- bikes operated by persons under 16. It allows agencies to recover administrative costs and, in certain cases, condition release on completion of a safety course.
Staff Comments: This statute provides tools to address unsafe micromobility behavior and unlicensed operation, with potential benefits for corridor safety and youth education initiatives.
AB 888 (Calderon) California Safe Homes grant program (Support) This bill establishes the California Safe Homes Grant Program within the Department of Insurance to fund wildfire risk reduction, defensible space, and property hardening projects. Eligible applicants include individuals, cities, counties, and special districts.
Staff Comments: This bill presents potential funding opportunities for local fire prevention and resilience projects, complementing community risk reduction efforts and neighborhood hardening programs.
AB 992 (Irwin) Peace officers (Support)
This bill repeals the requirement that POST adopt education criteria based on the California Community Colleges’ modern policing degree report.
Staff Comments: This bill maintains continuity in training standards and preserves flexibility for local recruitment and academy partnerships without near-term curriculum changes.
AB 1067 (Quirk-Silva) Public employees’ retirement: felony convictions (Watch) This bill requires public employers to continue investigations when an employee retires during an investigation and potential crimes are indicated. If the employee is later convicted of a qualifying felony arising from official duties or benefit fraud, related retirement benefits must be forfeited pursuant to existing law.
Staff Comments: This bill clarifies authority and expectations for ongoing investigations involving criminal conduct, potentially lengthening timelines but increasing procedural certainty for accountability.
AB 1178 (Pacheco) Peace officers: confidentiality of records (Support) This bill requires a court, in actions to compel disclosure, to consider whether a peace officer is currently operating undercover when determining whether disclosure would pose a significant danger to safety.
Staff Comments: This bill enhances protections for undercover officers and clarifies standards that may influence local redaction practices and PRA response posture.
SB 19 (Rubio) Crimes: threats (Support)
This bill expands criminal penalties for making threats—by any means, including online posts—directed at specified locations such as workplaces, daycares, and similar sites, when the threat is specific and causes sustained fear.
Staff Comments: This bill broadens enforcement tools for responding to threats against public facilities and community spaces, supporting coordination among Police, Risk Management, and partners.
SB 71 (Wiener) CEQA exemptions: transit projects (Watch) This bill permanently extends CEQA exemptions for certain bicycle, pedestrian, and signal improvement projects and adds exemptions for transit comprehensive operational analyses and route adjustments.
Staff Comments: This bill sought to enable faster delivery of small-scale mobility and transit service projects, supporting complete streets and route optimization efforts.
SB 303 (Smallwood-Cuevas) Employment: bias mitigation training (Watch) This bill clarifies that an employee’s good-faith acknowledgment or assessment of personal bias solicited during bias-mitigation training does not constitute unlawful discrimination.
Staff Comments: Provides legal clarity that supports candid participation in diversity and inclusion programming, aligning with organizational culture objectives.
SB 394 (Allen) Water theft: fire hydrants (Support)
This bill authorizes utilities to bring civil actions for damages for tampering with or unauthorized use of fire hydrants, hydrant meters, or fire detector checks, and expands rebuttable presumptions aiding enforcement.
Staff Comments: This bill strengthens deterrence and cost-recovery options for illegal hydrant connections, supporting operational integrity and conservation goals.
SB 456 (Ashby) Contractors: exemptions: muralists (Support) This bill exempts muralists from contractor licensing requirements when commissioned by an authorized party to draw, paint, apply, execute, restore, or conserve a mural.
Staff Comments: This bill simplifies public-art engagements and can encourage placemaking and neighborhood beautification efforts.
SB 464 (Smallwood-Cuevas) Employer pay data (Watch)
This bill requires demographic information collected for pay-data reporting to be stored separately from personnel records and, beginning January 1, 2027, increases job categories for reporting to 23.
Staff Comments: This bill expands workforce reporting requirements and may enhance pay-equity analysis and transparency across municipal organizations.
SB 595 (Choi) Local government: investments (Watch)
This bill extends the maximum maturity for eligible prime commercial paper investments from 270 to 397 days for local agencies.
Staff Comments: This bill provides modest laddering and yield flexibility within conservative investment constraints used by municipal treasuries.
SB 707 (Durazo) Open meetings: teleconference requirements (Oppose) This bill, effective July 1, 2026, requires eligible local legislative bodies to provide two-way telephonic or audiovisual public participation for open meetings and to adopt policies addressing disruptions of telephonic or internet services.
Staff Comments: This bill expands accessibility and formalizes hybrid participation standards, with implications for room technology, staffing, and meeting procedures. The City will have to mitigate the new
requirements in this legislation which will create operational adjustments and added workload to achieve.
SB 710 (Blakespear) Property taxation: active solar energy systems (Watch) This bill clarifies that the property tax exclusion for active solar energy systems becomes inoperative on January 1, 2027 (rather than being formally repealed on that date).
Staff Comments: Provides certainty for property owners and developers regarding solar tax treatment and may shape expectations in permitting communications.
Vetoed
AB 400 (Pacheco) Commission on POST: police canines (Support) This bill would have required the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to study and issue recommendations on the use of police canines, identifying standards for patrol and detection operations by July 1, 2028. The bill was vetoed by the Governor.
Staff Comments: Although vetoed, the measure reflects ongoing legislative interest in statewide oversight of police canine programs. Future proposals could introduce reporting, certification, or operational standards affecting local agencies.
AB 738 (Tangipa) Energy: photovoltaic requirements for disaster rebuilds (Support) This bill would have temporarily allowed certain post-disaster home rebuilds to meet the solar photovoltaic requirements that were in effect when the original home was built, through January 1, 2028. The bill was vetoed by the Governor.
Staff Comments: Although not enacted, the concept signals legislative interest in easing compliance burdens during disaster recovery and could affect local permitting processes if reintroduced.
SB 757 (Richardson) Local government: nuisance abatement (Support) This bill would have authorized cities and counties to collect nuisance-abatement fines via liens or special assessments and directed recovered revenues to housing streamlining or revolving loan purposes; it was vetoed by the Governor.
Staff Comments: This bill reflects a policy trend linking code enforcement and housing outcomes. If reconsidered, similar measures could expand cost-recovery tools while incorporating equity safeguards.
Federal Legislative & Funding Update
The federal legislative environment remains shaped by ongoing fiscal negotiations and temporary spending measures. The current federal government shutdown, while partial, has delayed certain administrative operations and slowed federal disbursements, including Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding used for the City’s Housing Choice Voucher program. These delays are expected to be temporary once appropriations resume.
Key areas of federal relevance for Roseville include:
• HUD Funding Stability: Appropriation delays have temporarily impacted voucher disbursements.
Staff continue to monitor HUD updates regarding payment continuity for local housing programs. • Infrastructure & Transportation: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) continues to fund major competitive grant programs such as RAISE, INFRA, and Safe Streets for All. The next funding
rounds are anticipated in early 2026 and could align with local mobility and safety projects. • Cybersecurity and Resilience: The reauthorization of the PILLAR Act expands local eligibility for cybersecurity grants administered by the Department of Homeland Security and CISA. Cities with established cybersecurity frameworks, such as Roseville, may be well-positioned for participation. • Regional Advocacy: The recent Placer Business Alliance D.C. Summit reaffirmed the value of coordinated regional engagement. Roseville’s participation strengthened relationships with congressional staff and agency partners, positioning the City for success in the 2026 federal advocacy cycle.
Conclusion and Next Steps
As the 2025 legislative year concludes, Roseville remains well positioned to build on its advocacy and monitoring efforts heading into the second year of the legislative cycle. The volume and diversity of bills enacted this year—spanning housing, infrastructure, public safety, and local government operations, underscore the continued need for coordinated engagement across departments.
Looking ahead, the Government Relations Team will focus on several key initiatives:
• Legislative Platform Review (January 2026): Conducting an annual review and update of the City’s Legislative and Regulatory Platform to align advocacy priorities with Council goals and emerging policy trends.
• 2026 Legislative Session Preparation: Refining tracking systems and re-engaging with departments on carryover and new two-year bills anticipated for action early in 2026. • Federal Advocacy Planning: Continuing coordination with the City’s federal lobbyist and regional partners to identify funding and policy opportunities for inclusion in the 2026 Federal Advocacy Trip.
• Government Relations Team Engagement: Convening quarterly meetings of the Law and Regulation Committee to ensure awareness, collaboration, and consistency in City advocacy at all levels of government.
These next steps will support a strong foundation for the City’s 2026 legislative and funding efforts, ensuring that Roseville continues to advance community priorities through active engagement in state and federal policymaking.
Environmental Utilities State Legislation
This year, the Environmental Utilities Department (EU) tracked approximately 230 bills with potential impacts on the City’s Water, Wastewater, and Waste Services Utilities. Of these, staff actively engaged on 26 measures through association workgroups, coalition letters, and in-person testimony at the State Capitol. EU supported 12 bills; four were signed into law, two were vetoed, and six did not reach the Governor’s desk. EU opposed or opposed unless amended a total of 13 bills; four were signed into law and nine did not advance. In addition, EU moved from an Oppose Unless Amended to a Neutral position on two bills, both of which were signed into law, and from a Watch to a Support position on one bill, which was also signed into law. The following bills are priority bills that EU has engaged on, many of which have
previously been shared with the Law and Regulation committee, and have either been signed into law, vetoed by the Governor, or made into two-year bills.
New Laws
AB 263 (Rogers) Scott River: Shasta River: watersheds (Oppose) This bill provides that specified emergency regulations adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) for the Scott River and Shasta River watersheds shall remain in effect until January 1, 2031, or until permanent rules establishing and implementing long-term instream flow requirements are adopted for those watersheds.
Staff Comments: The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has the authority to adopt emergency regulations during droughts or other critical conditions when immediate action is needed to prevent water management activities, including diversions, which could impact fish and wildlife. Roseville’s contracted water supply through PCWA is subject to such emergency actions by the Water Board.
Environmental Utilities, through the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), opposed this measure because it sets a precedent for expanding the use of emergency rulemaking in state law. This is concerning because emergency regulations bypass normal stakeholder engagement and are intended for immediate threats, not ongoing policy objectives. Using them for non-emergency issues undermines statutory limits and invites future overreach. Extending this authority also creates uncertainty for local agencies by imposing immediate compliance obligations without time to plan or budget, increasing exposure to penalties, and disrupting long-term infrastructure and resource planning. AB 263 was signed into law.
AB 339 (Ortega) Local public employee organizations: notice requirements (Oppose) This bill requires the governing body of a public agency and boards and commissions to give the recognized labor union no less than 45 days’ written notice before issuing a request for proposals, request for quotes, or renewing or extending an existing contract to perform services that are within the scope of work of the job classifications represented by the labor union.
Staff Comments: AB 339 applies to any contract that the City has for any job classification represented by a recognized employee labor union. Roseville opposed this measure and coordinated our efforts with the Citywide Government Relations Administrator as this bill reduces our flexibility to work with community partners. AB 339 was signed into law.
AB 1319 (Schultz) Protected species: California Endangered Species Act (Oppose Unless Amended)
This bill makes it unlawful for a person in California to import, export, transport, sell or offer for sale any fish, wildlife, or plant that was taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of state or federal law. It requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to monitor federal actions that reduce protections for federally listed species and to provisionally list those species under the California Endangered Species Act, when warranted. These provisions remain in effect until December 31, 2031 and are repealed January 1, 2032.
Staff Comments: This bill is intended to ensure that there is no backsliding as a result of a decrease in endangered or threatened species protections by the federal government. Like AB 263, this bill allows for an emergency rulemaking process for species with a “decrease in protection,” However, under the California Endangered Species Act, candidate species are already given full legal protections as if they were permanently listed. Staff engaged on this measure through ACWA and California Municipal Utilities
Association (CMUA) because it bypasses scientific and stakeholder review, creating regulatory uncertainty for local water agencies. While it does not authorize new listings for species not already federally recognized, its automatic protections could affect state and federal water operations, including Roseville’s contracted supplies through PCWA and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), if new habitat restrictions are imposed. AB 1319 was signed into law.
SB 31 (McNerny) Water quality: recycled water. (Support) This bill updates the California Water Code as it relates to the use of recycled water. Under this bill, certain discharges of treated recycled water, such as from decorative fountains or similar uses where recycled water replaces evaporative losses, are no longer considered an “unauthorized discharge.” Staff Comments: WateReuse California sponsored this legislation in an effort to modernize non-potable recycled water regulations in the California Water Code, which had previously not been updated since 2000. SB 31 has been signed into law by the Governor and now allows the City to make full and practical use of recycled water systems by expanding the ability to irrigate parks and other landscaped areas even where small amounts of mist or runoff might reach outdoor picnic tables, thereby reducing demand on potable water without triggering unnecessary use restrictions.
SB 72 (Caballero) The California Water Plan: long-term supply targets. (Support) This bill directs the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to modernize the California Water Plan and establishes an interim water supply planning target of achieving an additional 9,000,000 acre-feet of water capacity by 2040.
Staff Comments: In 2023, Senator Caballero introduced nearly identical legislation (SB 366), but it was vetoed by the Governor due to ongoing costs to DWR, the Water Board and other agencies. SB 72 had an accompanying budget request to ensure that funding is set aside and available, but due to budget constraints, funding was not included in the 2025 Budget. However, SB 72 was signed into law by the Governor as it aligns with California’s climate goals to manage climate change and identify new water resources throughout the state. Additionally, DWR already receives funding in the state budget that can go towards implementing SB 72 CMUA sponsored this multi-year effort.
SB 394 (Allen) Water theft: fire hydrants (Support)
This bill provides local agencies a pathway to collect increased fines for the unauthorized connection to a fire hydrant, fire hydrant meter, or fire detector check.
Staff Comments: This bill allows local water retailers, like Roseville, to increase fines for water theft in an effort to deter water theft. A first violation increases from $1,000 to $2,500, a second violation increases from $2,000 to $5,000 and a third violation increases from $3,000 to $10,000. EU has previously experienced water theft from our fire hydrants and has concerns that unauthorized connections to the water system would lead to contamination in the water supply. ACWA co-sponsored SB 394, which was signed into law, further strengthening public safety and water reliability.
SB 499 (Stern) Residential projects: fees and charges (Support) This bill authorizes a local agency to collect utility service charges related to connection fees and capacity charges at the time an application for a development project is received.
Staff Comments: Last session, Senator Wiener introduced SB 937 which prohibited local agencies from collecting connection fees and capacity charges until the certificate of first occupancy was issued on a housing development. This meant that Roseville would have to front the costs incurred with connecting water and sewer services and could not recoup those costs until an individual moved into the home. At the
end of the session in 2024, Senator Wiener committed to removing water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges but never introduced that language. However, SB 499 provides that necessary fix to SB 937. SB 499 was signed into law by the Governor and makes it so that water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges can be collected at the beginning of the application process.
Vetoed
SB 317 (Hurtado) Wastewater surveillance (Watch)
This bill would have required the Department of Public Health to work with participating wastewater treatment facilities, local health departments, and other subject matters to maintain the California Surveillance of Wastewaters network (Cal-SuWers) network of monitoring programs to test for pathogens, toxins, and other public health indicators in wastewater.
Staff Comments: The Cal-SuWers network is currently comprised of partners who have volunteered to collect and analyze wastewater samples and generate data that is included in the State Department of Public Health’s California Wastewater Surveillance Dashboard. The data is then used for early intervention, outbreak response, epidemiological investigations, and public health planning. Staff monitored this bill throughout the session as both the Pleasant Grove and Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants currently participate in the Cal-SuWers network through Placer County where samples are conducted to monitor for COVID-19, Influenza, and other pathogens. The Governor vetoed SB 317 as this would have implemented a statewide program with ongoing General Fund cost pressures, but EU’s Wastewater Utility has indicated that it plans to continue to participate in the voluntary program.
SB 454 (McNerney) State Water Resources Control Board: PFAS Mitigation Program (Support) This bill would have created the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Mitigation Fund in the State Treasury and would have authorized the Water Board to use the money to reduce the costs associated with treating PFAS in drinking water, recycled water, stormwater, and wastewater for eligible agencies.
Staff Comments: The League of California Cities (CalCities) and ACWA co-sponsored SB 454 with the intent that this would provide financial support and technical assistance for local agencies to clean up PFAS contamination in drinking water, recycled water, stormwater, and wastewater. Without funding, local agencies bear the cost of cleanup, which ultimately gets placed onto local utility customers, thereby increasing affordability concerns. Although Roseville’s drinking water supplies are currently non-detect of PFAS, there are a number of household and commercial products that contain PFAS that make their way into our wastewater stream and ultimately contribute to contamination challenges on wastewater side.
Ultimately, the Governor vetoed SB 454 because there was not a clear source of funding available.
SB 682 (Allen) Environmental health: product safety: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (Support)
Beginning January 1, 2028, this bill would have prohibited a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale a cleaning product, dental floss, juvenile product, food packaging, or ski wax that contains intentionally added PFAS. And, beginning January 1, 2030, the prohibition would have been expanded to cookware items with intentionally added PFAS.
Staff Comments: This bill was being sponsored by the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) and is a reintroduction of their sponsored bill from 2024, SB 903 (Skinner). SB 903 lacked flexibility for producers to comply and died in the Senate Appropriations Committee. CASA came back with SB 682 and provided flexibility for products where PFAS is considered an unavoidable use, allowing the industry more time to develop a better and safer alternative. PFAS contamination is prevalent in
Roseville’s wastewater and solid waste streams and the broad reduction of these chemicals means that Roseville has fewer particles to treat and remove. Unfortunately, SB 682 faced a vast amount of opposition from the cookware industry and the Governor ultimately vetoed this bill.
Two-Year Bills
AB 532 (Ransom) Water rate assistance program (Support) This bill would authorize a public urban retail water supplier to provide water rate assistance to eligible ratepayers to help offset the cost of drinking water service provided through a low-income water rate assistance program.
Staff Comments: This bill is being sponsored by CMUA and the language was crafted by water agencies to provide express authority for agencies to create a low-income water rate assistance program that is flexible, meets the needs of their community, and is transparent without violating Proposition 218, like our recently adopted WRAP program. The water rate assistance could come in the form of a reduction in a water bill, a water account credit, or crisis assistance to reduce or eliminate a potential arrearage. In the final month of session, concerning language was included in the bill which allowed for ratepayers to opt out of a voluntary contribution program. This language was debated last session as staff believes that requiring ratepayers to opt out of a voluntary contribution is disingenuous, as customers may not see the voluntary contribution on their bill to opt out of the donation, especially if customers pay their bill through auto-pay. Roseville was re-evaluating our position on AB 532, but the bill was ultimately held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. CMUA is currently assessing if they will bring this measure back up again in 2026.
AB 794 (Gabriel) California Safe Drinking Water Act: emergency regulations (Oppose Unless Amended)
This bill would give the Water Board the authority to adopt emergency regulations for drinking water standards that are at least the same or more stringent than the requirements that were in effect as of January 19, 2025. Additionally, on or before December 31, 2026, this bill would require the Water Board to adopt an emergency regulation to initiate a primary drinking water standard for PFAS.
Staff Comments: In April 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for six PFAS in drinking water. Under this rule, public water systems must complete initial monitoring in 2027, followed by ongoing compliance. Additionally, in February 2025, the Water Board adopted a resolution to demonstrate the state’s priorities, which included an MCL for PFAS. AB 794 is seeking to ensure that if federal drinking water regulations are weakened or repealed at the federal level, that California has the same, or stronger, requirements in place. The Legislature proposed multiple bills in this session to try and combat potential actions of the Trump Administration. And, consistent with our positions mentioned previously, the practice of initiating emergency regulations as a response to a potential issue sets a bad precedent. Developing drinking water standards must go through a vetting process to ensure accurate data, public input, financial and legal considerations. These factors may be bypassed if placed under an emergency regulation. Although Roseville is currently non-detect for PFAS in our drinking water, Roseville is opposing this measure through our statewide trade associations based on this precedent that this would set. Fortunately, AB 794 was held over as a two-year bill to allow more time for industry folks and the author’s office to develop amendments that address these concerns.
AB 874 (Avila Farias) Mitigation Fee Act: waiver of fees: affordable rental housing (Oppose Unless Amended)
This bill would amend the Mitigation Fee Act to require a local agency to waive fees or charges for certain affordable housing developments for a term of at least 55 years.
Staff Comments: Roseville would be required to waive fees for development projects where at least 49% of the units are affordable housing units for at least 55 years, making the City responsible for these costs.
This would include fees for development projects along with water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges. Roseville opposed this measure through its statewide trade associations because these fees and charges are critical to provide the necessary services and facilities throughout the City, particularly as the City continues to expand. AB 874 was held over as a two-year bill. Staff will continue to monitor this measure in the 2026 session to see if it gets brought back up.
AB 1146 (Papan) Water infrastructure: dams and reservoirs: water release: false pretenses (Neutral)
This bill would prohibit the release of stored water from reservoirs owned and operated by the United States if the release is done under false pretenses.
Staff Comments: False pretenses would include the release of water in a manner that is knowingly, designedly, and intentionally under any false or fraudulent representation as to the purpose and intended use of the water. There were a number of bills introduced this session to “Trump-proof” California.
Roseville opposed this measure through our statewide trade associations as this bill sets a concerning precedent as it originally pertained to any reservoirs in the state and could have had an impact on our contracted water supplies through Reclamation and Placer County Water Agency. However, EU was later able to move to a neutral position when amendments were taken that significantly narrowed the scope of the bill to only include reservoirs operated by the United States. AB 1146 was made into a two-year bill in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 1313 (Papan) Water quality: permits (Oppose Unless Amended) This bill would require the Water Board to establish a statewide commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) NPDES order for facilities with 5 acres or more of impervious surfaces. This bill would require the Water Board to publish a draft order of the statewide order for public comment on or before December 31, 2028, or 18 months after the re-issuance of a specified statewide permit.
Staff Comments: While the goal is to improve stormwater management, the bill raises legal uncertainty because it assumes the Water Board has authority to regulate a category of discharges not currently covered under the Clean Water Act absent a residual-designation finding. Currently, CII facilities are already excluded from regulation under the federal Clean Water Act, so it appears that the Water Board would not have the authority to issue the proposed CII NPDES permit. Roseville has been opposing this measure unless the bill is amended through its statewide trade associations, as the provisions in the bill are complex and may place undue burden on the City and businesses through more compliance costs. AB 1313 was made into a two-year bill before the House of Origin deadline, and it is unclear if the measure will be brought back up again in 2026, so staff will continue to monitor this measure.
AB 1331 (Elhawary) Workplace surveillance (Oppose)
This bill would limit the use of workplace surveillance tools by employers, including prohibiting monitoring of workers in certain an employer from monitoring or surveilling workers in ‘employee-only, employer- designated areas’ such as breakrooms and restrooms. Employees would have the right to leave behind workplace surveillance tools when entering certain employee-only areas, public bathrooms, or when off- duty.
Staff Comments: Workplace surveillance tools are a critical component of the City’s essential services as
they help to ensure an accurate use of public resources and help to safeguard critical infrastructure and spot potential threats. Roseville has been opposing this measure through our statewide trade associations because the bill contains vague definitions and prohibitions that create uncertainty and could limit Roseville’s ability to monitor critical worksites, infrastructure and public safety operations. AB 1331 was made into a two-year bill, and staff will continue to monitor this measure to see if it is brought back up in 2026.
SB 350 (Durazo) Water Rate Assistance Program (Oppose Unless Amended) This bill, upon appropriation, would establish the Water Rate Assistance Fund in the State Treasury to provide water affordability assistance for drinking water and wastewater services to low-income residential ratepayers.
Staff Comments: This bill is a re-introduction of SB 222 (Dodd, 2022) and represents a renewed effort, supported by environmental justice and affordability advocates, to establish a statewide framework for providing water rate assistance to low-income customers. Roseville held an oppose unless amended position on this measure due to concerns over unfunded mandates and potential Proposition 218 conflicts and that the bill would have placed high administrative burdens on water agencies diverting limited program funding going to those in need. Ultimately, SB 350 never made it out of the first House and was made into a two-year bill. In subsequent conversations, the sponsors have indicated that any future proposal will depend on identifying a sustainable funding source. Staff anticipate there may be another effort in 2026 to implement a low-income water rate assistance program.
SB 431 (Arreguin) Assault and battery: utility workers (Support if Amended) This bill would expand current law to make an assault or battery committed against an investor-owned utility worker punishable by imprisonment in a county jail up to 1 year and/or a fine up to $2,000.
Staff Comments: Amendments in July removed public utility and essential infrastructure workers from the bill, making the bill only applicable to investor-owned water and electric utility workers. Roseville worked through CMUA to expand the definition of “utility worker” to include “publicly owned electric utilities” and “public water agencies” to ensure that it was inclusive of all utility workers. Unfortunately, SB 431 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee before the agreed-upon amendments could go into print. As this measure is now a two-year bill, staff will monitor to see if this gets brought back up again, as we want to ensure our utility workers have these protections when out on the job.
SB 445 (Wiener) High-speed rail: third-party agreements, permits, and approvals: regulations (Oppose Unless Amended)
This bill would require the California High-Speed Rail Authority, on or before July 1, 2026, to develop and adopt regulations governing local agency permits and approvals that are necessary to deliver the high- speed rail project, which includes the ability to relocate utility infrastructure.
Staff Comments: Roseville worked through its statewide associations because SB 445 sets a bad precedent in granting new authority to the High-Speed Rail Authority to have expanded authority over permitting decisions that affect public infrastructure. It does not take into consideration the fact that permitting processes are already in place to ensure that utility services are properly maintained, and that worker safety is taken into consideration. Fortunately, SB 445 was made into a two-year bill to allow stakeholders and the author’s office more time to negotiate the language without the threat of moving essential utility services, especially if unnecessary.
SB 601 (Allen) Water: waste discharge (Oppose)
This bill defines a new category of state waters called “nexus waters” and would expand the Water Board’s authority to adopt water quality control plans for any waters of the state (i.e. nexus waters) and requires existing discharge requirements to include state policies for water quality control.
Staff Comments: SB 601 expands the Water Board’s authority, by creating a new term “nexus waters” to include all waters of the state that are not also navigable waters, except certain waters as defined. SB 601 would likely result in unclear and unintended consequences and would create challenges and could significantly increase permitting and compliance obligations. Roseville has been opposing this bill through a coalition that the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) is spearheading and EU has provided feedback to the Roseville Chamber of Commerce on staff’s concerns with this bill. SB 601 was held over as a two-year bill to allow the opposition coalition and the author’s office more time to further iron out the concerning provisions in this bill.
SB 677 (Wiener) Housing development: streamlined approvals (Oppose) This bill would require local governments to ministerially approve a housing development containing two residential units in any lot with a single-family home or zoned for four or fewer units. Additionally, this bill would prohibit local governments from collecting impact fees on projects less than 1,750 square feet and limits the development standards local governments can require for these projects.
Staff Comments: SB 677 removes local control over housing developments and fails to recognize the process that is already in place when it comes to developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements that are certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Additionally, there are concerns with the inability to collect impact fees without the ability to fund the development of these services for the community. Fortunately, SB 677 was held over as a two-year bill, but staff will need to monitor this to see if it is brought back up in 2026.
State Regulations
Advanced Clean Fleets RegulationIn July 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) re-opened the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation to implement AB 1594 (2023) which expanded the definition of emergency-response vehicles and provided clarity to various implementation provisions.
Staff Comments: With the re-opening of these regulations, Roseville had an opportunity to once again advocate for the City’s Energy Recovery Project at the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant (PGWWTP) where we convert wastewater solids and high-strength food waste into Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) to fuel the City’s refuse fleet. In September, the PGWWTP hosted CARB staff on a tour of this circular economy project where staff highlighted the need to allow for the use of RNG vehicles as we transition to the ACF regulation. On September 25, 2025 EU Director, Sean Bigley and Environmental Utilities Government Relations Administrator, Noelle Mattock provided comments to CARB and further advocated on this need for wastewater-derived RNG vehicles. RNG vehicles ensure the City’s operational reliability by helping with the transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEV), especially in cases where appropriate ZEVs are not readily available. As a result of the CARB meeting, CARB adopted Resolution 25-9 that expanded the definition of emergency-response vehicles. The Board also directed staff to strengthen the exemption and extension review process and to coordinate with other state agencies to ensure consistency with the state’s organic-waste and short-lived climate-pollutant reduction goals.
Although the inclusion of RNG vehicles as a transitional compliance pathway is not yet included in the ACF regulation, staff are working through statewide trade associations and meeting with CARB to advocate for further refinements.
Federal Legislation
H.R. 5078 (Rep. Ogles) Protecting Information by Local Leaders for Agency Resilience Act (PILLAR Act) (Support)
This bill would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to reauthorize the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program (SLCGP) through 2035.
Staff Comments: The SLCGP assists state and local governments with the development of their cybersecurity infrastructure. Roseville needs to maintain certain amounts of data to effectively provide essential power, water, and emergency response infrastructure and services. This makes the city a prime target for digital attacks that can disrupt critical services and compromise sensitive data. Roseville is supporting H.R. 5078 as this funding is crucial to strengthen cyber defenses, protect critical infrastructure, and mitigate cyber threats through investment in new technologies, processes, and skilled workforces.
Electric Utility
Background: The Electric Department tracked over 185 bills during this year’s legislative session and actively engaged on over 15 bills. Two major energy policies that will impact how the electric sector operates for years to come passed this year in AB 1207 and AB 825. The fact that both laws were enacted in the same session is notable. Each were amended near the end of the session and ultimately forced the legislature to convene into Saturday to meet the 72-hour rule for a bill to be in print. Below is a list of top tier issues we tracked in 2025, including the most impactful new laws affecting the electric department. While SB 332 and SB 541 did not advance, each had problematic provisions for electric utilities that are worth noting in the case that similar concepts return.
State Legislation - NEW LAWS:
AB 1207 (Irwin) Climate change: market-based compliance mechanism: extension Roseville supported after advocacy work- The cap-and-trade program sets a statewide limit on greenhouse gas emissions and sends a price signal to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient uses of energy. Utilities like Roseville, are regulated under the cap-and-trade program and must submit allowances for associated carbon emissions. Many utilities, like Roseville, receive free allowances under this program to mitigate compliance costs passed on to customers. Roseville can use these allowances for compliance and consignment. The cap-and-trade program needed authorization from the legislature to continue beyond 2030 to meet the state’s climate goals and to provide the market with certainty that the program would continue. AB 1207 reauthorized the program through 2045; remained neutral on impacts to publicly owned utilities with regards to the existing free allowance structure, and did not change how we use our compliance instruments. One unexpected, but welcome change that came out of the legislation is the redistribution of freely allocated allowances from gas corporations to publicly owned utilities, which we will be required to return to our customers as a direct credit. More information on the mechanics of this provision will be discussed through the upcoming regulatory process at the California Air Resources Board. On a going forward basis, AB 1207 requires the program to be known as “Cap and Invest”.
Staff comments: Roseville ultimately supported AB 1207 with energy affordability as a key driver to our advocacy. We advocated to maintain utility allocation levels under current practice and to ensure that allowances could continue to be used for compliance and consignment. Roseville worked with its trade associations to fine tune an advocacy document that was used throughout the year to clearly state the position of the POU community. Ultimately, this advocacy is what allowed POUs to come out unharmed
from the cap-and-trade program deliberations that convened over the course of the year and culminated in an end-of-session finale. The City's involvement in the process ultimately helped shape the outcome of this program, which will be with our industry through 2045.
AB 825 Petrie-Norris: Independent System Operator: Independent Regional Organization Roseville supported after advocacy work - AB 825 authorizes the ISO, on or after January 1, 2028, to implement tariff modifications accepted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to operate energy markets whose rules are governed by an independent regional organization if the governing board of the ISO has adopted a resolution, finding that specified requirements have been, or will be, adopted by the independent regional organization. Such requirements include respecting each state's authority to set its own procurement, resource adequacy, environmental, reliability and other public interest policies; and making funding available for consumer advocate organizations, among other requirements. AB 825 also requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to make a formal decision that the requirements have been satisfied before electrical corporations can participate. AB 825 specifies that the ISO must maintain the necessary technical capability to operate the energy markets and continue its functions and responsibilities as a balancing authority. The CPUC and the California Energy Commission (CEC) will coordinate to revise any relevant rules, regulations, or guidance to ensure that the transition to a regional energy market governed by the ISO or the independent regional organization does not expand the types of transactions that meet the portfolio content category requirements, as compared to the transactions that would otherwise meet those requirements on December 31, 2025 under the Renewable Portfolio Standard bucket qualification rules.
Staff comments: AB 825 will allow California entities to voluntarily participate in energy markets whose rules are governed by an independent regional organization, enabling the West to create a variety of voluntary wholesale electricity market services without relying on any one state or balancing authority.
Specifically, it positions California and the West to have a seamless energy market in the day-ahead market. Several requirements must be met over the coming years before an independent regional organization can form, including tariff modifications, a CAISO resolution, and a PUC final decision.
However, AB 825 initiates a process and signals a willingness to partner with the rest of the West to expand access to generation, increase reliability and deliver lower costs. AB 825 was necessary in 2025 to avoid California being left on an island as other markets form. Roseville supported AB 825 through our trade associations during the final days of the legislative session when the bill was amended to include a workable concept of an independent regional organization. Roseville tracked this legislation throughout the year in another version, SB 540 (Becker), which we opposed most of the year due to problematic amendments. AB 825 ultimately became the final vehicle signed into law and SB 540 did not advance.
SB 254 (Becker) Energy
Roseville supported - While SB 254 speaks to many energy and wildfire issues impacting utilities across the state, this report will focus on the impacts that SB 254 has on publicly owned utilities like Roseville which pertain to the submittal of the wildfire mitigation plan. Specifically, SB 254 modifies the wildfire mitigation plan submittal timeline to at least once every 4 years as determined by the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board (WSAB).
Staff comments: The proposal to submit our WMP once every 4 years is a welcome change and a significant improvement from current practice where we are submitting updates on an annual basis. SB 254 has the potential to streamline the process for utilities like Roseville that are in an urban setting with a significant amount of undergrounding and where annual updates don’t reflect major changes to our plan.
The Electric Department is working with its trade associations to provide comments to the Wildfire Safety
Board ahead of their December meeting, where the Board is expected to provide insights on this new law.
Roseville supported SB 254 through our trade associations with support centered around the WMP reporting timeline.
SB 283 (Laird) Energy storage systems
Roseville remained neutral after advocacy work – In general, SB 283 requires new energy storage facilities to be designed in accordance with certain safety standards and in collaboration with local jurisdictions where the project is located. Specifically, this bill would require that an application submitted to the CEC after January 1, 2026, and an application submitted to a local jurisdiction, for an energy storage system, include the applicant’s certification that, at least 30 days before submitting the application, the applicant met and conferred with the authority that has jurisdiction over fire suppression in the area where the energy storage system is proposed. The bill would also prohibit the Energy Commission certification or local approval unless, after installation is complete, but before commencing operations or use of the batteries, the energy storage system is inspected by the authority that has jurisdiction over fire suppression. The bill would require, as part of the next update to the California Building Standards Code considered after July 1, 2026, the Office of the State Fire Marshal to review and consider proposing provisions that restrict the location of energy storage systems to dedicated-use noncombustible buildings or outdoor installations.
Staff comments: This bill was in response to an energy storage fire that happened in central California earlier this year. The bill was originally problematic in that it set a very low threshold for projects (600kwh), above which, all energy storage installations would have to be put in a dedicated-use, non-combustible building or in a “remote” outdoor installation. The department had concerns with the threshold limit (too low) and the dedicated-use noncombustible building or “remote” outdoor location requirement as we believed this would limit efforts contemplated for our bus depot project. Staff successfully worked to get the threshold raised to 10MWh for projects where this would apply (which is greater than the 8MWh we need for bus depot project) and in getting the “remote” language removed, such that installations can be in an “outdoor” installation. Accordingly, we were able to remain neutral on SB 283 with the revised language. Going forward, developers of large projects will need to take these requirements under consideration when building new energy storage projects in California.
AB 777 (Rodriguez) Food assistance: disasters: utilities Roseville remained neutral after advocacy work - This bill requires Publicly Owned Utilities (POU) to respond to a data request by the Department of Social Services to maximize federal food assistance following disasters and including certain power outages. The data provided would be limited to aggregated customer outage data at the ZIP code level for outages of four hours or longer and needs to be provided within 7 calendar days of the request. Each POU is required to have a dedicated point of contact for the State Department of Social Services necessary to provide the data requested.
Staff comments: This bill is in response to the wildfires that occurred in Southern California earlier this year in terms of identifying those that may need assistance during a declared disaster event. The department is supportive of outside programs that provide food assistance to families in the wake of a disaster, and we do not expect these requirements to be overly burdensome to the department. Roseville collaborated with our trade associations to obtain the necessary tweaks that were needed to make this legislation less burdensome for the department.
State Legislation: FAILED Passage:
SB 332 (Wahab) Investor-Owned Utilities Accountability Act Roseville went from oppose-unless-amended to neutral after advocacy work – SB 332 originally prohibited publicly owned utilities from disconnecting a customer’s residential service for nonpayment if the customers household is in the residence of a person that is five years of age or younger, a person 65 years of age or older, a person who is pregnant, or postpartum, among other requirements. Later, this bill was amended to remove those provisions but still require POUs, on or before March 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, to post information for the prior calendar year to their website regarding the total number of customers terminated due to non-payment and the total number of customers reconnected. These amendments also required POUs to post customer disconnection policies on its internet website before July 1, 2026. Despite these new POU requirements, this language was a significant improvement from prior versions of the bill, but still not ideal in terms of customer-facing engagement.
Staff comments: The department took an oppose-unless-amended position on this bill and worked through several iterations of opposition. While we were able to eventually go neutral on the bill through a compromise position, this bill ultimately failed passage and was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee due to other controversial and non-related components.
State Legislation - VETOED:
SB 541 (Becker) Electricity: load shifting. Roseville opposed – SB 541 speaks to achieving a statewide load-shifting goal for California and would have required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to estimate each retail supplier’s (i.e. Roseville Electric’s) load-shifting potential in comparison to actual and expected load shifting. “Load shifting” means a reduction in aggregate demand that benefits the electrical grid, including a reduced need for peak generation capacity and investments in transmission or distribution infrastructure. Load shifting may include use of time varying rates to induce load flexibility or other programs to alter a retail supplier’s load forecast.
Staff comments: The department was concerned about the CEC dictating the amount of load shifting that publicly owned utilities like Roseville Electric will need to achieve as well as the associated costs to comply. Roseville Electric wants to maintain local control and autonomy over programs like our successful demand side Power Flex Energy-Saving Program. The department will continue to oppose additional load- shifting requirements that reduce our autonomy. While this bill succeeded in making it through the legislature, the Governor ultimately vetoed this bill as redundant and disruptive of existing planning efforts.
Federal Legislation: NEW LAWS
H.R. 1 (Arrington) One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (H.R. 1) passed congress and was signed by the President on July 4, 2025. The bill is expansive, but our focus is on the phaseout of both the investment tax credit (ITC) and the production tax credit (PTC) for wind and solar projects, which requires projects to begin construction before July 4, 2026 (a year after enactment) or be placed in service before 2028 to be eligible.
Following the passage of H.R. 1, the President signed an executive order on Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources (issued July 7, 2025), which tasked the Treasury with acting by August 18, 2025 to issue guidance on the definition of “beginning construction”.
Under previous guidance (IRS Notice 2022-61), construction of a project was defined at either the start date of significant physical work or the payment of five percent or more of the project’s total cost.
The subsequent Treasury Guidance that was released in August 2025 applies to projects after September 2, 2025 and requires all wind and solar projects to show that they are conducting physical work rather than relying on the five percent safe harbor provisions.
Staff comments: The requirements of this bill could impact projects needed to meet California’s renewable energy and climate change goals. In general, H.R. 1 results in a shorter window to qualify for generous tax incentives for wind and solar that could impact the economics of a project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs of monitoring and assessing legislative and regulatory activities are contained within the City’s current operating budget. The fiscal impact of proposed legislative or regulatory action on the City is often unknown until later in the process. However, staff will endeavor to estimate the magnitude of any impacts as soon in the process as possible and communicate accordingly.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The action of reviewing legislation meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
5. Support community engagement and advocacy
Respectfully Submitted,
Rob Baquera, Government Relations Administrator
Megan Scheid, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWERS:
Rob Baquera, Public Affairs and Communications Department Created/Initiated - 11/3/2025 Megan Scheid, City Clerk Department Approved - 11/4/2025 Kelly Aye, City Attorney Department Approved - 11/5/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 11/5/2025 Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 11/6/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 11/6/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 11/6/2025 Dominick Casey, City Clerk Department Approved - 11/10/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 11/10/2025
City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 11/19/2025
Item #: IX.21
File #: 0215-01
Item ID: 2025-751
Title: Public Facilities Fee Update, Nexus Study Adoption, and Roseville Municipal Code Amendment
Contact: Jeannine Thrash 916-774-5473 [email protected]
SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance approving adjustments to the Public Facilities Fee and amending Roseville Municipal Code 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 related to Public Facilities Fees. The 2025 Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study presents proposed updates to the City’s Public Facilities Fees (PFF) for City Council consideration. Since the last update in 2020, the City has continued to grow, creating additional demand for public facilities. At the same time, the costs of constructing capital facilities have increased significantly. In response, the 2025 update recommends raising fees to reflect higher construction costs. The proposed adjustments are intended to fund the facilities needed to support new development. The fee structure is designed to capture the impacts of growth and ensure that development contributes its fair share toward the cost of required capital facilities. In accordance with Municipal Code 4.52.150, all collected fees must be used solely to finance the identified facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving and adopting the Public Facilities Fee Nexus Study and introduce, for first reading, an ordinance approving adjustments to the Public Facilities Fee and amending Roseville Municipal Code 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 related to Public Facilities Fees.
BACKGROUND
Roseville’s success in managing growth and providing high-quality services has long depended on the City’s ability to build the right public facilities such as police stations, community centers, parking garages, and bridges when they are needed. By delivering these improvements on time, the City has consistently attracted investment and supported strong economic growth.
The Public Facilities Fee (PFF) is updated periodically to reflect changes in developable land, cost estimates, or outside funding sources. Its purpose is to fund construction of the public facilities needed to serve the City’s projected 2035 population at full build-out of the current General Plan. The City regularly reviews development fees to ensure that these facilities can be built when needed.
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. Since then, the fees have been adjusted annually to reflect cost inflation.
The 2025 Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study (2025 Nexus Study) proposes a major update to the PFF Program. Since the last update in 2020, Roseville’s continued growth has increased the demand for
public facilities. Evolving community needs and values have also prompted adjustments to the Program. At the same time, some capital improvements identified in the 2015 Program have been completed or partially completed, reducing certain cost requirements. In addition, recent changes to state law now require residential impact fees to be calculated based on the square footage of each dwelling unit, except for water and sewer fees or other fees where the City can make specific legal findings to justify a different method.
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. The adjustment is also necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of AB 602. The effective date of the recommended fee adjustment will be February 16, 2026.
Public Outreach
Staff has engaged the North State Building Industry Association (BIA) as part of public outreach, presenting the proposed Public Facilities Fee update on March 6, 2025, and again on September 15, 2025.
Proposed Fee Adjustments
The current and proposed fees are shown in the table below:
The proposed fees are subject to annual inflation adjustments as set forth in California Government Code Section 66017. The Roseville Municipal Code Section 4.52.140 defines the inflationary adjustment to the Public Facilities Fee as follows: The Construction Cost Index (CCI) inflationary fee adjustment shall become effective July 1, 2013. The fee established by this chapter shall be adjusted annually on July 1st beginning on July 1, 2013, by a percentage equal to the adjustment rate for the prior year for construction costs as determined by the director in the preceding June. The director's determination shall be based upon averaging the Construction Cost Index (CCI) for 20 cities and for San Francisco, as published in the Engineering News Record publication for the preceding 12 months ending in May. The resultant fee shall be rounded to the nearest dollar figure.
Improvements, Costs, and Cost Allocation
The total PFF Program cost has increased from $69.4 million in the 2020 update to $95.5 million in the proposed 2025 update. These costs reflect both project improvement costs and an adjustment for the current PFF Program fund balance. Since 2020, several planned facilities have been completed or partially completed. The table below summarizes the proposed improvements and estimated costs included in the updated study.
The 2025 Nexus Study defines the PFF Program’s share of improvement costs and provides the legal basis for updating the fees charged on future residential and nonresidential development to fund these improvements. Project costs are based on current construction costs and estimates, and the projects have been confirmed as qualified and appropriate public facilities and infrastructure.
Table 3–2 of the 2025 Nexus Study outlines the costs and funding sources for all planned public facilities in the PFF Program. The total cost of these improvements is estimated at $328.9 million, with about $121.1 million to be funded through PFF fees on future development. After accounting for the current fund balance, the proposed net PFF Program cost is approximately $95.5 million, as shown in the table above.
Persons served are used to estimate the demand of each land use for the public facilities included in the PFF Program and to allocate the costs to the land uses. For each land use, the persons served are estimated by applying persons per household or square feet per employee factors to projected future development. The PFF Program fees are established by allocating the net improvement costs to the various land uses in proportion to the estimated persons served by the square footage ranges of proposed units of development.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed PFF adjustments will fund the public facilities needed to serve new development. By 2035, the fee is expected to generate $95.5 million. As required by Municipal Code 4.52.150, these funds must be used solely for facilities. The fee will continue to be collected beyond 2035 and updated periodically to keep pace with growth. The adjustments are necessary to construct the facilities identified in the 2025 Nexus Study. Without this funding, the City would need to either delay facility construction or cover the shortfall with General Fund or other revenues. The fee ensures that new development pays its fair share of the costs it creates.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The Public Facilities Fee Update and Nexus Study Adoption meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
1. Ensure a safe and healthy community
2. Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world
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 25-358
2. Public Facility Fee Nexus Study 2025
3. Ordinance
REVIEWERS:
Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Created/Initiated - 10/9/2025 Jeannine Thrash, Finance Department Approved - 10/28/2025 Scott Pettingell, Finance Department - Budget Approved - 11/3/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Clerk Department Approved - 11/4/2025 Kelly Aye, City Attorney Department Approved - 11/4/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 11/4/2025 Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 11/6/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 11/7/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 11/12/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 11/12/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 11/13/2025
RESOLUTION NO. 25-358
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
November 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
November 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
November 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-of- service 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 foot 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
November 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
November 2025
4 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 1 -2. Public Facilities Fee Comparison by Component - Excluding Administration
Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
November 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 20 25 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
November 2025
11 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 2-1. Existing and Projected Development
Land Use Existing Future [1] B uildout
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
dw elling units
bldg. sq. ft.
City of Roseville
Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
November 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
November 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 age- restricted 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
November 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
November 2025
15 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 2 -2. Estimated Population/Employees
Land Use Existing Fut ure 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.
pe
r Emp. [2]
Dwelling Units / Square Feet Population / Employees
Dwelling Units
Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
November 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 single- family 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 Age- Restricted 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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 PFF- funded 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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 City-
wide Park
Fund
SVSP City-
wide 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
November 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 26
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
November 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 PFF- eligible 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
November 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.
Fis cal Year
Interfund Loan and Debt Service Payment Schedules
Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
November 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
November 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
November 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 multiple- field 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 Wes t Ros eville 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
November 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
November 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.
— 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.
Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study—2025 Update Public Review Draft Report
November 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 34
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
November 2025
35 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 4 -1. Cost Allocation for General City and Public Safety Facilities
Land Use
Costs Pe r
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
Res idential PPH per unit
Res idential
<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
November 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 36
Table 4 -2. Cost Allocation for Parks, Recreation, and Libraries
Land Use
Costs Pe r
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
Res idential PPH per unit
Res idential
<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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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
November 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 fe16
d. e 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
November 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
November 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 February 16, 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 February 16, 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 February 416, 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 February 16, 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 4February 16, 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 4February 16, 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 4February 16, 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 4February 16, 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 4February 16, 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.