Sacramento City Council
June 21, 2022

City Council Report
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org

File ID: 2022-00337 June 21, 2022

Title: Establishment of Panhandle Impact Fee (PHIF) (Noticed 06/10/2022 & 06/15/2022; Passed for Publication 06/14/2022; Published 06/17/2022)

Location: District 1

Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt: 1) an Ordinance establishing the PHIF; 2) a Resolution establishing the amount of the PHIF; 3) a Resolution establishing an accounting funds and a multi-year operating project for the Panhandle Fee Program; and 4) a Resolution reducing the citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) amount within the Panhandle area.

Contact: Mary Jean Rodriguez, Senior Development Project Manager, (916) 808-1980, [email protected]
, Department of Finance; Sheri Smith, Special Districts Manager, (916) 808-7204, [email protected], Department of Finance

Presenter: Mary Jean Rodriguez, Senior Development Project Manager, (916) 808-1980, [email protected]
, Department of Finance.

Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Background
3-Ordinance Establishing PHIF
4-Resolution Establishing Amount of PHIF
5-Exhibit A to Resolution Establishing Amount of PHIF – 2022 Finance Plan 6-Exhibit B to Resolution Establishing Amount of PHIF – PHIF Fee Schedule 7-Resolution to Create New Panhandle Fee Program Funds and Multi-Year Operating Project 8-Resolution Reducing TDIF in Panhandle Area
9-Exhibit A to Resolution Reducing TDIF in Panhandle Area – Map of the Panhandle Plan Area

Description/Analysis

Issue Detail: On April 3, 2015, Council adopted the 2035 General Plan (General Plan), which included policies and implementation measures to prepare and adopt citywide and sub-area development impact fee programs. These programs would ensure new development pays its fair share towards needed infrastructure improvements to support projected growth and development, including infill. The General Plan also provided direction to identify new funding mechanisms for infrastructure, such as new sub-area finance plans.

The Panhandle project is a residential development project that is planned to be constructed on a 589-acre parcel within the North Natomas Community Plan area. On July 3, 2018, Council approved the Panhandle Planned Unit Development (PUD) project guidelines and schematic design and adopted the Panhandle PUD Public Facilities Finance Plan (2018 Finance Plan) that identified the backbone infrastructure and public facilities required for buildout of the Panhandle area and potential financing mechanisms. The 2018 Finance Plan proposed a development impact fee to help fund such backbone infrastructure and certain public facilities, but the impact fee was never actually established.

On May 31, 2022, the Panhandle PUD Public Facilities Finance Plan and Development Impact Fee Nexus Study—2022 Update (2022 Finance Plan) was adopted by the Council, per Resolution No. 2022-0167. The 2022 Finance Plan updates the estimated costs allocated to various land uses in the area identified in the 2022 Finance Plan (the “Panhandle Area”), and provides legally required nexus findings in accordance with the California Mitigation Fee Act and AB 602 to establish the PHIF. The 2022 Finance Plan updates the cost of backbone infrastructure and public facilities needed for development in the Panhandle Area to reflect current construction costs. Establishment of the PHIF would provide approximately $31 million of the overall $70 million needed for the infrastructure and facilities identified in the 2022 Finance Plan for the Panhandle Area.

With Council’s adoption of the PHIF ordinance, a new article would be added to Chapter 18.56 of the City Code to establish the PHIF. Article I of Chapter 18.56 contains a common set of administrative provisions for all City development impact fees. In addition, Chapter 18.56 contains a framework for subarea financing districts that supports localized infrastructure needs by providing funding and reimbursement mechanisms. The PHIF would be a City- implemented, plan area-specific development impact fee applicable only to new development in the Panhandle Area. A resolution to establish the amount of the PHIF is also being presented for Council adoption.

The Panhandle Fee Program that will help fund the cost of backbone infrastructure and public facilities within the Panhandle Area consists of the PHIF and the Development Agreement Fee (DA Fee). The DA Fee will be paid pursuant to the terms and conditions of the development agreements that were executed between the Panhandle developers and the City as a condition of approval for the Panhandle development projects.

In addition, a resolution to reduce the TDIF within the Panhandle Area is being presented to Council. Such reduction is permissible per City Code section 18.56.340(B)(2) because the PHIF would fund transportation infrastructure with citywide benefit (specifically bikeway and pedestrian infrastructure) which is also identified in the nexus study for the TDIF. Approval of the attached TDIF resolution will ensure there is no overlapping infrastructure within the fee programs.

Finally, a resolution is being presented to Council to establish two new accounting funds to account for receipt and use of the PHIF and the DA Fee and a new multi-year operating project (MYOP) to account for the administrative component of the Panhandle Fee Program.

Policy Considerations: The 2022 Finance Plan and PHIF have been guided by the City’s goals and policies as established in the General Plan, including the policies that promote a complete and adequate infrastructure system to support future development.

Economic Impacts: Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Adoption of the proposed ordinance and resolutions do not constitute a project and are therefore exempt from CEQA review because they involve creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378(b)(4)). Infrastructure projects or other public facility projects funded by the PHIF will be evaluated under CEQA before construction is authorized.

On July 3, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018-0280, Council certified the Environmental Impact Report and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Panhandle Annexation and Planned Unit Development Project (P16-013) (State Clearinghouse No. 2016042074).

Sustainability: The proposed PHIF ordinance and the Panhandle Fee Program support new residential and non-residential development needed to meet the population growth projections outlined in the General Plan. The proposed PHIF framework ensures that the City is not taking on the full cost of infrastructure to support new development, but rather that new growth pays its fair share of infrastructure costs, thereby allowing the City to develop in a sustainable manner.

Commission/Committee Action: On May 17, 2022, the proposed PHIF ordinance was reviewed by the Law and Legislation Committee and forwarded to Council for consideration.

Rationale for Recommendation: The PHIF provides consistency and certainty for developers and staff, provides funding for needed infrastructure, and offers financial incentives for developers. The PHIF will be established with the same set of rules and administrative policies established for other impact fees in City Code Chapter 18.56.

Financial Considerations: The PHIF provides a mechanism to ensure that new development pays for the public infrastructure needs caused by new growth. The PHIF framework also includes administrative fees to recoup City’s fees and costs for administering the PHIF component of the Panhandle Fee Program. Revenues derived from the PHIF will be deposited in a separate fund. The PHIF will not have an impact on the General Fund.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.

Attachment 2
Background

The Panhandle Planned Unit Development (PUD) project area (Panhandle Area) is within the North Natomas Community Plan (NNCP) area and encompasses approximately 589 acres of primarily vacant land located north of Del Paso Road, south of Elkhorn Boulevard, west of Sorento Road/East Levee Road, and east of the developed neighborhoods known as Natomas Park and Regency Park. The Panhandle Area is expected to produce 1,662 suburban neighborhood low-density residential units, including 340 “estate” units with an average density of 4.5 units per acre, 869 “traditional” units with an average density of 5.9 units per acre, and 453 “village” units with an average density of 7.5 units per acre. The Panhandle Area will also include backbone infrastructure and public facilities such as parks, an elementary school site, a high school/middle school site, open space, a detention basin, and roadways.

On July 3, 2018, the City Council adopted the Panhandle Planned Unit Development Public Facilities Finance Plan (2018 Finance Plan) per Resolution No. 2018-0285. On May 31, 2022, City Council adopted the Panhandle Planned Unit Development Public Facilities Finance Plan and Development Impact Fee Nexus Study-2022 Update (2022 Finance Plan) per City Council Resolution No. 2022-0167. The 2022 Finance Plan provides a roadmap for the orderly construction of backbone infrastructure and public facilities to serve the proposed land uses in the Panhandle Area.

The 2022 Finance Plan goals are to: identify funding for backbone infrastructure improvements and public facilities to support future development; incentivize catalytic development; provide a mechanism to reimburse private developers, when necessary and appropriate, for their construction of backbone infrastructure and public facilities; provide flexibility to adapt to the realities of development types and the rate of development; and leverage impact fees to maximize outside funding. The 2022 Finance Plan contains a nexus study that provides the required justification for the Panhandle Impact Fee (PHIF) that will help finance the design, construction, installation, improvements, and acquisition of most of the backbone infrastructure and portion of the trail system needed for the Panhandle Area.

Below is a summary of the proposed PHIF ordinance:

o PHIF is imposed on all parcels located within the Panhandle area for the following types of development: new dwelling units, buildings, or structures; additions to the commercial building area or residential building area of a building or structure; and changes in use of a building or structure.

o PHIF revenue may be used to: finance the design, construction, installation, improvement, and acquisition of the Panhandle facilities; reimburse the City for administrative costs related to overseeing the PHIF program; and reimburse landowners and holders of development credits.
o Development credits against the PHIF may be issued for Panhandle facilities constructed by a landowner pursuant to an agreement with the City.

o Landowners may receive reimbursement for portions of the landowner’s costs to construct Panhandle facilities that exceed the landowner’s PHIF obligation, when PHIF funds are available to pay the reimbursement and an agreement is executed with the City.

In addition, because the Panhandle Area borders the North Natomas Finance Plan (NNFP) area, there are several public facilities planned or already constructed in the NNFP area, including transit, fire, library, and community center facilities, and regional park land acquisition, that will benefit the Panhandle residents. Therefore, development in the Panhandle Area will share costs for these facilities with the North Natomas developers. The development agreements (DAs) for Panhandle developers thus require the developers to pay fees (DA Fees) for these facilities based on the NNFP fees for the same facilities. Such DA Fee Component of the Panhandle Fee Program will contribute approximately $8 million towards the NNFP area facilities that will benefit Panhandle residents.

The central purpose of the DA Fee is to maintain equity and fairness between the Project development and development in the rest of NNCP area through equitable participation towards public facilities benefitting both the NNFP area and the Project area.

Below is a table showing the amounts for the PHIF Component and DA Fee Component of the Panhandle Fee Program. The establishment of the PHIF will provide approximately $31 million of the overall $70 million needed for the facilities and infrastructure identified in the 2022 Finance Plan for the Panhandle Area.

ORDINANCE NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
Date Adopted

AN ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE XI TO CHAPTER 18.56 OF THE SACRAMENTO CITY CODE,

RELATING TO THE PANHANDLE IMPACT FEE

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO:

SECTION 1.

Article XI is hereby added to chapter 18.56 of the Sacramento City Code to read as follows:

Article XI. Panhandle Impact Fee

18.56.1110 Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this article:

“Panhandle area” means the area consisting of approximately 589 acres identified in, and subject to, the Panhandle finance plan.

“Panhandle facilities” means the infrastructure and facilities identified in the Panhandle finance plan.

“Panhandle finance plan” means the Panhandle finance plan adopted by the city council on May 31, 2022 (Resolution No. 2022-0167), and any amendments approved by the city council.

“Panhandle impact fee” means the fee established by section 18.56.1120 to finance the design, construction, installation, improvement, and acquisition of the Panhandle facilities.

“Panhandle infrastructure fund” means the infrastructure fund created by section 18.56.1130.

18.56.1120 Panhandle impact fee and imposition.

The Panhandle impact fee is established and imposed on all parcels located within the Panhandle area for the following types of development:

A. New dwelling units, buildings, or structures.

B. Additions to the commercial building area or residential building area of a building or structure.

C. Changes in use of a building or structure.

18.56.1130 Establishment of Panhandle infrastructure fund; use of fee revenues.

A. The Panhandle infrastructure fund is established. The city shall deposit all revenues generated by the Panhandle impact fee, and any interest earned on the fund balance, into the fund.

B. The city shall use the Panhandle infrastructure fund to:

1. Finance the design, construction, installation, improvement, and acquisition of the Panhandle facilities.

2. Reimburse the city for administrative costs identified in the Panhandle finance plan.

3. Reimburse landowners and holders of development credits consistent with section 18.56.1140 and the Panhandle finance plan.

18.56.1140 Credits and reimbursements.

A. The city council, by resolution or agreement, may establish policies and procedures for issuance of development credits against the Panhandle impact fee for Panhandle facilities constructed by a landowner, or for reimbursement of the portion of a landowner’s costs to construct Panhandle facilities that exceeds the landowner’s Panhandles impact fee obligation, if the city has Panhandle infrastructure funds available to pay the reimbursement. The policies and procedures shall be consistent with the following:

1. A landowner may only construct infrastructure and facilities for development credits with advance approval by a written fee-credit or reimbursement agreement.

2. Development credits do not run with the land.

3. Development credits are transferrable through a transfer agreement signed by both parties and approved by the city.

B. After the landowner constructs Panhandle facilities, the city manager shall determine the development credit or reimbursement amounts, if any, based on the terms of the fee-credit or reimbursement agreement. The landowner may appeal the city manager’s decision as set forth in section 18.56.155.

18.56.1150 Conflict with other provisions.

If there is any conflict between a provision of this article and any other provision of this chapter, the provision of this article governs.

SECTION 2.

This ordinance takes effect on August 20, 2022.

RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council

ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF PANHANDLE IMPACT FEE

BACKGROUND

A. The Panhandle project is a residential development project that is planned to be constructed on a 589-acre parcel within the North Natomas Community Plan area. On July 3, 2018, the City Council (Council) approved the Panhandle Planned Unit Development (PUD) Public Facilities Finance Plan (Resolution No. 2018-0285).

B. On May 31, 2022, Council adopted the Panhandle PUD Public Facilities Finance Plan and Development Impact Fee Nexus Study – 2022 Update (2022 Finance Plan) per Resolution No. 2022-0167. The 2022 Finance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

C. The 2022 Finance Plan updated the estimated cost of backbone infrastructure and public facilities needed for development in the area identified in the 2022 Finance Plan (the “Panhandle Area”) to reflect improvements current construction costs. The 2022 Finance Plan also provided legally required nexus findings in accordance with the California Mitigation Fee Act and AB 602 to establish the Panhandle Impact Fee (PHIF) and apportion PHIF amounts based on the “fair share” of development impacts for each land use in the Panhandle Area.

D. On June 21, 2022, Council established the Panhandle Impact Fee (PHIF) by adding Article XI to Chapter 18.56 of the City Code pursuant to Ordinance No. 2022-xxxx. The PHIF will provide funding for a variety of backbone infrastructure projects and certain public facilities in the Panhandle Area (the “Panhandle Facilities), as described in greater detail in the 2022 Finance Plan. Specifically, PHIF revenue will be used to fund the design, construction, installation, improvement, and acquisition of roadways, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and trails in the Panhandle Area.

E. As demonstrated by the 2022 Finance Plan, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for Panhandle Facilities and the type of development projects on which the PHIF is imposed (new dwelling units). Such residential development projects stimulate population growth, which in turn stresses existing infrastructure and triggers demand for new and improved infrastructure.

F. There is also a reasonable relationship between using fee revenues to fund Panhandle Facilities and the type of development projects on which the PHIF is imposed. As explained above, these projects increase the demand for infrastructure. Using PHIF revenues to satisfy this demand will ensure consistent levels of service for residents and mitigate public safety hazards associated with strained infrastructure.

G. The 2022 Finance Plan also establishes the basis for determining a reasonable relationship between the amount of the PHIF and the cost of Panhandle Facilities attributable to particular development projects, taking into account anticipated growth in the Panhandle Area and the costs of designing, constructing, installing, improving, and acquiring Panhandle Facilities.

H. The PHIF has been determined and calculated in a manner consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and the 2022 Finance Plan.

I. On June 21, 2022, Council held a public hearing in the manner required by Government Code section 66018 to consider the adoption of this resolution. The public hearing was also noticed pursuant to and in compliance with Government Code sections 66019 and 6062a; and was held as part of a regularly scheduled meeting of the Council.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings.

A. The recitals set forth in the Background above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as findings.

B. The 2022 Finance Plan does all of the following:

i. Identifies the purpose of the PHIF;

ii. Identifies the use to which the PHIF is to be put;

iii. Establishes a reasonable relationship between the PHIF’s use and the type of development project on which the PHIF is imposed;

iv. Establishes a reasonable relationship between the need for the Panhandle Facilities and the type of development project on which the PHIF is imposed;

v. Establishes the basis for determining a reasonable relationship between the amount of the PHIF and the cost of the Panhandle Facilities or portion of Panhandle Facilities attributable to particular development projects on which the PHIF is imposed; and

vi. Establishes that the imposition of the PHIF and the Panhandle Facilities funded by the PHIF are necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare within the City.

Section 2. Establishment of the PHIF Amount.

The amount of the PHIF is hereby established as the amount specified in the 2022 Finance Plan, as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto. The PHIF will be automatically adjusted annually on July 1 of each year (beginning July 1, 2023) as specified in the 2022 Finance Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A).

Section 3. Effective Date.

This resolution becomes effective on August 20, 2022.

Section 4. Exhibits A and B are part of this resolution.

Table of Contents:

Exhibit A: 2022 Finance Plan
Exhibit B: PHIF Schedule

Final Report
Panhandle Planned Unit
Development Public Facilities
Finance Plan and Development
Impact Fee Nexus Study—
2022 Update

Approved by the Sacramento City Council on May 31, 2022 City Council Resolution #2022-0167

Prepared for:

City of Sacramento

Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

May 2022

EPS #202107
Table of Contents
Introduction and Summary ............................................................ 1 Project Background and Land Use ......................................................... 1 Purpose of the Finance Plan .................................................................. 2 Summary .......................................................................................... 4 Organization of the Report ................................................................... 8 Land Use .................................................................................... 11 Land Use Assumptions ....................................................................... 11 Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facility Costs ............................ 15 Definitions of Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities ...................... 16 Infrastructure Phasing ....................................................................... 17 Backbone Infrastructure Improvements, Costs, and Phasing ................... 17 Public Facility Improvements, Costs, and Phasing .................................. 26 Infrastructure Financing Strategy and Funding Sources ..................... 37 Financing Strategy and Funding Sources Overview ................................ 37 Detailed Sources of Funding ............................................................... 38 Land-Secured Financing ..................................................................... 41 Phasing and the Financing Strategy ..................................................... 42 Panhandle Fee Program ................................................................ 47 Panhandle Developer Agreement (DA) Fee Component ........................... 47 Panhandle Impact Fee Component ...................................................... 49 Feasibility of the Finance Plan ........................................................ 59 Description of Static Feasibility Analyses .............................................. 59 Total Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Burden ............... 59 Total Taxes and Assessments as a Percentage of Sales Price ................... 63 Financing Sources for Services and Ongoing
Operation and Maintenance ........................................................... 65 Implementation ........................................................................... 67 Panhandle Fee Program ..................................................................... 68 Appendices
Appendix A: Cost Allocations and Cost Adjustments
Appendix B: Capital Improvement Cost Estimates
Appendix C: Estimated Fee Revenue
Appendix D: Potential Panhandle Services CFD Detailed Cost Estimates and Allocation Methodology
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Land Use Summary ...................................................................... 3 Table 1-2. Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Summary .............. 5 Table 1-3. Estimated Project Requirements and Funding at Buildout ................... 6 Tabl
e 3-1. Estimated Backbone Roadway Facilities Costs—Rounded ................. 20 Table 3-2. Estimated Sanitary Sewer Costs—Rounded .................................... 22 Table 3-3. Estimated Storm Drainage Costs—Rounded ................................... 23 Table 3-4. Krumenacher Ranch Drainage Cost—
Offsite Future Reimbursement ..................................................... 25 Table 3-5. Estimated Potable Water Costs—Rounded ..................................... 27 Table 3-6. Estimated Ninos Parkway/Trails Costs—Rounded ............................ 28 Table 3-7. Estimated Other Public Facilities Costs .......................................... 31 Table 3-8. Quimby Park Requirement .......................................................... 32 Table 3-9. Panhandle DA Fees per Unit ........................................................ 34 Table
4-1. Estimated Bond Sizing ................................................................ 43 Table 4-2. Estimated Bond Proceeds ............................................................ 44 Table 4-3. Project Buildout Value-to-Lien Ratio ............................................. 45 Table 5-1. Panhandle Fee Program Fees ....................................................... 48 Table 5-2. Panhandle Impact Fee Component Cost Allocation Factors ............... 50 Table
6-1. Estimated Infrastructure Cost Burden (2 pages) ............................. 61 Table 6-2. Test of 2% Sales Price—Residential Market-Rate Units .................... 64 Tabl
e 7-1. North Natomas TMA Proposed Programs and Services ..................... 66 List of Maps
Map 2-1. Panhandle Project Vicinity ............................................................. 13 Map 2-2. Panhandle PUD Schematic Plan ..................................................... 14 Map 3-

1. Roadway Segments ..................................................................... 19 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 1
Introduction and Summary
The Panhandle Planned Unit Development (PUD) project (Panhandle or Project) consists of approximately 589 acres of primarily vacant land located in the City of Sacramento (City) north of Del Paso Road, south of Elkhorn Boulevard, west of Sorento Road/East Levee Road, and east of the developed neighborhoods known as Natomas Park and Regency Park. The Project is located within the North Natomas Community Plan Area identified in the North Natomas Community Plan (NNCP). The NNCP was adopted by the City in 1986 per City Council Resolution #86-348 and amended in 1994 per City Council Resolution #94-259. A North Natomas Financing Plan (NNFP) was adopted by the City in 1994 per City Council Resolution #94-495 to identify the costs and funding sources required for development of the NNCP.

Panhandle was added to the NNCP in 1986 and was included in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan area and the City’s sphere of influence. It was originally contemplated that Panhandle would be included in the NNFP because the Panhandle area is adjacent to the NNFP area, but since development was delayed in Panhandle, the Project was excluded from the boundaries of the NNFP.

Consequently, Panhandle is in the NNCP but outside of the NNFP. The Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) formally approved annexation of Panhandle into the City’s territorial limits on April 3, 2019, per LAFCO Resolution #019-04-0403-02-18.

This Panhandle Planned Unit Development Public Facilities Finance Plan and Development Impact Fee Nexus Study—2022 Update (Finance Plan) updates the 2018 Panhandle Planned Unit Development Public Facilities Finance Plan (2018 Finance Plan), which was approved by the Sacramento City Council on July 3, 2018, per City Council Resolution #2018-0285. This document updates the financing strategy for backbone infrastructure and public facilities (as defined herein) based on improvement, cost, and funding revisions, details the proposed Panhandle Fee Program that will be a major funding source for the backbone infrastructure and public facilities, and provides the legally required findings necessary for the establishment of the proposed Panhandle Impact Fee Component of the Panhandle Fee Program.

Project Background and Land Use
An initial application for the Project was submitted in 2006, and in 2007, the original Panhandle Planned Unit Development Public Facilities Finance Plan was prepared (2007 Finance Plan). However, because of the economic downturn and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ actions to decertify the levee system protecting the Natomas Basin, the Project did not proceed at that time, and the 2007 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
2 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Finance Plan was never adopted by City Council. The Project applicant (Applicant), who coordinated with the City on behalf of six property owners, subsequently submitted revised plans for development of Panhandle. The 2018 Finance Plan was prepared to replace the 2007 Finance Plan based on the revised land use plan, updated technical studies, and refined City and Applicant objectives. This Finance Plan provides cost and funding updates to the 2018 Finance Plan and establishes the Panhandle Fee Program.

As shown on Table 1-1, the Project as proposed contains 1,662 residential dwelling units. All units have the City General Plan designation of Suburban Neighborhood Low Density, which allows a development density of 3 to 8 dwelling units per net acre. The Panhandle PUD further differentiates the unit types by creating the three sub-designations of estate, traditional, and village lots. The planned units consist of 340 estate units with an average density of 4.5 units per acre, 869 traditional units with an average density of 5.9 units per acre, and 453 village units with an average density of 7.5 units per acre. The Project area also contains public facilities including parks, an elementary school site, a high school/middle school site, open space, a detention basin, and roadways.

Purpose of the Finance Plan
The Finance Plan identifies all backbone infrastructure improvements, public facilities, and associated administrative costs needed to serve the proposed land uses. Because of the delayed timing of development of the Project, a significant portion of the NNFP infrastructure and public facilities already have been constructed. Therefore, instead of annexing into the NNFP, this Finance Plan includes a separate set of funding mechanisms that will work in conjunction with the NNFP funding strategy. This Finance Plan ensures that the infrastructure and public facilities necessary to serve the Project are constructed and describes the costs and financing mechanisms that will be used to construct these improvements in a timely manner. The Finance Plan is designed to achieve the following goals:
 Identify ways to finance construction of public infrastructure and facilities through public and private financing.
 Use existing City, Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD), Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San), and special district fee programs to the extent possible.
 Identify Project-specific fees to fund all or a portion of major backbone infrastructure and other public facilities not included in existing fee programs.

These fees include a combination of fees based on Development Agreement (DA) requirements (Panhandle DA Fees) and fees established per nexus findings (Panhandle Impact Fees) in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act.

Table 1-1
Panhandle Finance Plan
Land Use Summary
Land Use
Units pe
r
Net Acre
Gross
Acres
Net
Acres [1]
Dwelling
Units
Residential - Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (SNLD)
Estates (E) 4.5 88.0 75.7 340
Traditional (T) 5.9 162.2 147.7 869
Village (V) 7.5 66.4 60.5 453
Subtotal Residential SNLD 316.6 283.9 1,662
Other Land Uses
Elementary School - 11.7 10.0 -
Middle School/High School - 65.5 60.4 -
Park - Quimby - 18.0 15.5 -
Ninos Parkway [2] - 36.0 32.6 -
Detention Basin - Open Space - 13.6 13.4 -
Planned Development (non-participant) - 123.0 119.0 -
Major Roads - 5.0 5.0 -
Collector and Residential Streets [1] - 0.0 49.6 -
Subtotal Other Land Uses - 272.8 305.5 -
Total Land Uses 589.4 589.4 1,662
lu
Source: MacKay & Somps; City of Sacramento.
[1] Net acres reflect exclusion of collector and residential streets, accounted for in a separate line item. [2] Includes the 12' Powerline Tr
ail within the WAPA Corridor (Ninos Parkway).

Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 3 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
4 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
 Provide legally required nexus findings to support City Council’s consideration of the Panhandle Impact Fee Component of the Panhandle Fee Program.  Make maximum use of “pay as you go” mechanisms.
 Make appropriate use of municipal debt–financing mechanisms.  Build in flexibility to respond to market conditions.  Provide developer funding for appropriate facilities.

Summary
Overview of Financing Strategy
Buildout of the Project will require construction of roadway, sewer, water, drainage, and a variety of other public facilities. Cost estimates for required backbone infrastructure and other public facilities have been derived from a combination of engineering data provided by MacKay & Somps and Harris & Associates (Harris) and other data obtained from the City, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), and other sources. Note that MacKay & Somps prepared the engineering cost estimates in the 2018 Finance Plan, and Harris updated those cost estimates for this Finance Plan. See Appendix B for the detailed engineering cost estimates prepared by Harris.

Table 1-2 summarizes the total cost of backbone infrastructure and other public facilities required to serve the Project and compares the costs to the estimated costs in the 2018 Finance Plan. At buildout, backbone and other public facilities are estimated to cost approximately $69.9 million, an increase of approximately

9.5% over the 2018 costs. This figure does not include the costs of in-tract and other subdivision-specific improvements, which are anticipated to be financed privately.

Table 1-3 shows the financing sources used to fund backbone infrastructure and other public facilities for the Project. As shown, the major infrastructure required for development to proceed in the Project is anticipated to be funded through a combination of public and private financing. Fees (i.e., City, Sacramento County [County], other agencies, or plan area fees) will be used to fund required facilities when possible. The City and other agencies serving the Project have existing development impact fee programs to fund a portion of the sewer infrastructure and all of the water, park, and school facilities included in this Finance Plan. For most of the backbone infrastructure, the developer will construct the facilities and may be reimbursed through Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) bond proceeds and appropriate fee program credits and reimbursements if such arrangements are approved by the City and the appropriate reimbursement or credit agreement is executed.

Table 1-2
Panhandle Finance Plan
Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Summary Item 2021$ 2018$ Pct. Change
Backbone Infrastructure
Roadways
On-Site Roadways $14,096,000 $12,053,000 16.95%
Off-Site Roadways $559,000 $468,000 19.44%
Subtotal Roadways $14,655,000 $12,521,000 17.04%
Sanitary Sewer $1,164,000 $1,034,000 12.57%
Storm Drainage Construction $12,820,000 $11,380,000 12.65% Potable Water $2,948,000 $2,694,000 9.43%
Subtotal Backbone Infrastructure - Construction $31,587,000 $27,6 29,000 14.33% Storm Drainage Land Acquisition $2,128,865 $1,675,000 27.10% Subtotal Backbone Infrastructure $33,715,865 $29,304,000 15.06% Public Facilities
Ninos Parkway (Landscaping) [1] $4,612,000 $4,297,500 7.32% Trails [2] $1,810,000 $1,425,100 27.01%
Neighborhood and Community Parks - Quimby [3] $6,501,744 $5,617,5 60 15.74% Regional Park Land Acquisition [4] $3,968,856 $3,628,146 9.39% Transit [4] $975,594 $889,170 9.72%
Fire Facilities [4] $990,552 $902,466 9.76%
Community Center [4] $611,616 $3,456,960 -82.31%
Library [4] $1,555,632 $1,416,024 9.86%
Schools [3] $15,141,900 $12,915,150 17.24%
Subtotal Public Facilities $36,167,894 $34,548,076 4.69% Total Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost $69,883,759 $63,852,076 9.45% cost sum
Source: MacKay & Somps (November 29, 2017); Harris (January 2022); City of Sacramento [1] Includes the Ninos Parkway 20' landscape area adjacent to the 12' Powerline Trail in the WAPA Corridor as well as remaining open space and landscaping within the WAPA Corridor (including areas adjacent to parks). Excludes the cost of the 12' Powerline Class I Bike Trail within the WAPA Corridor. [2] Includes the cost for the 12' Pow
erline (WAPA Corridor) Class I Bike Tr
ail with decomposed granite shoulders within
Ninos Parkway and Sotnip Trail. Excludes the landscape area adjacent to the 12' trail and any remaining open space and landscaping within the WAPA Corridor.
[3] Assumes cost is equal to fee revenue generated by Panhandle PUD development. See Table C-1 for detail. [4] Panhandle cost obligation calculated assuming applicable North Natomas development impact fees apply to Panhandle development. See Table 3-9.

Estimated Cost
Prepared by EPS 5/23/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 5 Table 1-3
Panhandle Finance Plan
Estimated Project Requirements and Funding at Buildout (2021$) Eligible Subtotal Regional,
Estimated for Land Impact DA Park Water School Plan Area Offsite State, and Private Improvemen
t Secured Fee Fee Impact System Dev. Mitigation and Fee Future Federal/ Developer Item Costs Financing Component Component Fees Fees SASD Fees Payments Reimb. Other [2] Funding Total Backbone Infrastructure
Roadways
On-Site Roadways $14,096,000 X $14,096,000 - - - - - $14,096,000 - - - $14,096,000 Off-Site Roadways $559,000 X $423,000 - - - - - $423,000 $136,000 [3] - - $559,000 Subtotal Roadways $14,655,000 $14,519,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,519,000 $136,000 $0 $0 $14,655,000 Sanitary Sewer $1,164,000 X $314,000 - - - $850,000 - $1,164,000 - - - $1,164,000 Storm Drainage $14,948,865 X $14,948,865 - - - - - $14,948,865 - [4] - - $14,948,865 Potable Water $2,948,000 X $0 - - $2,948,000 - - $2,948,000 - - - $2,948,000 Subtotal Backbone Infrastructure $33,715,865 $29,781,865 $0 $0 $2,948,000 $850,000 $0 $33,579,865 $136,000 $0 $0 $33,715,865 Public Facilities
Ninos Parkway (Landscaping) [5] $4,612,000 X $0 - - - - - $0 - - $4,612,000 $4,612,000 Trails [6] $1,810,000 X $1,048,000 - - - - - $1,048,000 $762,000 - - $1,810,000 Neighborhood and Community Parks - Quimby [7] $6,501,744 X $0 - $6,501,744 - - - $6,501,744 - - - $6,501,744 Regional Park Land Acquisition [7] [8] $3,968,856 X $0 $3,968,856 - - - - $3,968,856 - - - $3,968,856 Transit [7] [8] $975,594 X $0 $975,594 - - - - $975,594 - - - $975,594 Fire Facilities [7] [8] $990,552 X $0 $990,552 - - - - $990,552 - - - $990,552 Community Center [7] [9] $611,616 X $0 $611,616 - - - - $611,616 - - - $611,616 Library [7] [8] $1,555,632 X $0 $1,555,632 - - - - $1,555,632 - - - $1,555,632 Schools [7] $15,141,900 $0 - - - $15,141,900 $15,141,900 - - - $15,141,900 Subtotal Public Facilities $36,167,894 $1,048,000 $8,102,250 $6,501,744 $0 $0 $15,141,900 $30,793,894 $762,000 $0 $4,612,000 $36,167,894 Total Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost $69,883,759 $30,829,865 $8,102,250 $6,501,744 $2,948,000 $850,000 $15,141,900 $64,373,759 $898,000 $0 $4,612,000 $69,883,759 s/u
Source: MacKay & Somps (November 29, 2017); Harris (January 2022); City of Sacramento; EPS [1] The proposed Panhandle Fee Program is a plan area fee program with an Impact Fee component and a DA Fee component. [2] "Other" funding may include grant or other sources of revenue such as capital campaigns by user groups. [3] To the extent that development of the Krumenacher Ranch property proceeds, that property will reimburse Panhandle PUD constructing entities (or other funding parties) for the portion of the costs for off-site roadway improvements that benefit the site.

Krumenacher Ranch percentage estimated as 24.4% ($114,000/$368,000) based on the 2018 Financing Plan. [4] As shown on Table 3-4, to the extent that the Krumenacher Ranch property proceeds, the property will reimburse the Project approximately $411,000 for drainage land acquistion if it utilizes the basin. The offsite reimbursement for drainage is currently excluded from this table because it is uncertain if Krumenacher Ranch will proceed. If Krumenacher Ranch does proceed, it is uncertain how the drainage system will be configured. In the event that Krumenacher Ranch does proceed and utilizes the Panhandle detention basin, the City will require them to pay their proportionate share of the land acquisition cost. [5] Includes the Ninos Parkway 20' landscape area adjacent to the 12' Powerline Trail in the WAPA Corridor as well as remaining open space and landscaping within the WAPA Corridor (including areas adjacent to parks). Excludes the cost of the 12' Powerline Class I bike trail within the WAPA Corridor. The cost will be funded privately as each property owner has a relatively equal share of the trail and landscape cost and will construct their own portion of the parkway. [6] Includes the cost for the 12' Powerline (WAPA Corridor) Class I Bike Trail with decomposed granite shoulders within Ninos Parkway and Sotnip trail. Excludes the landscape area adjacent to the 12' trail and any remaining open space and landscaping within the WAPA Corridor. The cost for the WAPA Corridor Trail and Panhandle's share of the Sotnip Trail will be funded through the Panhandle Fee Program. The remainder of the Sotnip Trail will be funded by other benefitting properties. [7] Assumes cost is equal to fee revenue generated by Panhandle PUD development. See Table C-1 for detail. [8] Panhandle cost obligation calculated assuming applicable FY 17-18 North Natomas development impact fees apply to Panhandle development. Fees escalated to 2021$. See Table 3-9. [9] Panhandle cost obligation calculated assuming FY 21-22 North Natomas community center development impact fees apply to Panhandle development. See Table 3-9.

Other Funding SourcesOther Fee Programs
Estimated Project Requirements and Funding
Developer Funding via Construction and Fee Payments
City FeesPanhandle Fee Program [1]
Prepared by EPS 5/24/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 6 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
The Panhandle Fee Program will be used to help fund backbone infrastructure costs and public facilities serving the Project that are not funded through existing public financing mechanisms or by Project developers through private cost- sharing agreements or other funding approaches.

Because the Project borders the NNFP area, there are several public facilities planned or already constructed in the NNFP area, including transit, fire, library, and community center facilities, and regional park land acquisition, that will benefit the Panhandle residents. Therefore, development in the Project will share costs for these facilities with the North Natomas developers, and the Panhandle development fees for these facilities will be based on the North Natomas fees for the same facilities.

Bond financing likely will be needed to help fund items required during the early years of development in the Project, as well as at other strategic times when accumulated development impact fees or other proposed public funding are insufficient to fund the necessary facilities required for new development in a timely manner. Debt financing, however, will be limited to prudent levels and shall be consistent with federal, State of California (State), and City requirements and guidelines.

School facilities will be funded through school mitigation fees and possibly through other funding sources, including the State School Building Program or local general obligation (GO) bonds.

It is expected that costs will change over time. As described in Chapter 8, if costs or land uses change significantly, or if other funding becomes available, the Panhandle Fee Program will need to be updated accordingly. Chapter 8 also describes the annual fee inflation adjustment methodology for the Panhandle Fee Program.

Financing Strategy Implementation
The strategy of the Finance Plan is detailed below:
 Fully fund or construct all backbone infrastructure and other public facilities needed to serve the entire Project.
 Use, when available, existing City and other agency fee programs to fund backbone infrastructure and other public facilities.
 Create the Panhandle Fee Program to help fund facilities not funded through other public financing mechanisms or private funding sources.  Identify future beneficiaries of Panhandle infrastructure and establish appropriate funding mechanisms.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
 Phase backbone infrastructure and other public facility improvements to ensure they are constructed when necessary for new development and when funds are available to construct such public improvements.  Permit the use of land-secured bond debt financing programs to provide up- front financing for necessary backbone infrastructure and other public facilities when other funding sources are unavailable to provide sufficient funds concurrent with development demands.
 Ensure financing mechanisms are flexible to accommodate different combinations of infrastructure timing and funding requirements.

The City will administer implementation of the Finance Plan, and such administration is anticipated to include the following actions:
 When appropriate, update relevant existing citywide fee programs (such as the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF), Park Impact Fee (PIF) or Water System Development fee) to reflect updated Project land uses, facilities, costs, or revenue sources.
 Implement the Panhandle Fee Program.
 Form a Mello-Roos CFD for infrastructure.
 Form a Mello-Roos CFD for streetscapes, park and open space, and utilities maintenance and other services.
 Annex Project to the North Natomas Transportation Management Association (TMA) or other TMA.

The Finance Plan will need to be updated periodically to account for changes in land uses, infrastructure improvements or cost information, and funding sources.

Changes in the Finance Plan should be re-evaluated within the context of the overall financing strategy to ensure required funding is available when needed.

Organization of the Report
In addition to this introduction and summary chapter, the Finance Plan contains the following information:
 Chapter 2 summarizes the proposed land uses.
 Chapter 3 identifies the backbone infrastructure and other public facility costs.
 Chapter 4 identifies the infrastructure financing strategy and likely funding sources.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9
 Chapter 5 details the Panhandle Fee Program and provides the legally required nexus findings that the City Council relies upon for establishment of the Panhandle Impact Fee Component.
 Chapter 6 evaluates the financial feasibility of the Finance Plan.  Chapter 7 identifies the services and ongoing operation and maintenance cost funding sources.
 Chapter 8 outlines implementation and administration of the Finance Plan.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
10 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 11
Land Use
Land Use Assumptions
The 589.4-acre Project is located at the eastern edge of the NNCP, generally bounded by Elkhorn Boulevard to the north, Del Paso Road to the south, Sorento Road/East Levee Road to the east, and the developed neighborhoods of Natomas Park and Regency Park to the west.

Comprising several properties owned by separate parties and entities, which are anticipated to develop as multiple individual subdivisions, the Project site is located on primarily vacant land. High-voltage power lines run in a north-south direction along the eastern part of the property, within a 250-foot powerline easement known as the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) corridor, within which the Finance Plan calls for an open space/trail facility called Ninos Parkway. The Project area is designated Planned Development (PD) under the adopted City 2035 General Plan.

The Project area was annexed into the City in 2019. The land use plan is summarized below:
 1,662 suburban neighborhood low-density single-family residential units are planned on 316.6 gross acres.
1  123.0
gross acres located immediately south of Elkhorn Boulevard (Krumenacher Ranch) are designated as Planned Development and are zoned as Agriculture. These acres are owned by a developer who is not currently participating with the Applicant’s Project. Although the Krumenacher Ranch area is excluded from the area subject to the Panhandle PUD Design Guidelines, it was annexed into the City and included in the Project area. No land use entitlements are being sought for this area at this time. The analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project assumed that Krumenacher Ranch eventually could be developed with residential uses, and thus the EIR evaluated the impacts of this possibility.  149.8 gross acres of the Project are reserved for public facilities such as parks, an elementary school site, a high school/middle school site, open space, a detention basin, and roadways.
1 Gross developable acreage is the total area identified on the PUD diagram for each land use.

The net acreage used in this analysis excludes minor roadway and other public right-of-ways inside each subdivision, which will be dedicated as the subdivisions are created.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
12 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Map 2-1 shows the regional location of the Project. Map 2-2 shows the land use diagram of the Project. The land uses were summarized in Table 1-1 in Chapter 1. The Project is planned to develop as entirely low-density residential units featuring several unit types and lot sizes.
3$1+$1'/(
6,7(

 3ODQ$UHD
&RQWH[W

7KH1ANHANDLELV
ORFDWHGHQWLUHO\ZLWKLQWKH
&LW\·V6SKHUHRI,QIOXHQFH

62,
DQGZLWKLQWKH1RUWK
1DWRPDV&RPPXQLW\
SODQQLQJDUHD7KH
1ANHANDLELVORFDWHG
DGMDFHQWWR&LW\ODQGVRQ
WKHZHVWDQGHDVWDQG
DGMDFHQWWR&RXQW\ODQGV
RQWKHQRUWKDQGVRXWK
DQGLVERXQGHGE\(ONKRUQ
%RXOHYDUGRQWKHQRUWK
6RUHQWR5RDGDQG(DVW
/HYHH5RDGRQWKHHDVW
'HO3DVR5RDGRQWKH
VRXWK

7KH
1ANHANDLE3ODQQHG
8QLW'HYHORSPHQW
38'

3URMHFWDFUHDJH
WKHDUHD
VXEMHFWRIWKHVH'HVLJQ
*XLGHOLQHV
HQFRPSDVVHV
DSSUR[LPDWHO\DFUHV

&XHIBIT
1LAN"REA$ONTEXT.AP
Map 2-1
Panhandle Project Vicinity
(PR/A-OS)

6.5 ± AC. (NET)

20.2 ± AC. (GR)

14.6± AC. (GR)
SNLD-E
(SNLD/R1-A)
(SNLD/R1)
(SNLD/R1)
SNLD-E

47.0 ± AC. (GR)
Village 7

87.3 ± AC. (GR)
Planned

11.6± AC. (GR)

11.6 ± AC. (NET)
Planned
(PD/A)
Development 2

20.8 ± AC. (GR)
Village 8

17.6 ± AC. (GR)

16.4 ± AC. (NET)
Village 11

65.5 ± AC. (GR)

13.6 ± AC. (GR)

13.4± AC. (NET)
(SNLD/R1-A)
(PR/A-OS)
(PR/A-OS)

60.4 ± AC. (NET)

10.5 ± AC. (NET)

12.3 ± AC. (GR)

11.3 ± AC. (NET)
(SNLD/R1-A)

13.0 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

23.3 ± AC. (GR)

4.6 ± AC. (GR)

21.2 ± AC. (NET)
(PR/A-OS)

4.1 ± AC. (NET)

4.1 ± AC. (GR)
(PR/A-OS)

3.1 ± AC. (NET)

11.7 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

10.0 ± AC. (NET)

14.4 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

12.2 ± AC. (NET)

36.4 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

34.3 ± AC. (NET)

21.4 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

19.9 ± AC. (NET)

25.9± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

22.7 ± AC. (NET)

13.0 ± AC. (GR)
Open Space 4
(PR/A-OS)

12.3 ± AC. (NET)

30.0 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

26.1± AC. (NET)

5.7± AC. (GR)
(PR/A-OS)

5.0 ± AC. (NET)

19.8 ± AC. (GR)

18.6 ± AC. (NET)
Ninos Parkway
Open Space 3
Ninos Parkway
Park 2
Quimby
Middle School
Detention Basin
Open Space
Village 12
SNLD-T
Village 9
Village 5
SNLD-T
(SNLD/R1-A)
SNLD-V
Village 3
Village 4
SNLD-V
SNLD-T
Elementary School
Quimby
Park 1
Village 1
SNLD-T
Village 2
SNLD-T
Open Space 2
Ninos Parkway
Village 14
SNLD-T

12.2 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

12.2 ± AC. (NET)
Village 13
SNLD-T
High School/

6.9 ± AC. (GR)

16.6 ± AC. (NET)
Park 4
Ninos Parkway

13.3 ± AC. (NET)
Village 10
SNLD-V
Village 6

38.9 ± AC. (NET)
Development 1
PD
(PD/A)

83.3 ± AC. (NET)
PD

20.2 ± AC. (NET)
(SNLD/R1)
SNLD-E
(SNLD/R1-A)
SNLD-V

2.0 ± AC. (GR)
(PR/A-OS)

1.5 ± AC. (NET)
Park 3
Ninos Parkway
(PD/A)
PD
Develop-

24.1 ± AC. (GR)

24.1 ± AC. (NET)
Planned
ment 3
Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

Street "C"
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.
(National Drive)Street "C"

5.4 ± AC. (GR)
(PR/A-OS)

5.1 ± AC. (NET)
Open Space 1
Ninos Parkway
(National Drive)

PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN
January 30, 2018

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento

PROJECT
SITE
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-V = Village (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

8.0±8.9±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

5.0±

13.4±

48.9±

5.0±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 24.6±27.1±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-V
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
340±
453±
SNLD-T R1-A 869±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)

88.0± 75.7±

60.5±
148.4±

60.4±

10.0±

66.4±
162.2±

65.5±

11.7±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±18.0±
589.4± 589.4± 1,662± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
Map 2-2
Panhandle PUD Schematic Plan
Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 15
Backbone Infrastructure and
Public Facility Costs
Buildout of the Project will require construction of roadway, sewer, water, and drainage infrastructure, as well as a variety of other public facilities. The backbone infrastructure and public facility requirements summarized in this chapter are based on the infrastructure master plans for the Panhandle PUD, the mitigation measures set forth in the Panhandle PUD Draft EIR, and the NNFP improvements benefitting Panhandle development. The Finance Plan identifies those backbone infrastructure and public facility requirements that benefit the Panhandle PUD and are needed to satisfy Panhandle EIR mitigation requirements, including the following improvements:

Backbone Infrastructure:
 On- and Off-Site Roadways
 Sanitary Sewer
 Storm Drainage
 Potable Water
Public Facilities:
 Trails
 Ninos Parkway
 Neighborhood and Community Parks
 Regional Park Land Acquisition
 Transit
 Fire Facilities
 Community Center
 Library
 School Facilities
This chapter discusses all of the required infrastructure and public facilities for the Project and provides the estimated construction costs (in 2021$) associated with each category. Table 1-2 in Chapter 1 summarizes the estimated costs and the assumed funding sources. The cost estimates were developed from a variety of sources, as summarized below.

MacKay & Somps prepared the original construction cost estimates included in the 2018 Finance Plan for all backbone infrastructure except off-site roadways, as well as for planned trails and the Ninos Parkway landscaping. The City provided the cost estimates included in the 2018 Finance Plan for off-site roadways based on Panhandle’s anticipated contribution to Elkhorn Boulevard trips obtained from a Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
16 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
traffic analysis prepared by DKS Associates. Harris prepared updated cost estimates for this 2022 Finance Plan, which are detailed in Appendix B.

The cost estimates for the remainder of the public facilities necessitated by the Project are based on estimated fee revenue from existing and proposed development impact fee programs that would be generated by the Project’s planned residential units. The cost estimates included in the 2018 Finance Plan have been updated for this 2022 Finance Plan to reflect revenue generated by fees in 2021 dollars, as detailed later in this chapter.

Definitions of Backbone Infrastructure
and Public Facilities
This Finance Plan will use the following definitions to more precisely define these terms:
 Backbone Infrastructure: This term includes most of the essential public service-based items that are underground or on the surface. It includes roads, water, sewer, drainage, recycled water, levees, erosion control, and dry utilities. Backbone infrastructure is sized to serve numerous individual development projects in the Project and in some cases serves the broader region’s development areas.
 Public Facilities: This term includes parks, trails, schools, libraries, fire stations and equipment, police facilities and equipment, transit facilities, public buildings, and open space. This group of items provides amenities to the Project (e.g., park facilities and libraries) or houses employees providing services to the area (e.g., police, fire, public administration).  Facilities: This term is used in the Finance Plan to generically include a combination of backbone infrastructure and public facilities when a precise breakdown is not required.
 Subdivision Improvements include in-tract improvements (roads, sewer, water, drainage, recycled water, erosion control, and dry utilities) that are in or adjacent to individual subdivision projects. These improvements are funded privately, and the costs of these improvements are not estimated in the Finance Plan.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 17
 Roadway Frontage Improvements include outside travel lanes, bike lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalks, sound wall, and landscape corridors bordering a subdivision. Generally, the center lanes and medians of a multilane roadway are considered backbone infrastructure, while roadway frontage provides access to the adjacent development and is considered a subdivision improvement. However, in certain cases a roadway fronting public property may be included as a backbone infrastructure cost to the extent that it is adjacent to public uses or traversing a public right-of-way that benefits multiple individual subdivision projects.

Infrastructure Phasing
Some backbone infrastructure and public facilities will need to be installed at the outset of development of the Project before any homes are constructed. Any remaining infrastructure items are to be built before certain timing triggers, which will be determined by the City and likely identified in the DAs.

Backbone Infrastruc ture Improvements,
Costs, and Phasing
Roadways
Project development will generate vehicular trips in and outside of the Project, which result in the need for additional roadway capacity to maintain adequate levels of service. The proposed roadway system comprises major arterials, collectors, and residential streets that work together to provide convenient and safe access to all areas in the Project and adequate off-site access to proposed development in the Project.

Roadway center lanes and medians for multilane facilities generally are considered backbone infrastructure and therefore are included in the Finance Plan.

Construction of roadway frontage (outside travel lanes, bike lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, sound walls, and landscape corridors) generally is considered the obligation of adjacent development. However, where a roadway abuts or traverses a public facility or right-of-way (e.g., WAPA Corridor or detention basin), those frontage facilities are providing access to or through that facility and offer plan-wide benefits. Roadway frontage adjacent to public facilities and rights- of-way that is not otherwise funded or reimbursed via other mechanisms therefore is included in the Finance Plan. Roadway frontage adjacent to schools and parks is excluded because construction of frontage facilities will be considered as part of the acquisition cost for those facilities.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
As depicted in Map 3-1, on-site roadways identified in the Finance Plan include the following facilities:
 Del Paso Road—median and travel lane on south side; frontage improvements along north side.
 Street G—eastern portion adjacent to the WAPA corridor.  Faletto Avenue—southern portion adjacent to the detention basin.  Club Central Drive—northern portion adjacent to the detention basin.  Street F—full section through the WAPA corridor.
 Club Center Drive—full section through the WAPA corridor.  Club Center Drive—western portion adjacent to the WAPA corridor, excluding portion of WAPA corridor adjacent to Park 2.
 Street C—Full section in the WAPA corridor, excluding the frontage adjacent to Park 1.
 Sorento Road—frontage improvements and fencing along Sorento Road along west side.

In addition, costs associated with traffic signals on major facilities, as well as traffic circles on Club Center and National Drives, are included in the Finance Plan.

Entry monumentations at National Drive and Del Paso Road and at Club Center Drive and Del Paso Road are also included in the Finance Plan.

Off-site roadway requirements include contributions to Elkhorn Boulevard from State Route 99 to the eastern limit of the Project. The City provided estimates of the Project’s fair share contribution to four specified Elkhorn Boulevard segments.

The Project will contribute to the first segment of Elkhorn Boulevard from State Route 99 to East Commerce Way to accommodate the additional traffic coming off the freeway onto Elkhorn Boulevard. The Project also will contribute to the next three segments of Elkhorn Boulevard: East Commerce Way to Natomas Boulevard, Natomas Boulevard to the city limit, and the city limit to the eastern limit of the Project.

As shown on Table 3-1, the on-site roadway costs total approximately $14.1 million, an increase of 17 percent over the 2018 estimated costs. Off-site roadway costs total approximately $559,000, an increase of 19.4 percent over the 2018 estimated costs. All of the on-site roadway costs from Table 3-1 and $423,000 of the off-site roadway costs are proposed to be funded through the Panhandle Impact Fees. It is anticipated that the remaining off-site roadway costs will be funded by reimbursements from Krumenacher Ranch when it develops to account for its fair share of the improvements that will benefit its site.

Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento

PROJECT
SITE

PROJECT BOUNDARY

ROADWAY

SEGMENTS
LEGEND
A-1.1
A-1.2
A-1.3
A-1.4
A-1.5
A-1.6
A-1.7
MAP 3-1
Table 3-1
Panhandle Finance Plan
Estimated Backbone Roadway Facilities Costs - Rounded [1] Item 2021$ 2018$ Pct. Change
On-Site Roadway Costs
Roadway Segments
Del Paso Median and Travel Lane (South Side) $1,558,900 $1,337,900 16.5% Del Paso Frontage Improvements (North Side) $1,267,000 $1,084,000 16.9% Sorento Road Horse Fence (West Side) $201,000 $184,000 9.2% Sorento Road Frontage Improvements (West Side) $733,000 $630,000 1 6.3% Street "C"/Faletto Avenue $1,313,200 $1,093,400 20.1%
Street "C" $1,260,600 $1,049,600 20.1%
Club Center Drive - Full (Segment 4 and 6) $1,371,800 $1,149,800 19.3% Club Center Drive - Half (Segment 5) $823,300 $690,000 19.3% Street "F" $347,800 $297,300 17.0%
Club Center Drive/Street "G" $1,293,000 $1,084,400 19.2% Subtotal Roadway Segments (Rounded) $10,170,000 $8,600,000 18.3% Entry Monumentation
National Drive at Del Paso Road $88,550 $74,750 18.5%
Club Center Drive at Del Paso Road $88,550 $74,750 18.5% Subtotal Entry Monumentation (Rounded) $177,000 $150,000 18.0% Traffic Signals
Del Paso Road/National Drive $547,700 $500,800 9.4%
Del Paso Road/Club Center Drive $755,200 $690,700 9.3%
Del Paso Road/Sorento Road $755,200 $690,700 9.3%
Subtotal Traffic Signals (Rounded) $2,058,000 $1,882,000 9.4% Traffic Circles
Traffic Circle - Club Center/Street "C" $563,800 $473,600 19.0% Traffic Circle - Club Center/Street "G" $563,800 $473,600 19.0% Traffic Circle - National Drive $563,800 $473,600 19.0% Subtotal Traffic Circles (Rounded) $1,691,000 $1,421,000 19.0% Total On-Site Roadway Costs (Rounded) $14,096,000 $12,053,000 17.0 % Off-Site Roadway Cost (Elkhorn Boulevard)
Elkhorn Blvd. Segment - State Route 99 to East Commerce $28,800 $24,000 20.0% Elkhorn Blvd. Segment - East Commerce Way to Natomas Blvd. $288 ,700 $242,000 19.3% Elkhorn Blvd. Segment - Natomas Blvd. to City Limit East $149,500 $125,000 19.6% Elkhorn Blvd. Segment - City Limit East to Panhandle Limit East $92,000 $77,000 19.5% Total Off-Site Roadway Cost (Rounded) $559,000 $468,000 19.4% Total Roadway Costs (Rounded) $14,655,000 $12,521,000 17.0% roads
Source: MacKay & Somps (November 29, 2017); Harris (January 2022) [1] Includes contingencies and engineering/management costs.

Roadway
Estimated Cost
Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 20 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 21
Sanitary Sewer
SASD will serve the Project with sanitary sewer collection and treatment. The Finance Plan includes backbone sanitary sewer improvements needed to convey sanitary sewer flows to the Upper Northwest Interceptor. Existing off-site collector and trunk sewer pipelines stubbed to the Project’s western boundary are sufficient to accommodate sanitary sewer flows generated by the Project, and therefore no off-site improvements will be required to accommodate Panhandle development.

On-site backbone sewer improvements consist of trunk lines sized 15 inches and greater, as well as associated manholes sized 48 inches and greater. Sanitary sewer improvement costs are based on the assumption of construction concurrent with road improvements; cost estimates therefore exclude pavement removal and replacement, roadway, and erosion control–related items.

As shown on Table 3-2, sanitary sewer improvement costs total approximately $1.2 million, an increase of 12.6 percent over the 2018 estimated costs.

This Finance Plan is based on the assumption the Project is eligible for SASD credits or reimbursements for Panhandle sanitary sewer trunk improvements included in the SASD fee program. The total net cost after SASD credits of approximately $314,000 is proposed to be funded through the Panhandle Impact Fees.

Storm Drainage
Backbone storm drainage infrastructure serving the Project is designed to meet City design criteria. In addition, because the Project is located in the Natomas Basin, the storm drainage system is designed to modify peak flows such that they do not exceed Reclamation District 1000 post-development runoff criteria.

Stormwater flows generated in the Project generally will drain from east to west to a proposed detention basin and then will be pumped to existing trunk line facilities located in Club Center Drive. The detention basin is designed to accommodate the Project’s flood control and stormwater quality treatment requirements.

The backbone storm drain system includes a network of backbone storm drain lines, expansion of an existing detention basin owned by Twin Rivers Joint Unified School District, and associated outfall structures and pumps. The Finance Plan also includes acquisition of approximately 6.7 acres of land needed to expand the existing detention basin.

As shown on Table 3-3, drainage improvement and land acquisition costs total approximately $14.9 million, an increase of 14.5 percent over the 2018 estimated costs. This total amount is proposed to be funded through the Panhandle Impact Fees.

Table 3-2
Panhandle Finance Plan Sewer
Estimated Sanitary Sewer Costs - Rounded
Item Cost
SASD Credits/
Reimb.

Net
Cost Cost
SASD Credits/
Reimb.

Net
Cost
Net Cost
Pct. Change
[2] [2]
Trunk Sanitary Sewer [1] [2]
15" Trunk Sewer Line $176, 400 ($131,756) $44,644 $153,600 ($114,726 ) $38,874 14.8% 18" Trunk Sewer Line $308, 400 ($245,144) $63,256 $286,200 ($227,497 ) $58,703 7.8% 21" Trunk Sewer Line $136, 500 ($112,145) $24,355 $118,800 ($97,603) $21,197 14.9% 48" Trunk Sewer Manhole $123, 300 ($58,953) $64,347 $104,000 ($49,725) $54,275 18.6% 60" Trunk Sewer Manhole $33, 700 ($20,890) $12,810 $28,500 ($17,667) $10,833 18.2% Subtotal Trunk Sanitary Sewer (Rounded) $778,000 ($569,000) $209, 000 $691,000 ($507,000) $184,000 13.6% 15% Contingency $117,000 ($85, 000) $32,000 $104,000 ($76,000) $28,000 14.3% Subtotal with Contingency $895,000 ($654,000) $241,000 $795,000 ($58 3,000) $212,000 13.7% 30% Engineering and Management $269,000 ( $196,000) $73,000 $239,00 0 ($175,000) $64,000 14.1% Total Sanitary Sewer Costs (Rounded) $1,164,000 ($850,000) $314,00 0 $1,034,000 ($758, 000) $276,000 13.8% Percentage Change 12.6% 12.1% 13.8%
sewer
Source: MacKay & Somps (November 29, 2017); Harris (January 2022) [1] Trunk sewer assumes construction concurrent with road improvements, excludes pavement removal and replacement, roadway and erosion control related items. [2] Eligible for SASD reimbursements/credits for trunk sanitary sewer facilities. MacKay & Somps estimated credits/reimbursements in 2018. 2021 credits/reimbursements applies same percentage as in 2018. 2021 Cost Estimate 2018 Cost Estimate
Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 22 Table 3-3
Panhandle Finance Plan
Estimated Storm Drainage Costs - Rounded
Item
Assumption 2021$ 2018$ Pct. Change
Storm Drainage Costs
Storm Drain System [1]
24" Storm Drain $147,700 $132,600 11.4%
27" Storm Drain $75,000 $67,900 10.5%
30" Storm Drain $37,800 $35,300 7.1%
42" Storm Drain $83,600 $75,100 11.3%
48" Storm Drain $241,700 $217,000 11.4%
60" Storm Drain $256,200 $230,000 11.4%
66" Storm Drain $218,100 $189,800 14.9%
72" Storm Drain $1,694,000 $1,595,800 6.2%
78" Storm Drain $3,637,100 $3,080,000 18.1%
78" Storm Drain Outfall $65,600 $60,000 9.3%
Subtotal Storm Drain System (Rounded) $6,457, 000 $5,684,000 13.6% 15% Contingency $969,000 $853,000 13.6%
Subtotal with Contingenc
y $7,425,800 $6,536,500 13.6%
30% Engineering and Management $2,228,000 $1,961,000 13.6% Total Storm Drain System (Rounded) [2] $9,654, 000 $8,498,000 13.6% Detention Basin
Detention Pond - Excavation $489,000 $444,500 10.0%
Detention Pond - Finish Grading $48,600 $44,400 9.5%
Pump Station Outlet Structure $16,400 $15,000 9.3%
Pump Station Inlet Structure $21,900 $20,000 9.5%
Pump Station $546,700 $500,000 9.3%
Weir Erosion Protection - Rip Rap 1' Deep $20,800 $19,100 8.9% Detention Pond - Maintenance Path $67,000 $59,400 12.8% Metal Access Gate $5,200 $5,000 4.0%
12 Concrete Access Ramp $24,100 $22,100 9.0%
6" Concrete Spillway $31,300 $28,800 8.7%
Geotextiles $97,100 $88,800 9.3%
Rip Rap/Cobble Rock Protection at Outfall Structure $2,000 $1,80 0 11.1% Hydroseed/Landscaping $36,100 $32,800 10.1%
Detention Pond - Fencing $36,300 $33,000 10.0%
Detention Pond - Fencing: Tubular Steel (Housing) $31,500 $28,900 9.0% Detention Pond - Landscaping (25% coverage & trees) $642,700 $584 ,300 10.0% Subtotal Detention Basin (Rounded) $2,117,000 $1,928,000 9.8% 15% Contingency $318,000 $289,000 10.0%
Subtotal with Contingenc
y $2,435,000 $2,216,900 9.8%
30% Engineering and Management $731,000 $665,000 9.9%
Total Detention Basin (Rounded) [3] $3,166,000 $2,882,000 9.9% Subtotal Storm Drainage Costs $12,820,000 $11,380,000 12.7% Land Acquisition (6.7 acres) [4]
$317,741 per acre $2,128,865 $1,675,000 27.1%
Total Storm Drainage Costs (Rounded) $14,948, 865 $13,055,000 14.5% drain
Source: MacKay & Somps (November 29, 2017); Harris (January 2022) [1] Assumes construction concurrent with road improvements, and excludes pavement removal and replacement. [2] Storm drain system includes the components listed above because each segment of pipe is required for a complete functioning system.
[3] The school has already
acquired the land and excava
ted their portion of the basin (6.9 acres). Dirtwork and above quantities are based on basin expansion and completion. [4] 2021 value per acre based on North Natomas public land acquisition value as of November 1, 2021 as presented in the appraisal report prepared by BBG on April 15, 2022.

Drainage
Estimated Cost
Prepared by EPS 5/23/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 23 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
24 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Kruemanacher Ranch
Based on the City drainage system design criteria and state regulatory requirements, the Project’s drainage system must be constructed to accommodate existing condition flows from Krumenacher Ranch. In the event the Krumenacher Ranch project develops at a later date, additional improvements may be required to accommodate additional flows generated by that development activity. These improvements may be constructed independent of the rest of the Panhandle drainage system or via expansion of and upgrades to Panhandle drainage facilities. The Krumenacher Ranch property will be responsible for drainage system improvements needed to accommodate that site’s developed condition, including any upgrades to the rest of the Panhandle drainage system (e.g., expansion of the detention basin).

To the extent Krumenacher Ranch development uses the Panhandle detention basin, expanding drainage capacity within its planned footprint, Krumenacher Ranch should fund its fair share of land acquisition costs associated with the detention basin facility. Should Krumenacher Ranch development proceed and use the Panhandle detention basin facility, the City will condition that project on reimbursement of Panhandle property owners, based on the calculations presented in Table 3-4 and subject to inflation adjustments. In addition, to the extent that Krumenacher Ranch ties into or otherwise uses Panhandle drainage facilities, the City may consider updates to this Finance Plan to reflect revised cost participation and allocation with consideration to the Krumenacher property.

Regional Drainage Improvements
This Finance Plan assumes the Project will fulfill its obligation to regional drainage improvements through the payment of Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) and Reclamation District 1000 fees and assessments.

Water
The City will provide water service to the Project upon its connection to the existing water supply and distribution network. Existing water distribution facilities near the Project include facilities located along Faletto Avenue, Club Center Drive, Aimwell Avenue, Mayfield Street, and Del Paso Road. The City determines placement of new water distribution facilities as development plans are formulated.

Provision of water service to the Project land uses will require the construction of onsite water transmission and distribution facilities. No offsite improvements will be required to provide water service to the Project.

Transmission mains used to convey large volumes of water from the treatment plants to selected points throughout the distribution system are generally considered backbone infrastructure while distribution facilities are typically considered subdivision infrastructure. This Finance Plan therefore includes the onsite 18-inch and 24-inch transmission lines that will connect to City facilities for the delivery of water to Project land uses.

Table 3-4
Panhandle Finance Plan
Krumenacher Ranch Drainage Cost - Offsite Future Reimbursement [1] Item Formula Amount
Total Acres [2]
a 635.4
Krumenacher Ranch Acres [2] b 122.7
Krumenacher Ranch as a Percent of Total c = b / a 19%
Project Land Acquisition Cost [3] d $2,128,865
Krumenacher Ranch Drainage Cost
Land Acquisition e = d * c $411,000
Total Krumenacher Ranch Drainage Cost $411,000
offsite
Source: MacKay & Somps; City of Sacramento.
[1] In the event that Krumenacher Ranch proceeds and uses the Panhandle detention basin, the City will seek reimbursement from Krumenacher Ranch to pay for their fair share of the land acquisition cost for the detention basin. [2] Acreage from the Drainage System Modeling Report for Natomas Panhandle (December 4, 2019), prepared by MacKay & Somps.
[3] See Table 3-3.

Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 25 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
26 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Transmission line improvement costs are based on assumed construction concurrent with road improvements; the cost estimate therefore excludes pavement removal and replacement and utility conflict resolution.

As shown on Table 3-5, water improvement costs for the Project total approximately $2.9 million, an increase of 9.4 percent over the 2018 estimated costs. The Finance Plan is based on the assumption that the full cost of the improvements may be eligible for credits and/or reimbursements from the City’s water development impact fee program. Therefore, no additional funding source is needed for the water improvements.

Public Facility Im provements, Costs,
and Phasing
Open Space and Trails
The Finance Plan includes the costs of Ninos Parkway landscaping, construction of the Powerline Trail facility, and Panhandle’s contribution to the Sotnip Trail, which are discussed in more detail below.

Ninos Parkway
Ninos Parkway is a 20.1-acre open space parkway located in the WAPA corridor that traverses the length of the Project. Ninos Parkway is envisioned as an integrated system of open spaces, recreational facilities, community gardens, and parks connected by a Class 1 bicycle and pedestrian trail—the Powerline Trail (also known as the WAPA Corridor Trail).

Landscaping costs for Ninos Parkway include the 20-foot landscape area adjacent to the Powerline Trail and open space in the WAPA corridor, as well as approximately 8 acres of neighborhood park space located in the WAPA corridor.

The park space in Ninos Parkway is not included in the Quimby calculation and is not eligible for PIF funding because of WAPA easement constraints. As shown on Table 3-6, Ninos Parkway costs total approximately $4.6 million, an increase of

7.3 percent over the 2018 estimated costs. This total estimated cost will be funded privately with each property owner constructing their own portion of the Ninos Parkway. Note that this estimate excludes the cost of the Powerline Trail, which will be constructed within the Ninos Parkway. The cost of the Powerline Trail is discussed in the next section.

Trails
The Project includes two separate Class 1 bike trails: the Powerline Trail and the Sotnip Trail. The Powerline Trail is a new 12-foot paved trail with 2-foot decomposed granite shoulders and 10-foot landscape corridors that will extend Table 3-5
Panhandle Finance Plan Water
Estimated Potable Water Costs - Rounded
Item Cost Credits [2] Net Cost Cost Credits [2] Net Cost Water Costs
Transmission Main [1]
18" Water Transmission Main $140,000 ($140,000) $0 $128,000 ($128,000) $0 24" Water Transmission Main $1,832,100 ($1,832,100) $0 $1,674,000 ($1,674,000) $0 Subtotal Water Transmission Main (Rounded) $1,972,000 ($1,972,000) $0 $1,802,000 ($1,802,000) $0 15% Contingency $296,000 ($296,000) $0 $270,000 ($270,000) $0 Subtotal with Contingency $2,268,000 ($2,268,000) $0 $2,072,000 ($2,072,000) $0 30% Engineering and Management $680,000 ($680,000) $0 $622,000 ($622,000) $0 Total Water Transmission Main (Rounded) $2,948,000 ($2,948,000) $0 $2,694,000 ($2,694,000) $0 Total Water Costs (Rounded) $2,948,000 ($2,948,000) $0 $2,694,000 ($ 2,694,000) $0 Percentage Change 9.4%
Source: MacKay & Somps (November 29, 2017); Harris (January 2022) [1] Transmission main construction costs assume construction concurrent with road improvements. Excludes pavement removal and replacement and utility conflict resolution.
[2] Water credits w
ill be applied against the City of Sacramento 1" w
ater meter fee paid at building permit up to the credit amount shown. 2021 Cost Estimate 2018 Cost Estimate
Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 27 Table 3-6
Panhandle Finance Plan
Estimated Ninos Parkway/Trails Costs - Rounded
Item 2021 Cost 2018 Cost Pct. Change
Ninos Parkway [1]
20' Landscape Area Adjacent to 12' Trail $1,713,800 $1,602,700 6.9 % Open Space in WAPA Corridor $160,200 $134,400 19.2%
Park Space in WAPA Corridor - Landscape/Turf $743,700 $695,500 6. 9% Park Space in WAPA Corridor - Minimal Landscape/Natural $1,994,300 $1,864,900 6.9% Total Ninos Parkway $4,612,000 $4,297,500 7.3%
Trails
Powerline (WAPA Corridor) Class I Bike Trail [1] [2] $667,000 $525,100 27.0% Sotnip Trail [3]
Panhandle Contribution (1/3 of total) $381,000 $300,000 27.0% Other Properties' Contribution $762,000 $600,000 27.0%
Subtotal Sotnip Trail $1,143,000 $900,000 27.0%
Subtotal Trails $1,810,000 $1,425,100 27.0%
Total Ninos Parkway/Trails $6,422,000 $5,722,600 12.2%
trails
Source: MacKay & Somps (November 29, 2017); Harris (January 2022); City of Sacramento [1] Includes contingency and engineering.
[2] 12' Powerline Trail with decomposed granite shoulders within the WAPA Cor ridor
.
[3] Assumes a 1,200-foot-long trail between Sorento Road and Kenmar Road. The total cost of the Sotnip Trail was $900,000 in 2018 dollars. The 2021 amount reflects a percentage increase in cost equal to the Powerline trail cost percentage increase.

Panhandle's contribution is one-third of the total with the remaining two-thirds funded by other benefitting properties.

Estimated Cost
Ninos Parkway/
Trails
Prepared by EPS 5/24/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 28 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 29
the entire north-south length of the Project in Ninos Parkway. As shown on Table 3-6, the estimated cost of the Powerline trail is approximately $667,000.

Construction of the Powerline Trail will be funded by Panhandle Impact Fees.

The Finance Plan also includes the Project’s share of construction costs for the new Sotnip Trail facility, a 1,200-foot-long 12-foot Class 1 trail that will be constructed between Sorento Road and Kenmar Road and is needed to provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to the City’s existing trail network. The estimated cost of the Sotnip Trail is $1.1 million. Panhandle's contribution is $381,000, with the remaining $762,000 to be funded by other benefitting properties or other funding sources. The Project’s share of the Sotnip Trail will be funded through Panhandle Impact Fees.

The total cost of both trails combined is estimated at $1.8 million, an increase of 27 percent over the 2018 estimated costs.

TDIF Credits
The City’s TDIF Program imposes citywide impact fees for transportation improvements that provide citywide benefit, including improvements accommodating alternative transportation modes, such as the bicycle and pedestrian network. If a finance plan includes transportation improvements that provide citywide benefit and are included in the TDIF capital list, the City Council may reduce the TDIF rate for developers within the finance plan area to account for the finance plan contribution toward these facilities. Because the Powerline Trail and Sotnip Trail are part of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian networks and included in the TDIF capital list, construction of and financial participation in funding these facilities are creditable against the alternative modes portion of the TDIF program. Through construction of the Powerline Trail and Sotnip Trail, Panhandle development will likely fulfill its obligations to fund improvements accommodating alternative transportation modes. As a result, Panhandle development is eligible for a credit against the Citywide TDIF, in the full amount of the alternative modes component of the fee. The City Council may, by resolution, amend the TDIF Program and establish a reduced TDIF rate for the Panhandle Project. The Panhandle TDIF rates effective July 1, 2022, are detailed in Appendix C.

Other Public Facilities
The cost of public facilities other than Ninos Parkway and the trails are estimated based on the revenue that would be generated from different existing and proposed fee programs if the fees were applied to the projected Panhandle development at buildout. Note that the proposed Panhandle DA Fees will be used to fund Panhandle’s share of improvements specified in the NNFP. The fee programs used to estimate the cost for each public facility category are summarized below:

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
30 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
City Park Impact Fee Program:
 Neighborhood and Community Parks
 Citywide Parks and Facilities
Proposed Panhandle DA Fees:
 Regional Park Land Acquisition
 Transit
 Fire Facilities
 Community Center
 Library
Twin Rivers and Robles Elementary School District Fees:
 Schools
Table 3-7 shows the calculation of the estimated costs for each public facility category.

Neighborhood and Community and Parks
Park Land
The Project is required to provide a total of 15.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks, based on the City’s amended Quimby ordinance obligations (Sacramento City Code Chapter 17.512), as shown on Table 3-8. The Project is meeting this demand by providing two park facilities, for a total of approximately

15.6 acres. The total park acres provided will be refined as individual final maps are processed.

Park Facilities
The Project is also required to provide the facilities for the 15.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks. Preliminary cost estimates for development of the park facilities are based on the City Park Impact Fee Program revenue generated by the Project, assuming the current neighborhood and community park fee rates (effective July 1, 2021). The total cost for all park facilities is estimated at $6.5 million (see Table 3-7). These costs will be funded through the City Park Impact fee program.

Regional Park Land Acquisition, Transit, Fire, Community Center, and Library The Project will be required to contribute to the construction of transit, fire, community center, and library facilities, as well as the acquisition of regional park land. The cost contribution will be for improvements planned or already constructed in the NNFP area that will also benefit Panhandle residents. The cost estimates are based on the development impact fee amounts specified in the NNFP area because Panhandle DAs require payment toward transit, fire, community center, and library improvements, and regional park land acquisition based on the rate the NNFP area developers pay for such improvements.

Table 3-7
Panhandle Finance Plan
Estimated Other Public Facilities Costs (2021$)
Item Total Estates (E) Traditional (T) Village (V)
Units 1,662 340 869 453
Public Facilities Cost per Unit
Neighborhood and Community Parks [1] $3,912 $3,912 $3,912 Regional Park Land Acquisition [2] $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 Transit [2] $587 $587 $587
Fire Facilities [2] $596 $596 $596
Community Center [2] $368 $368 $368
Library [2] $936 $936 $936
Schools [3] $10,200 $9,180 $8,160
Total Public Facilities Cost [4]
Neighborhood and Community Parks $6,501,744 $1, 330,080 $3,399,528 $1,772,136 Regional Park Land Acquisition $3,968,856 $811,920 $2,075,172 $1,081,764 Transit $975,594 $199,580 $510,103 $265,911
Fire Facilities $990,552 $202,640 $517,924 $269,988
Community Center $611,616 $125,120 $319,792 $166,704
Library $1,555,632 $318,240 $813,384 $424,008
Schools $15,141,900 $3,468, 000 $7,977,420 $3,696,480
Total Public Facilities Cost $29,745,894 $6,455, 580 $15,613,323 $7 ,676,991 pf costs
Source: City of Sacramento; EPS.
[1] Current fee rates for the City Parks Development Impact Fee Program (Neighborhood and Community Park component).
[2] Based on N
orth N
atomas fees. See Table 3-9.
[3] Twin Rivers and Roblas Elementary School District impact fees. [4] Revenue generated from fees.

Residential
Prepared by EPS 5/23/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 31 Table 3-8
Panhandle Finance Plan
Quimby Park Requirement
Land Use
Quimby
Factor [1] Units Acres [2]
Acres Required
Estates (E) 0.0095 340 3.21
Traditional (T) 0.0095 869 8.21
Village (V) 0.0095 453 4.28
Total Acres Required 1,662 15.71
Net Acres Provided (Excluding Ninos Parkway) [3] 15.59
Difference (0.12)
quimby
Source: MacKay & Somps; City of Sacramento.
[1] Quimby factor (acres per unit) for low density residential from the Panhandle Annexation and Planned Unit Development Project Environmental Impact Report prepared by Ascent Environmental, Inc. (June 2017). [2] May differ from land use plan or MacKay & Somps because of rounding. [3] Net acres were provided by MacKay & Somps and do not match the quimby park acres in Table 1-1
because of rounding.

Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 32 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 33
For transit, fire, and library improvements and regional park land acquisition, the Panhandle estimated costs are based on the revenue that would be generated by Panhandle development assuming the NNFP impact fee rates for Fiscal Year 2017- 18 (FY 17-18 North Natomas Fees), escalated to 2021 dollars. The Fiscal Year 2017-18 rates were used as a starting point because the NNFP was updated in February 2018.

For community center improvements, the Panhandle estimated costs are based on the revenue that would be generated by Panhandle development assuming the NNFP community center development fees for Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY 21-22).

Note that the NNFP community center fees have decreased in recent years, so the Panhandle community center fees are set equal to the NNFP FY 21-22 community center fees to be consistent with current NNFP fees.

The estimated regional park land acquisition, transit, fire, library, and community center fees and costs are shown in Table 3-7.

Table 3-9 provides the backup for the escalation of the NNFP 2017 fees to 2021 dollars. For each public facility type except community center, it includes the FY 17-18 NNFP fees, the escalated fees in 2021 dollars, the escalation factor used to establish the fees in 2021 dollars, and the index used to calculate the escalation factor. The community center portion of the DA Fees is set equal to the FY 21-22 NNFP community center fee.

As discussed further in Chapter 8, depending on the public facility, the required index used to adjust the fees annually is either the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco (CCI) or the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward (CPI) as summarized below:
 Regional Park Land Acquisition: CPI
 Transit: CCI
 Fire Facilities: CCI
 Community Center: CCI
 Library: CCI
The calculation of the escalation factors using the different indices is detailed in Table A-5 of Appendix A.

Table 3-9
Panhandle Finance Plan
Panhandle Special Financing District Program Fee per Unit Panhandle DA Fees per Unit
Item Estates Traditional Village Estates
Traditiona Village Estates Traditional Village Fee Escalation Basis Regional Park Land Acquisition $2,183 $2,183 $2,183 $2,119 $2,119 $2 ,119 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 12.68% CPI. See Table A-5.

Transit $535 $535 $535 $519 $519 $519 $587 $587 $587 13.16% ENR CCI. See Table A-5.

Fire Facilities $543 $543 $543 $527 $527 $527 $596 $596 $596 13.16% ENR C CI. See Table A-5.

Community Center $368 $368 $368 [4] ENR CCI. See Table A-5.

Library $852 $852 $852 $827 $827 $827 $936 $936 $936 13.16% ENR CCI. See T able A-5.

Total (including Administration) $4,113 $4,113 $4,113 $4,875 $4,875 $4,875 pff
Source: City of Sacramento; EPS.
[1] Fees from February 2018 Nexus Study (2017$) for low density units (lots greater than 5,000 square feet); fees effective from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. [2] Estimated as FY 2017-18 fee/1.03 to exclude the 3% administrative component. [3] For all improvements except community center, Panhandle DA Fees = North Natomas FY 17-18 fees excluding administration, escalated to 2021$. [4] Community center fee per unit equals NNFP FY 21-22 community center fee of $379 per unit /1.03 to exclude the 3% administration component.

North Natomas Fees per Unit Panhandle DA Fees per Unit [3] FY 2017-2018
Including Admin. [1]
FY 2021-2022
Excluding Admin. Percentage
Change
FY 2017-2018
Excluding Admin. [2]
Prepared by EPS 5/24/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 34 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 35
Regional Park Land Acquisition
The Project will contribute to the development of regional park facilities located in the NNFP area. The Panhandle contribution was intended to help fund the land acquisition costs for the North Natomas regional park, including payment of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan fees associated with the regional park.

Because the land for the regional park already has been acquired, however, the Panhandle fee revenue is anticipated to be used to pay for development of the regional park. It is estimated that the Panhandle will contribute $4 million (in 2021 dollars) to the regional park development cost.

Transit, Fire, Community Center, and Library Facilities The Project will contribute to the funding of transit, fire, community center, and library facilities constructed or planned to serve the NNCP area. The Project’s cost responsibility (in 2021 dollars) for each facility type is shown below:
 Transit: $1.0 million
 Fire Facilities: $1.0 million
 Community Centers: $0.6 million
 Library Facilities: $1.6 million
Schools
The Project is located in the Twin Rivers Unified School District (TRUSD) and Robla School District (RSD), and students in the Project are anticipated to ultimately attend the proposed elementary school and middle school/high school that will be constructed in the Project. Payment of the existing California Level 1 statutory school impact fees fulfills the Project’s obligation for school facility construction. The estimated schools cost totals $15.1 million, based on the assumption that the cost is equal to fee revenue generated by the Project.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
36 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 37
Infrastructure Financing Strategy and
Funding Sources
This chapter outlines the Project’s financing strategy and describes how a combination of funding sources will be used to fund the backbone infrastructure and other public facilities required to serve the Project.

Financing Strategy and Funding Sources
Overview
The backbone infrastructure and public facilities required to serve development in the Project will be funded using a combination of public and private funding sources. Specific requirements for developer construction of backbone infrastructure and public facilities are defined in tentative map conditions and Development Agreement (DA) requirements.

Initially, developers will construct and privately finance the construction costs for most of the backbone infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, drainage) needed at the outset of development. Developers also may be required to construct parks, open space, and trail facilities. For improvements that the developer constructs and pays the upfront costs to construct, the developers may receive credits or reimbursements from the appropriate existing or new fee programs (including the proposed Panhandle Fee Program discussed in this chapter) depending on credit/reimbursement eligibility and policy requirements of the appropriate agency. In addition, the financing strategy includes formation of one or more land-secured bond financing districts (e.g., Mello-Roos CFD or Assessment District), which may fund a portion of the total backbone infrastructure and public facilities needed at the outset of development.

For most of the remaining public facilities, the Project’s developers will pay applicable existing and new development impact fees. The Panhandle DA Fees will fund Panhandle public facility obligations for regional park land acquisition and transit, fire, community center, and library improvements.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
38 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Detailed Sources of Funding
The following sections detail the currently available sources identified to fund Project Facilities:
 Existing City and Other Agency Fee Programs.
 Panhandle Fee Program.
 Other Funding Sources.

Table 1-3 (in Chapter 1) shows the proposed funding source for each public facility at buildout. Under this funding strategy, approximately $25.4 million will be funded through existing development impact fees, approximately $38.9 million will be funded by the proposed Panhandle Fee Program, and approximately $5.5 million will be funded from other funding sources.

Existing City and Other Agency Fee Programs
Specific building projects will be subject to all applicable City and other agency development impact fees in place at the time of acceptance of the building permit application. Revenues generated by certain specific fee programs will be available to directly fund backbone infrastructure and public facilities identified in this Finance Plan. Fee program revenues generated by the following fee programs may be available to partially or fully fund Facilities required for Project development and therefore are included in the Finance Plan and estimated in Table C-1 in Appendix C:
 Citywide Park Impact Fee.
 Citywide Water System Development Fee.
 SASD Development Impact Fee.
 TRUSD and RSD School Mitigation Fee.

The sections below offer additional detail regarding fee programs that may provide partial or full funding for backbone infrastructure and public facilities.

Citywide Park Impact Fee
In February 2017, the City adopted an update to the citywide Park Impact Fee (PIF). All new residential and nonresidential development in the City is subject to the PIF, which funds park improvements in the Community Plan Area in which a project is located. In addition, the updated PIF includes a new fee component that funds citywide park facilities (e.g., regional parks, community centers, aquatic centers, etc.). This Finance Plan is based on the assumption that Panhandle development will fulfill all Quimby park improvement obligations through payment of the PIF.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 39
Citywide Water System Development Fee
The City charges a citywide fee on all new connections to the water system to fund water treatment and transmission facilities to provide water to customers in the City. Water development fees are estimated to fully fund the $2.9 million in backbone water infrastructure costs, which may take the form of impact fee credits or reimbursements for developer-constructed infrastructure.

SASD Impact Fee
SASD levies a development impact fee to fund sewer capacity, infrastructure, and associated costs. Approximately $850,000 of backbone sewer infrastructure is anticipated to be funded by SASD impact fees, which may take the form of impact fee credits and reimbursements for developer-constructed infrastructure.

School District Impact Fees
State law allows school districts to impose fees on new residential and nonresidential development. Level I fees are capped by law, and that cap amount is split between elementary and high school districts. If school districts meet certain criteria, they may impose Level II fees on residential development.

Level II fees are not capped but follow a strict formula set forth in the law. The Project pays the current Level 1 fees for TRUSD and RSD, which will satisfy Panhandle’s funding obligation for school facilities.

Other Existing Development Impact Fee Programs and Charges The Project will be subject to other City, County, and Other Agency development impact fee programs that are not anticipated to fund Project-related backbone infrastructure and public facilities. These fees are identified in Table C-1 in Appendix C.

Panhandle Fee Program
Detailed further in Chapter 5, the proposed Panhandle Fee Program will help fund those backbone infrastructure and public facilities costs that are not funded by existing fee programs or other funding sources identified in the section to follow.

Facilities included in the Panhandle Fee Program include those facilities with plan- wide benefits (i.e., serve multiple individual subdivisions), the costs of which should be distributed among Panhandle land uses and ownership interests.

The Panhandle Fee Program will be a City-implemented, plan area-specific development fee program applicable only to new Panhandle development that will include two fee components: the Panhandle Impact Fee Component and the Panhandle DA Fee Component. Infrastructure to be funded by the Panhandle Impact Fee Component are roadway, sewer, drainage, and trails. Public facilities to be funded by the Panhandle DA Fee Component are regional park land acquisition and transit, fire, community center, and library facilities.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
40 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Integration with the NNFP
One of the central purposes of the Panhandle DA Fee Component is to maintain equity and fairness between the Project development and development in the rest of the NNCP area through equitable financial participation for public improvements benefitting both the NNFP area and the Project area. Because the Project public facility obligations will be financed via a mechanism separate from the NNFP funding mechanisms, certain policies that apply in the NNFP also should apply to Panhandle. The DA Fees for regional park land acquisition and transit, fire, and library improvements will be set equal to FY 17-18 NNFP fee rates, escalated to 2021 dollars. The community center DA Fees will be set equal to the FY 21-22 NNFP fee rates.

Other Funding Sources
Other funding sources anticipated to fund a portion of required backbone infrastructure and public facilities include reimbursements from adjacent developments and private developer funding.

Other Development Projects
The Project will participate in funding of facilities whose benefit is shared by other neighboring development projects. Specifically, certain off-site roadway contributions ultimately will benefit the Krumenacher property to the north of Panhandle, and it is anticipated that the Krumenacher developer will pay for its fair share of those costs when the Krumenacher property develops. Table 1-3 in Chapter 1 shows the off-site future reimbursements anticipated for Krumenacher construction or funding of infrastructure benefitting future development on this site.

Furthermore, the Sotnip Trail benefits other development projects. Panhandle's cost contribution is $381,000 with the remaining $762,000 being funded by other benefitting development projects.

Drainage Improvements
As discussed at length in Chapter 3, it is unclear at this time if Krumenacher will develop, and if it does develop, it is unclear how its drainage system will be configured. As shown on Table 3-4 in Chapter 3, to the extent development of the Krumenacher property proceeds and uses the Panhandle detention basin, the Krumenacher property should reimburse the Panhandle Fee Program for its share of the Impact Fee attributed to the storm drainage improvements. The City may consider future updates to the Panhandle Fee Program should Krumenacher tie into the Panhandle drainage system.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 41
Private Developer Funding
Certain facilities will be the responsibility of individual project developers to fund.

Specifically, Ninos Parkway landscaping will be funded by a combination of private developer cash, equity, or private debt financing. The developers also will have sole responsibility for funding and constructing in-tract infrastructure and most frontage improvements.

Land-Secured Financing
This Finance Plan includes the potential use of land-secured financing for a portion of Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities costs. Although this Finance Plan identifies sources of funding for all the included backbone infrastructure and public facilities, major facility oversizing and substantial up-front capital outlays may be required for certain projects. Land-secured financing, in the form of either a Mello-Roos CFD or an Assessment District, may be used to provide debt financing for some of these oversized Facilities:
 Mello-Roos CFD. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 enables public agencies to form CFDs and levy a special tax on property owners in those CFDs. These special taxes may be used to pay debt service on CFD bonds or to finance public improvements directly on a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) basis.
 Assessment Districts. California statutes give local governments the authority to levy several special assessments for specific public improvements such as streets, storm drains, sewers, streetlights, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The agency creates a special Assessment District that defines both the area to benefit from the improvements and the properties that will pay for the improvements.

A CFD is the most likely form of land-secured financing to be used to mitigate up- front costs of construction or acquisition of backbone infrastructure and public facilities in the Project, and it is anticipated that Project developers may request that the City form a CFD on all or a portion of the Project.

The proceeds from a CFD bond sale can be used for direct funding of improvements, to acquire facilities constructed by the developer, to reimburse developers for advance-funding improvements, or to pay certain development fees. The annual special tax can be used toward bond debt service or to build or reimburse for infrastructure as needed. The proceeds of the Mello-Roos special tax can be used for direct funding of facilities or to service bond debt.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
42 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show a preliminary estimate of the Mello-Roos CFD bonding capacity of the Project, based on assumptions regarding tax rates, reserve fund requirements, and interest rates. Based on current assumptions, which are estimates for purposes of example in this document, the Project is estimated to have capacity to bond for approximately $57.2 million, of which $48.4 million could be available to fund Project infrastructure costs. Actual tax rates and related bond capacity will be established at the time of formation of the CFD. Table 4-3 shows an overall estimated value to lien ratio of 17:1 at buildout.

Phasing and the Financing Strategy
Phasing of public facility construction is an important component of the overall financing strategy. The ability to sequence public facilities will depend on the type of facility and the pace of new development. When possible, construction of public facilities will be sequenced over time as needed to serve new development. The sequencing of public facility costs will help ensure that adequate monies are available from the various financing sources to fund the public facility improvements.

Completion of backbone infrastructure and other public facilities will be phased to serve logical increments of development, based on the demand for such facilities as the Project builds out. The timing and amount of development in each increment will depend on many factors, such as market demand. In the normal course of the development approval process, the City will condition the Project’s tentative maps with backbone infrastructure and other public facility requirements.

The Finance Plan is designed to be flexible enough to accommodate faster or slower growth of Project development in response to the market for housing and nonresidential development.

The developers of the Project will be responsible for advance funding and constructing all of the backbone infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve the Project, unless the City and Project proponents agree otherwise to City construction of specific improvements. Subject to the City’s fee credit and reimbursement policies, some or all of this private funding will be reimbursed to the landowners/developers over time as the City is able to issue public debt through the CFD, issue credits due for landowner/developer proportionate share of fees, and collect fees from other developers that will provide reimbursements.

The timeframe for reimbursement is unknown and could be a considerable period of time depending on market conditions and the actual absorption of the development projects. There is no guarantee the initial developers will be fully reimbursed for the costs to oversize facilities for later development projects.

Table 4-1
Panhandle Finance Plan
Estimated Bond Sizing (2021$)
Estimated
Item
Assumption Bond Sizing
Maximum Special Taxes Available for Debt Service
Estimated Annual Maximum Special Taxes [1] $3,599,800
Less Estimated Administration Costs 4.00% ($144,000)
Less Delinquency Coverage 10.00% ($360,000)
Adjustment for Rounding $4,200
Estimated Gross Debt Service (Rounded) $3,100,000
Total Bond Size
Total Bond Size without Tax Escalation $47,655,000
Adjustment for Rounding $45,000
Total Bond Size (Rounded) $47,700,000
Increase for Annual Escalation [2] 20% $9,540,000
Total Bond Size (Rounded) $57,240,000
Estimated Bond Proceeds
Total Bond Size (Rounded) $57,240,000
Less Capitalized Interest 12 months ($2,862,000)
Less Bond Reserve Fund 1-yr. debt service ($3,100,000)
Less Issuance Cost 5.00% ($2,862,000)
Estimated Bond Proceeds $48,416,000
Assumptions [3]
Interest Rate 5.00%
Term 30 years
Annual Escalation 2%
est bond
Source: City of Sacramento; EPS.
[1] See Table 4-2.
bond size by approximately 20%.
[3] Estimated bond sizing based on conservative assumptions. The interest rate will be determined at the time of the bond sale. This analysis is based on an assumed bond term of 30 years
.
[2] Assumes special taxes are escalated 2.0% annually for 30 years, which increases total Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 43 Table 4-2
Panhandle Finance Plan
Estimated Bond Proceeds (2021$)
Prelim.

Max. Special
Item Units Tax Rate
Amount % of Total Amoun t Per Unit/Acre Amount Per Unit Formula A B C = A *B D = C / Total E= D x total bond F = E / A G = D x bond H = G / A Max Tax proceeds
Residential Land Uses per unit per unit per unit
Estates (E) 340 $2,300 $782,000 21.72% $12,434,491 $36,572 $10,517,615 $30,934 Traditional (T) 869 $2,200 $1,911,800 53.11% $30,399,309 $34,982 $25,713,014 $29,589 Village (V) 453 $2,000 $906,000 25.17% $14,406,200 $31,802 $12,185,370 $26,899 Subtotal Residential Land Uses 1,662 $3,599,800 100.00% $57,240,000 $48,416,000 Total [2] $3,599,800 100.00% $57,240,000 $48,416,000
proceeds
Source: City of Sacramento; EPS.
[1] Assumes special taxes are escalated 2.0% annually for 30 years, which increases total Bond Size by approximately 20%. [2] See Table 4-1 for total bond size and total bond proceeds.

Maximum Special Tax Bond Size [1] Bond Proceeds
Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 44 Table 4-3
Panhandle Finance Plan
Project Buildout Value-to-Lien Ratio (2021$)
Item Estates (E) Traditional (T)
Village (V) Total
Estimated Project Buildout Value
Dwelling Units 340 869 453 1,662
Finished Unit Sales Price $625,000 $600,000 $550,000
Total Project Buildout Value $212,500,000 $521,400, 000 $249,150,00 0 $983,050,000 Estimated Bond Size $57,240,000
Estimated Buildout Value-to-Lien Ratio 17:1
vtl
Source: City of Sacramento; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 45 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
46 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 47
Panhandle Fee Program
This Finance Plan proposes adoption of a new plan area development impact fee program, the Panhandle Fee Program, that will fund the backbone infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve the Project. The proposed Panhandle Fee Program is designed to fund construction of backbone infrastructure and public facilities necessary to accommodate new residents generated by Panhandle development after taking into consideration a variety of other funding sources for the improvements. The costs to be funded through the Panhandle Fee Program were detailed in Chapter 3. The Panhandle Fee Program will include two different types of fees and thus is divided into two components, the Panhandle DA Fee Component and the Panhandle Impact Fee Component. Collectively, the fees for these two Panhandle Fee Program components are referred to as Panhandle Fees.

Table 5-1 summarizes the fees included in both fee programs, including three percent administration components for each fee program, as well as the estimated revenue generated at buildout. The Panhandle Fee Program components are detailed in the remainder of this chapter.

Panhandle Developer Agreement (DA)
Fee Component
The Panhandle DA Fee Component will contain fees (DA Fees) to help fund the following NNFP public facilities, to which Panhandle is required to contribute because such facilities will serve the Panhandle area as well as the NNFP area, as prescribed in the DAs between the Panhandle developers and the City.  Regional Park Land Acquisition
 Transit
 Fire Facilities
 Community Center
 Library
To maintain equity and fairness between the Project development and development in the rest of the NNCP area, the fees for theses public facilities are established at the same rates as the NNFP fees for the same improvements. For each public facility type except community centers, the fees are set equal to the FY 17-18 NNFP fees, escalated to 2021 dollars using a prescribed index. The community center DA Fee is set equal to the FY 21-22 NNFP community center fee.

The required fee estimation and escalation process was detailed in Chapter 3.

The proposed Panhandle DA Fees, including a 3 percent fee program administration component, are summarized in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1
Panhandle Finance Plan
Panhandle Fee Program Fees (FY 2022-23)
Source
/ Total Fee
Item Assumption Revenue Estates (E) Traditional (T) Village (V) Units 1,662 340 869 453
Panhandle DA Fee Component per unit per unit per unit
Regional Park Land Acquisition Table 3-9 $3,968,856 $2,388 $2,388 $2 ,388 Transit Table 3-9 $975,594 $587 $587 $587
Fire Facilities Table 3-9 $990,552 $596 $596 $596
Community Center Table 3-9 $611,616 $368 $368 $368
Library Table 3-9 $1,555,632 $936 $936 $936
Subtotal $8,102,250 $4,875 $4,875 $4,875
Fee Program Administration 3% $243,068 $146 $146 $146
Total $8,345,318 $5,021 $5,021 $5,021
Panhandle Impact Fee Component
Roadways Table A-1 $14,519,000 $8,736 $8,736 $8,736
Sanitary Sewer Table A-2 $314,000 $234 $178 $175
Storm Drainage (Including Land Acquisition) Table A-3 $14,948,865 $11,131 $8,497 $8,346 Trails Table A-4 $1,048,000 $631 $631 $631
Subtotal $30,829,865 $20,731 $18,042 $17,888
Fee Program Administration 3% $924,896 $622 $541 $537
Total $31,754,761 $21,353 $18,583 $18,424
Total Panhandle Fee Program $40,100,078 $26,374 $23,604 $23,445 sfd
Source: MacKay & Somps (November 29, 2017); Harris (January 2022); City of Sacramento; EPS Residential
Prepared by EPS 5/24/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 48 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 49
Panhandle Impact Fee Component
The Panhandle Impact Fee Component will include fees (Impact Fees) that must be established in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, as codified in California Government Section 66000 et seq. The facilities fees included in the Panhandle Impact Fee Component are listed below:
 Roadways
 Sanitary Sewer
 Storm Drainage (infrastructure and land acquisition)
 Trails (Sotnip Trail and Powerline Corridor Class I Bike Trail) Cost Allocation
To ensure developed land uses will fund their pro-rata share of backbone infrastructure and public facilities, the cost of each of the above improvement types is allocated across all land uses, based on the relative need for the improvements generated by each land use as measured by equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) factors and/or other measure of benefit such as developable acres.

The purpose of allocating certain improvement costs among the various land uses is to provide an equitable method of funding required infrastructure. The key to apportioning the cost of improvements to different land uses is the assumption that the demands placed on backbone infrastructure improvements are related to land use types and that such demands can be stated in relative terms for all particular land uses. By relating demand for facilities to land use types, a reasonable nexus, or relationship, can be established to apportion each land use’s “fair share” costs.

An EDU factor is a common use factor that enables the allocation of improvement costs between developable residential and nonresidential land uses. An EDU is defined as the amount of facility use for each land use relative to a single-family unit.

Table 5-2 summarizes the EDU factors and the basis of the EDU factors for all improvement types to be included in the proposed Panhandle Impact Fee Component. These EDU factors represent the relative demand for each facility type generated by each land use. For example, the EDU factors used to allocate roadway improvement costs are based on the average daily vehicle miles traveled associated with each residential category. The Project will contain only residential land uses, so the EDU factors will be applied to residential land uses for the Project.

Table 5-2
Panhandle Finance Plan
Panhandle Impact Fee Component Cost Allocation Factors
Item Reference EDU Factor Basis Estates (E) Traditional (T) Village (V) Estates (E) Traditional (T) Village (V) Units pe Acre 4.5 5.9 7.5
Backbone Infrastructure
Roadways Table A-1 VMT Factor per unit [1] 0.99 0.99 0 .99 1.00 1.00 1.0 0 Sanitary Sewer Table A-2 ESDs per acre [2] 6.00 6.00 7.50 1.00 0.76 0.7 5 Storm Drainage Construction and Land Acq. Table A-3 impervious su rface per acre 0.40 0.40 0.50 1.00 0.76 0.75 Trails Table A-4 persons per household 2.98 2.98 2.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 edu
Source: City of Sacramento; EPS.
[1] VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled.
[2] ESD: Equivalent Single Family Dwellings.

EDU Factor per UnitEDUs per Unit/Acre
Prepared by EPS 5/24/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 50 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 51
Cost Allocation Methodology
The methodology of allocating the Panhandle Impact Fee Component costs needed to serve new development to the different developable land uses is summarized below and detailed in Appendix A. Note that there is no commercial development planned in the Project, so the steps below describe the cost allocation methodology for residential development:

1. Determine the total cost of new backbone infrastructure and public facilities required to serve the new residents in the Project area.

2. Determine the net cost of backbone infrastructure and public facilities to be funded by the Panhandle Impact Fee Component after accounting for other financing sources, such as citywide sources, State and federal sources, existing development impact fees, and funding from other plan areas.

3. Determine the amount of development in the Project that will be served by the new backbone infrastructure and public facilities.

4. For each backbone infrastructure and public facility category needed to accommodate new Panhandle development:
a. Determine the appropriate EDU factors by which to allocate the cost of the infrastructure needed to serve new development to the different land uses.
b. For each land use, multiply the EDU factor by the number of dwelling units to determine the total number of EDUs.
c. Allocate the total costs to each land use based on the land use’s percentage of total EDUs.
d. Divide the total cost allocated to each land use by the number of dwelling units determine the cost per dwelling unit.

5. Add an administration component to fund the administration, oversight, implementation, and updates of the Panhandle Impact Fee Component. The administration fee equals 3 percent of the sum of the Impact Fees for each benefiting land use.

Table 5-1, presented earlier in this chapter, summarizes the cost allocations, administration component, and resultant fees, on a per-unit basis, for all Impact Fees.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
52 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Assembly Bill 602 Requirements
The newly enacted California Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602 - adopted on September 28, 2021) contains new requirements for development impact fee programs, most of which are effective as of January 1, 2022. Several of the requirements apply to nexus studies. Per Government Code 66016.5(a)(6), large jurisdictions (i.e., jurisdictions located in a county with a population over 250,000 as of January 1, 2019) must adopt a capital improvement plan (CIP) as part of the nexus study.

Per Government Code 66016.5(a)(2), where applicable, all nexus studies must identify the existing level of service for each public facility, the proposed new level of service, and explain why the new level of service is appropriate.

Nexus Study Findings
Capital Improvement Plan
Appendix B of this report details the proposed capital improvements included in the Panhandle Impact Fee Component. The improvements included in the Panhandle Impact Fee Component and detailed in Appendix B are summarized below:
 Roadways
 Sanitary Sewer
 Storm Drainage (infrastructure and land acquisition)
 Trails
Appendix B details the improvement requirements and cost estimates for each of the above improvement types. Collectively, these requirements and cost estimates constitute the Panhandle Impact Fee Component CIP.

Level of Service
This section discusses the existing and proposed level of service for each improvement type included in the Panhandle Impact Fee Component and explains why the new level of service is appropriate.

Roadways
There are existing roadways in and adjacent to the Project. At the time that these roads were constructed, they were designed to provide the level of service required by the Sacramento County General Plan to accommodate projected traffic volumes without Panhandle development. The roadways were designed to meet Sacramento County General Plan standards (rather than City General Plan Standards) because the Project area used to be in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County.

Enhancements to the roadway system are needed to accommodate the projected increased traffic volumes that will occur as a result of Panhandle development.

The Panhandle roadway improvements have been identified and designed to meet Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 53
the level of service standards outlined in the City General Plan and the requirements detailed in the Panhandle Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Sanitary Sewer
With zero to limited occupied units or nonresidential structures in the Panhandle area, the area is not connected to any municipal wastewater system. Any existing uses would be operating on septic systems. Consequently, there is no existing municipal level of service. The required sanitary sewer improvements needed to serve projected Panhandle development at an acceptable level of service to meet the City General Plan standards and the Panhandle EIR conditions are identified in the Sewer Master Plan. The sanitary sewer system has been designed to provide the required sewer collection and treatment services to Panhandle development.

Storm Drainage
With zero to limited occupied units or nonresidential structures in the Panhandle area, the area is not connected to an area storm drainage system. Consequently, there is no existing level of service. The required storm drainage improvements needed to serve projected Panhandle development at an acceptable level of service to meet the City General Plan standards and the Panhandle EIR conditions are identified in the Storm Drainage Master Plan. The storm drainage system has been designed to provide the required flood protection to Panhandle development.

Trails
There is currently no trail system in the Panhandle Project and consequently no existing level of service. The overall transportation planning took into account the required trail network to meet the level of service standards outlined in the City General Plan and the requirements detailed in the Panhandle EIR. The planned trail network provides trail amenities within Panhandle as well as connectivity with regional trails outside of the project.

Specific Findings for Each Improvement
This Finance Plan establishes the Panhandle Impact Fee Component of the Panhandle Fee Program in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in the Mitigation Fee Act, which is codified in California Government Section 66000 et seq. This Finance Plan establishes the Mitigation Fee Act legally required findings. Specifically, for each fee included in the Impact Fee Component, the following findings are made:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

2. Identify how the fee is to be used.

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
54 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

4. 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.

5. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship 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 Finance Plan makes separate findings concerning the nexus between each Impact Fee and the new Panhandle development on which the fee will be imposed.

Roadways
Purpose of Fee
New development in the Project will result in an increase in population, and, therefore, in the demand for transportation improvements. The purpose of the Panhandle roadway fee is to provide funding to maintain adequate levels of service on public roads through the construction and expansion of new on-site and off-site roadway facilities.

Use of Fee
The Panhandle roadway fees will be used to construct and expand roadway infrastructure to accommodate future traffic volumes projected as a result of new Panhandle development. Roadway improvements to be funded by Panhandle fees include roadway segments, entry monumentation, traffic signals, traffic circles, and off-site improvements needed for the expansion of Elkhorn Boulevard.

Reasonable Relationship Between Use of Fee and Type of Development The Panhandle roadway fees will be used to construct roadway improvements needed to adequately serve an increased population as the result of new Panhandle development. A reasonable relationship exists between the use of the roadway fees and the residential development on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the roadway system to serve the new residents generated by the new development.

Reasonable Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Development New residential development in the Project will generate new residents that will result in new vehicular trips and the need for additional roadway capacity to maintain adequate levels of service. A reasonable relationship exists between the need for transportation improvements and the type of new residential development projects because the capacity of the roadway system must be expanded to accommodate the new development that will place an increased demand on the roadway system.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 55
Reasonable Relationship between Amount of Fee and Cost of Facility or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development on which Fee is Imposed The total cost of roadway improvements funded by the Panhandle roadway fee is allocated among the projected new residential land uses in Panhandle at buildout based on the relative demand each land use is anticipated to place upon the improvements. Cost allocation factors based on vehicle miles travelled are used to measure the relative demand generated by each land use and to allocate the roadway costs across all benefitting land uses in the Project. A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the Panhandle roadway fees and the costs of the facilities attributable to the new residential 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.

Sanitary Sewer
Purpose of Fee
New development in the Project will result in in the need for new sanitary sewer infrastructure to serve the new service population. The purpose of the Panhandle sanitary sewer fee is to provide funding to construct sanitary sewer improvements needed to adequately serve the new service population.

Use of Fee
The Panhandle sanitary sewer fees will be used to construct sanitary sewer facilities needed to accommodate increased demand projected as a result of new residential development. Construction of trunk sewer improvements will be funded through Panhandle Impact Fees.

Reasonable Relationship Between Use of Fee and Type of Development The Panhandle sanitary sewer fees will be used to construct the trunk sanitary sewer infrastructure needed to adequately serve the new service population as the result of new development. A reasonable relationship exists between the use of the sanitary sewer fees and the residential development on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the sewer system infrastructure needed to serve the new residents generated by the new development.

Reasonable Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Development New residential development in the Project will generate new residents that will result in the need for new sanitary sewer system capacity to provide adequate service to the Project’s service population. A reasonable relationship exists between the need for sewer system improvements and the type of new residential development projects because the new sewer system improvements must be constructed to accommodate the new residential development types that will place an increased demand on the sewer system.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
56 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Reasonable Relationship between Amount of Fee and Cost of Facility or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development on which Fee is Imposed The total cost of improvements funded by the Panhandle sanitary sewer fee is allocated among the projected new residential land uses in the Project at buildout based on the relative demand each land use is anticipated to place upon the improvements. Cost allocation factors based on sewer system demand, as measured in equivalent sewer dwellings (ESDs) per acre, are used to measure the relative demand generated by each land use and to allocate the sewer costs across all benefitting land uses in the Project. A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the Panhandle sewer fees and the costs of the facilities attributable to the new residential 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.

Storm Drainage
Purpose of Fee
New development in the Project will result in increased storm water runoff generated by the addition of impervious surface area created by the new development. New storm drainage infrastructure will be needed to provide protection against flooding to the new Panhandle service population associated with the new development. The purpose of the Panhandle storm drainage fee is to provide funding for storm drainage improvements needed to serve the new Panhandle service population.

Use of Fee
The Panhandle storm drainage fees will be used to acquire detention basin land and to construct storm drainage infrastructure needed to accommodate increased demand for flood protection as a result of new development. Storm drainage system improvements funded through the Impact Fees include backbone storm drain lines, expansion of an existing detention basin owned by Twin Rivers Joint Unified School District, and associated outfall structures and pumps.

Reasonable Relationship Between Use of Fee and Type of Development The Panhandle storm drainage fees will be used to acquire detention basin land and construct storm drainage infrastructure needed to adequately serve an increased service population as the result of new residential development. A reasonable relationship exists between the use of the storm drainage fees and the residential development on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct storm drainage system infrastructure needed to provide flood protection to the new residents generated by the new development.

Reasonable Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Development New residential development in the Project will generate new residents that will result in the need for additional storm drainage infrastructure to provide adequate flood protection to the Project’s service population. A reasonable relationship Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 57
exists between the need for storm drainage improvements and the type of new residential development projects because the storm drainage infrastructure must be constructed to accommodate the new development types that will place an increased demand on the storm drainage system.

Reasonable Relationship between Amount of Fee and Cost of Facility or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development on which Fee is Imposed The total cost of improvements funded by the Panhandle storm drainage fee is allocated among the projected new residential land uses in the Project at buildout based on the relative demand each land use is anticipated to place upon the improvements. Cost allocation factors based on the need for drainage improvements, as measured by impervious surface area generated by each land use type, are used to measure the relative demand generated by each land use and to allocate the storm drainage costs across all benefitting land uses in the Project. A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the Panhandle storm drainage fees and the costs of the facilities attributable to the new residential 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.

Trails
Purpose of Fee
New development in the Project will result in new residents and in the need for a bicycle and pedestrian trail system that creates recreational activities and connectivity between different destinations. The purpose of the Project trails fee is to provide funding to construct a trails system that serves the residents of the Project and connects to the Citywide trails network.

Use of Fee
The Panhandle trails fee will be used to fund the construction of a trails system to serve the residents of the Panhandle development. The planned trails to be funded by the trails fee include the planned new Powerline Class 1 Bike Trail within the WAPA Corridor that will extend through the north-south length of the Project and construction of a portion of the Sotnip Trail within the Project area that will connect to the City’s existing trail network. The Sotnip Trail is a planned 1,200-foot-long 12-foot Class 1 trail between Sorento Road and Kenmar Road directly to the east of the Project.

Reasonable Relationship Between Use of Fee and Type of Development The Panhandle trails fees will be used to construct bicycle and pedestrian trails needed to serve the projected new residents of the Project. A reasonable relationship exists between the use of the trails fees and the residential development on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the trails system to serve the new residents generated by the new development.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
58 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Reasonable Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Development New residential development in the Project will generate new residents, resulting in the need for a bicycle and pedestrian trails system to provide connectivity within the Project and to the City trails system, as well as a desired level of service to the residents. A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the trails system and the type of new residential development projects because the trails system must be created to accommodate the new development types that will benefit from the trails. The EIR states that the Project residents will significantly increase pedestrian activity and the demand for new pedestrian facilities but that construction of the proposed Project trails (which would interconnect with pedestrian facilities) would reduce the Project’s impact to a less than significant level. The City’s General Plan also includes a level of service standard of 0.5 miles of trails and parkways per 1,000 residents, resulting in the need for trails to be constructed in the Project to serve the projected residents.

Reasonable Relationship between Amount of Fee and Cost of Facility or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development on which Fee is Imposed The total cost of improvements funded by the Panhandle trails fee is allocated among the projected new residential land uses in the Project at buildout based on the relative benefit from the trails system generated by each land use. Cost allocation factors based on the residents who will use the trails system, as measured by persons per household, are used to measure the relative demand generated by each land use and to allocate trails costs across all benefitting residential land uses in the Project. A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the Panhandle trails fees and the costs of the improvements attributable to the new residential 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 residential development type.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 59
Feasibility of the Financ e Plan
This chapter reviews issues associated to the overall financial feasibility of the Finance Plan. The financial feasibility is addressed by reviewing a total infrastructure burden analysis, as well as bond issuance guidelines, to ensure the Finance Plan will meet the required financial tests.

Description of St atic Feasibility
Analyses
This analysis includes the following static methods for evaluating the financial feasibility of the proposed Project:
 Total Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities Cost Burden.  Total Taxes and Assessments as a Percentage of Sales Price.

Each of these methods is based on a static financial feasibility evaluation. To be considered financially feasible, the Project should meet each of the static feasibility tests.

It is important to note that these feasibility metrics, described in detail below, should be considered initial diagnostics, offering a general indicator of whether or not a project is likely to meet financial feasibility criteria or whether measures should be taken to improve viability, either through a reduction in cost burdens, identification of other funding sources, or other approaches. None of the indicators, by themselves, should be considered absolute determinations regarding Project feasibility.

Total Backbone Infrastructure and
Public Facilities Cost Burden
It is common for developers of major development projects to advance-fund and carry infrastructure costs for some timeframe. The impact of the land developer’s cost burden depends on several factors, including the timeframe for the reimbursements and the extent to which full reimbursement is received, either through public funding programs or through adjustments in land sales prices.

The purpose of the total backbone infrastructure and public facilities cost burden feasibility test is to assess the financial feasibility of the Project, given all current and proposed fees and the additional burden of Project-specific infrastructure Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
60 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
costs. As such, this feasibility test assesses the total fee burden on residential dwelling units associated with the proposed backbone infrastructure and public facilities.

The total backbone infrastructure and public facilities cost burden feasibility test provides a performance indicator of a project’s feasibility. For each residential land use the total cost burden per dwelling unit is expressed as a percent of the finished sales price. Project feasibility is evaluated based on the following general guidelines or benchmarks:
 Burdens below 15 percent generally are considered financially feasible.  Burdens between 15 and 20 percent may be feasible depending on the specific circumstances of the project.
 Burdens above 20 percent suggest a project may not be financially feasible unless other components of the project pro forma are particularly advantageous to the developer, thus allowing the project to bear unusually high backbone infrastructure and public facilities costs. 2 Thes
e static feasibility benchmarks are based on EPS’s experience conducting financial feasibility analyses for numerous projects throughout the Sacramento Region and Central Valley over the last 3 decades. This feasibility diagnostic is merely a tool that can be used—along with other tools—as a general measure of financial feasibility. This measure should not automatically be interpreted to mean that if one land use type exceeds the threshold, the project definitely is infeasible.

In certain circumstances, there are ways in which a development project can mitigate against a high cost burden. In addition, the backbone infrastructure and public facilities costs will be fine-tuned and possibly reduced as engineering studies are completed closer to actual construction.

As shown in Table 6-1, the total cost of backbone infrastructure and public facilities accounts for between approximately 13.8 percent and 14.5 percent of the estimated sales price of residential units in the Project. Cost burdens of this magnitude indicate that the Project is likely financially feasible. Other factors such as the magnitude of advance funding requirements, reimbursement timeframes, and development absorption would also factor into Project feasibility. 2 Such other components may include extraordinarily low land basis (e.g., land has been in the family for a long time, land acquired during severe real estate market downturn, etc.), development phasing (e.g., fast early absorption ahead of a major infrastructure cost such as a new water treatment plant), or low or no environmental mitigation requirements (e.g., through avoidance or on-site preservation).

Table 6-1
Panhandle Finance Plan
Estimated Infrastructure Cost Burden (2021$)
Item Estates (E) Traditional (T) Village (V) Notes
Assumptions
Net Acres 75.7 147.7 60.5
Number of Units 340 869 453
Unit Size/Bldg. Sq. Ft. 2,500 2,250 2,000
Garage Square Feet 500 500 450
Units per Acre 4.5 5.9 7.5
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft.- Living Area (VB) $148.33 $148.33 $148.33 Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. - Garage (U) $59.88 $59.88 $59.88 Building Valuation - Living Area and Garage $400,765 $363,683 $323 ,606 2002 Building plus Equipment Valuations
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft.- Living Area $92.40 $92.40 $92.40 Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. - Garage $24.30 $24.30 $24.30 Air Conditioning - Living Area $3.50 $3.50 $3.50
Sprinklers - Living Area and Garage $2.60 $2.60 $2.60
Building and Equipment Valuation $259,700 $220,050 $195,735 Used for calculation of Construction Excise Tax Current as of
Jan-22 Jan-22 Jan-22
Processing Fees per unit per unit per unit
Administrative Processing Fee $164 $164 $164 $164 per hour, assumes 1 hour review Building Permit $3,119 $2,868 $2,596 $1,078 + $0.006787 for each do llar over $100,000 of bldg. valuation Technology Surcharge $250 $229 $208 8% of Building Permit Plan Review Fee $655 $602 $545 42% of Building Permit Fee; 50% of a mount for Master Plan projects.

Technology Surcharge $52 $48 $44 8% of Plan Review Fee
Planning Review Fee $98 $90 $82 15% of Plan Review Fee Planning Inspection Fee $336 $336 $336 Flat rate; charged when Planning Division performs inspections.

Seismic/Strong Motion $52 $47 $42 $0.00013 per $1 of bldg. valuatio n General Plan Recovery Fee $1,042 $946 $841 $2.60 per $1,000 of bldg . valuation Green Building/CBSC Fee $17 $15 $13 $1 per $25,000 of bldg. valuati on or fraction, thereof Construction Excise Tax $2,078 $1,760 $1,566 0.008 * valuation of 2 002 bldg. + equipment valuation Fire Inspection Fee $279 $256 $228 $0.093 x gross square feet Fire Review Fee $131 $131 $131 $131 per hour, assumes 1 hour review Subtotal Processing Fees $8,273 $7,493 $6,795
City Development Impact Fees
Adjusted Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) $2,188 $2, 188 $2,188 Net of alternative modes credits Water Development Fee $3,323 $3,323 $3,323 Assumes 1" domestic mete r Water Easement Tap Installation Fee $1,822 $1,822 $1,822 Assumes 1 " domestic meter Water Meter Installation $672 $672 $672 Assumes 1" domestic meter Residential Construction Water Use Fee $201 $201 $201 Flat rate per residential lot Residential
Prepared by EPS 5/24/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 61

Table 6-1
Panhandle Finance Plan
Estimated Infrastructure Cost Burden (2021$)
Item Estates (E) Traditional (T) Village (V) Notes
Residential
Sewer Development Fee $151 $151 $151 Flat rate per residential lot City Business Operations Tax $160 $145 $129 $0.0004 per $1 of bldg. valuation; Max. $5,000/year/contractor Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) $70 $70 $70 Flat rate per reside ntial lot Neighborhood and Community Parks $3,912 $3,912 $3,912 $3,912 per un it for units 2,000 sq. ft. or larger Citywide Parks/Facilities $1,991 $1,991 $1,991 $1,991 per unit for units 2,000 sq. ft. or larger Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Fee $5,573 $4,255 $3,343 $25,032 per acre; assumes land dedication in-lieu ($16,250/acre), so excludes land acquisition portion of total fee ($43,968 per acre).

Mixed Income Housing Ordinance/Housing Trust Fund $7,575 $6,818 $6 ,060 $3.03 per unit sq. ft.

Residential Construction Tax $385 $385 $385 Flat rate for dwelling units with 3 or more bedrooms Subtotal City Development Impact Fees $28,024 $25,933 $24,248 Other Agency Fees
Twin Rivers and Robla Elementary School District Fees $10,200 $9, 180 $8,160 4.08 per living area sq. ft.

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Dev. Impact Fee $5,250 $4,72 5 $4,200 $2.10 per habitable area sq. ft.(effective 1/4/2020).

Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee $1,378 $1,378 $1,378 $1,351 mitigation fee + 2% admin fee Air Quality Mitigation Fee [1] $276 $276 $276 Estimated $240.38 per unit, plus 15% admin fee ($36.06) Sacramento Area Sewer District (Expansion) $4,561 $3,482 $2,736 $20 ,484 per net acre for Expansion Area Regional SAN (New) $6,479 $6,479 $6,479 $6,479 per ESD for New Growth Area Subtotal Other Agency Fees $28,144 $25,520 $23,229
Subtotal Fees $64,441 $58,946 $54,272
Panhandle Fee [2] $25,606 $22,917 $22,763
Panhandle Administration Fee (3%) $768 $688 $683
Total Fees $90,815 $82,550 $77,717
Sales Price per Unit/Building Value per Sq. Ft. [3] $625,000 $600 ,000 $550,000 Infrastructure Burden Costs as a % of Sales Price [4] 14.5% 13.8% 14.1% burden
Source: City of Sacramento; various public agencies; EPS. [1] From the FEIR and escalated by percentage change in SF CPI from April 2018 through April 2021 (9.17%) See Table A-5.

Fee in the FEIR was $220.18 per unit plus 15% administration. [2] Combination of Panhandle Impact Fee and Panhandle DA Fee. See Table 5-1 for detailed Panhandle fee information. [3] Residential values based on Gregory Group research for North Natomas homes for sale in Quarter 3 of 2021. [4] Ty
pically
, infrastructure burden costs as a percent of sales price needs to be below 20% to be considered feasible based on EPS's infrastructure financing experience.

Prepared by EPS 5/24/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 62 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 63
The infrastructure cost burden could change for several reasons, including a re-allocation of costs among land uses and cost reductions resulting from fine-tuning the estimates as engineering studies are completed and the Project becomes closer to implementation. The cost burden estimates will be further refined as the Project is implemented.

Total Taxes and As sessments as a
Percentage of Sales Price
The Total Taxes and Assessments as a Percentage of Sales Price feasibility test often is referred to as a “two-percent test.” This test provides another measure of the financial feasibility of a project that is used by land developers, builders, and municipal governments to evaluate development projects. The Total Taxes and Assessments as a Percentage of Sales Price test provides a general rule for the feasibility of proposed annual special taxes and assessments. In general, if the sum of property taxes, other ad valorem taxes, and all annual special taxes and assessments is less than 2 percent of the average finished home sales price, then the burden of annual taxes and assessments is considered financially feasible. In the Sacramento Region, jurisdictions and developers typically target total taxes and assessments at levels no greater than approximately 1.6 percent to 1.8 percent of the finished home sales price.

Table 6-2 shows the estimated taxes and assessments as a percentage of home sales prices for three different proposed Project land uses. The total annual amount includes the following taxes and assessments:
 Property taxes.
 Other general ad valorem taxes (e.g., school/other General Obligation bonds).  Services taxes and assessments.
 Infrastructure CFD taxes (proposed in this Finance Plan).

Development in Panhandle is subject to participation in several special districts for services and ongoing maintenance with proposed and established rates as specified in Table 6-2. When combined with the potential implementation of infrastructure special taxes that range from $2,000 to $2,300 per unit, the Panhandle total special taxes and assessments would be at the higher end of the feasibility range, ranging from 1.68 percent to 1.79 percent. While the Project special tax and assessment burden generally remains within feasible ranges after the addition of the Project Infrastructure CFD, capacity for additional CFD special taxes is limited.

Table 6-2
Panhandle Finance Plan
Test of 2% Sales Price - Residential Market-Rate Units (2021$) Estates (E)
Item
Assumption TRA 003-446 TRA 003-445 TRA 003-446 TRA 003-445 TRA 003-446 Assumptions
Net Acres 75.7 44.7 103.0 16.4 44.1
Dwelling Units 340 263 606 123 330
Dwelling Units per Net Acre 4.5 5.9 5.9 7.5 7.5
Square Feet per Dwelling Unit 2,500 2,250 2,250 2,000 2,000 Finished Unit Sales Price (2018$) $425,000 $400,000 $400,000 $375,000 $375,000 Finished Unit Sales Price (2021$) [1] $625,000 $600,000 $600,000 $5 50,000 $550,000 Property Taxes
General Property Tax [2] 1.0000% $6,180 $5,930 $5,930 $5,430 $5,430 Grant JT High GOB 0.0236% $148 $142 $142 $130 $130
Los Rios College GOB 0.0249% $156 $149 $149 $137 $137
Twin Rivers Unified GOB 0.0558% $349 $335 $335 $307 $307 Robla Elementary GOB 0.1532% $958 $0 $919 $0 $843
Twin Rivers Elementary GOB 12 0.0426% $0 $256 $0 $234 $0 Total Ad Valorem Taxes Range $7,789 $6,811 $7,475 $6,238 $6,846 Estimated Special Annual Taxes/Assessments
SAFCA Consolidated Capital Assessment District #2 $100.00 per 1, 000 bldg. sq. ft. (avg.) $250 $225 $225 $200 $200 SAFCA AD No.1 - O&M Assessment $55.00 per acre $12 $9 $9 $7 $7 SAFCA Natomas Basin Local Assessment District $36.00 per 1,000 b ldg. sq. ft. (avg.) $90 $81 $81 $72 $72 City of Sacramento Core Library Services Tax $14.40 per unit $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 City of Sacramento Additional Library Services Tax $37.02 per uni t $37 $37 $37 $37 $37 City of Sacramento AD L & L $90.42 per unit $90 $90 $90 $90 $90 North Natomas TMA CFD 99-01 [3] $121.00 per unit $121 $121 $121 $121 $121 Reclamation District No. 1000 $25.00 per unit $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 Total Estimated Special Annual Taxes/Assessments $640 $603 $603 $567 $567 Estimated Panhandle Services CFD [4] 8.465% $468 $460 $460 $455 $455 Estimated Panhandle Infrastructure CFD $2,300 $2,200 $2,200 $2,000 $2,000 Total Annual Taxes and Assessments $11,197 $10,075 $10,738 $9,260 $9,868 Taxes & Assessments as % of Sales Price [5] 1.79% 1.68% 1.79% 1.68% 1.79% two percent
Source: Sacramento County; City of Sacramento; Gregory Group; EPS. [1] Residential values based on Gregory Group research for Nor th Natomas homes for sale in Quarter 3 of 2021. [2] Includes homeowners' property tax exemption of $7,000. [3] As shonw on Table 7-1, North Natomas TMA provided estimated annual cost to serve Panhandle, including Krumenacher Ranch. The annual cost per unit is estimated by distributing this cost over Panhandle PUD units because it is uncertain if Krumenacher Ranch will proceed. [4] Based on an estimated services CFD for streetscapes, parks and open space, and utilities. See Appendix D for more detailed information.

Rates established in 2018 Finance Plan adjusted by pct. c hange in annual average CPI for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward f rom 2018 through 2021. See Table A-5. [5] Although the State guideline is 2%, this analysis uses a t arget range of 1.7%-1.8% for evaluating feasibility, to allow f or additional taxes and assessments as needed (e.g. future school district GO bond).

Traditional (T) Village (V)
Residential
Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 64 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 65
Financing Sources for Services and
Ongoing Operation and Maintenance
This chapter includes additional information regarding funding sources for annual services and ongoing operation and maintenance costs. “Services” refer to general government or other services, such as law enforcement protection, that will be provided by public agencies. Operation and maintenance costs refer to the costs to operate and maintain backbone infrastructure and public facilities.

Once backbone infrastructure and public facilities are completed, they will be dedicated to or acquired by public agencies. These public agencies will be responsible for operating and maintaining the facilities. The Finance Plan provides estimates of the operations and maintenance costs.

Development in the Project will be required to participate in a series of special financing districts to fund public services and the operation and maintenance of the public improvements. Participation in these districts will be determined by the City or the special districts no later than at the filing of final maps. The City or existing assessment districts will have funding responsibility for most items.

However, if a funding shortfall is deemed to exist, a Mello-Roos CFD, Community Services District, Lighting and Landscaping District, or some other funding mechanism will be established.

The Applicant, the City, and the North Natomas TMA are in discussions regarding support for TMA programs. The Finance Plan includes a placeholder cost per dwelling unit based on the estimated amount to provide services to the Project divided by the total number of dwelling units in the Project. Table 7-1 details the total annual estimated TMA services cost and TMA services cost per dwelling unit.

The total annual cost estimate was provided in 2018 and is escalated to 2021 dollars on Table 7-1. Panhandle may annex into the North Natomas TMA CFD 99–01 or form a separate CFD for TMA services.

The Project may form a services CFD for the operations and maintenance of streetscapes, parks and open space, and utilities. Appendix D includes the detailed cost estimates and allocation methodology for the potential Panhandle services CFD. If the Project forms a Homeowners’ Association (HOA), some of the operations and maintenance costs currently assumed in the CFD may be included in a HOA fee instead.

Table 7-1
Panhandle Finance Plan
North Natomas TMA Proposed Programs and Services
Item Percentage
Amount
North Natomas TMA Cost (2018$)
Commuter Shuttle Service $118,978
Bike and Walk to School Program $34,200
Bike Program $6,688
Subtotal North Natomas TMA Cost $159,866
TMA Business Program, Advocacy, Communications, Marketing & Overhead 10% $15,987 City Administration (5%) 5% $7,993
Total North Natomas TMA Cost $183,846
Total Panhandle Units 1,662
North Natomas TMA Cost per Unit (2018$) [1] $111
North Natomas TMA Cost per Unit (escalated to 2021$) [2] 9.17% $121 tma
Source: North Natomas Transportation Management Association (TMA); City of Sacramento. [1] North Natomas TMA provided estimated annual cost to serve Panhandle, including Krumenacher Ranch. The annual cost per unit is estimated by distributing this cost over Panhandle PUD units because it is uncertain if Krumenacher Ranch will proceed. [2] Percentage escalation equals pct. change in CPI from April 2018 through April 2021. See Table A-5.

Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx 66 Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 67
Implementation
Implementation of the Finance Plan ensures that new development will construct facilities to meet the service-level specification set out in the Project and will pay its fair share of the cost of backbone infrastructure and public facilities required to serve the Project area. The City will implement the Finance Plan, which may include the following actions:
 Update relevant existing fee programs to include Project land uses and facilities when appropriate.
 Implement the Panhandle Fee Program.
 Establish reimbursement policies and parameters. Reimbursements will be controlled by reimbursement agreements between the City and the developers. The time frame for reimbursements will be limited through the terms of the reimbursement agreement.
 Form a CFD to help finance the construction of infrastructure and public facilities and administer subsequent bond sales and tax collection.  Form a services CFD to fund maintenance of streetscapes, parks and open space, and utilities.
 Annex into an existing TMA or create a new TMA for the Project.  Account for fee payments, fee credits, or reimbursements.  Update the Panhandle Fee Program annually for inflation.  Periodically, update and adjust the Panhandle Fee Program as new infrastructure cost, land use, and revenue information becomes available.  Coordinate closely with all appropriate City departments and other service providers to implement the Finance Plan.
 Work with property owners and the development community during the Project’s buildout to resolve specific infrastructure construction responsibility and financing issues that may arise as part of the individual land development application process.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
68 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Panhandle Fee Program
Fee Amount
As documented in previous chapters, the Panhandle Fee Program estimates provided in this Finance Plan are based on the best facility improvement cost estimates, 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 Panhandle Fee Program should be updated accordingly.

After the fees presented in this report are established, the City will conduct annual and other periodic reviews of facility improvement costs and other assumptions used as the basis of this Finance Plan. Based on these reviews, the City may make necessary adjustments to the fee program through subsequent fee program updates. The cost and fee adjustment process is discussed below under “Fee Program Updates.”
The cost estimates presented in this Finance Plan are in 2021 dollars because the estimates were prepared in 2021. The City may adjust the costs and fees annually as outlined in this chapter.

The Panhandle Fee Program will consist of two components, the Panhandle Impact Fee Component and the Panhandle DA Fee Component. The Panhandle Impact Fee Component will be implemented in accordance with Government Code Section 66000 (for applicable fees) and City Code Chapter 18.56. The Panhandle DA Fee Component will be implemented in accordance with the DA requirements.

Any City ordinances and resolutions required for implementation of the Panhandle Fee Program will be an integral and controlling part of the policies and procedures authorized for the Panhandle Fee Program. If there are any inconsistencies or contradictions between the implementing ordinance and resolution(s) and the Finance Plan, the ordinance/resolution(s) shall prevail. Table 5-1 in Chapter 5 shows the fee rates identified in this Finance Plan for the residential land uses.

Administration Fee
Administration fees will be collected to fund the administration, oversight, implementation, and updates of the Panhandle Fee Program, including administration of any credit and reimbursement agreements. The administration fee will include adequate funding to cover all City costs. The Panhandle Impact Fee Component and the Panhandle DA Fee Component will each contain an administration fee.

While the administration fee is required to cover actual costs of administering the program on an annual basis, this fee component also must provide adequate funding to cover periodic updates to the program that are above and beyond Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 69
annual fee program administration. For each Panhandle Fee Program component, it is recommended the administration fee for each land use be established as 3 percent of the sum of the other fees.

Reimbursements and Fee Credits
The City and individual developers may agree to have developers build or advance-fund certain facilities identified in the Panhandle Fee Program. The facilities advance-funded or built may be part of the fee program or funded by non-fee revenues. In the case of such an agreement, developers should receive a reimbursement or fee credit based on the terms of the agreement. Infrastructure projects that are the financial responsibility of the developer (i.e., designated as private capital) are not subject to reimbursement or fee credits.

For instance, if a developer constructs and funds the extension of a roadway contained in the Panhandle Fee Program, then the developer would be eligible for a reimbursement or fee credit up to the amount of funding that was to be included in the fee program. In such an instance, the City and the developer would come to agreement before construction of the improvement to determine the amount, timing, and manner of repayment of the advance funding: fee credit or reimbursement. The City will establish a set of procedures to manage reimbursement/credit agreements. The procedures could include forms of any agreement and accounting procedures to manage the reimbursement/credit program.

Fee Program Updates
The fees presented in this report are based on the best available cost estimates and land use information at this time. If costs or land uses change significantly in either direction, or if other funding becomes available, the fees will be updated accordingly. Most updates to the development impact fees and costs will occur automatically and annually in accordance with the procedure below. As also provided below, systematic updates will occur periodically to access the need for more, or fewer, facilities, and the appropriateness of the nexus relationships as both need and land uses evolve.

Annual adjustments to costs and funding sources will be made using either a cost benchmarking methodology (Benchmark Change) or application of an inflation index or a combination thereof, as described in the specific procedures outlined below.

Procedure for Adjusting the Panhandle Impact Fees and Revising the Inventory of Remaining Infrastructure to be Financed by that Fee The City will set the amount of the Panhandle Impact Fees by using the estimated cost of the facilities to be financed, determined in accordance with the following Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
70 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
definitions and procedures. The estimated costs will be allocated among the residential land uses in accordance with the cost allocation methodology detailed in Chapter 5.

1. Definitions.
a. “Aggregate Costs” means the cost to construct remaining Panhandle Impact Fee (PHIF) Eligible Facilities.
b. “CalTrans Index” means the Quarterly California Highway Construction Cost Index (Price Index for Selected Highway Construction Items) published by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Engineering Services—Office Engineer.
c. “ENR Index” means the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco.
d. “Finance Plan” means the Panhandle Finance Plan, as amended. e. “Funding Requirement” means the amount of the PHIF that must be generated from remaining development so that the City will have adequate funding (A) to construct the PHIF Facilities remaining to be completed and (B) to administer the PHIF program. It is calculated as follows: first, calculate the aggregate cost to complete the remaining PHIF Facilities and to pay the administrative component of the PHIF as required by the Finance Plan; second, from the result add the amount of outstanding PHIF credits; and third, subtract the PHIF revenues then available to complete the remaining PHIF facilities.

Funding Requirement = (current Aggregate Costs and
Administration) + (credits owed) – (revenue on hand)
f. “PHIF” means the Panhandle Impact Fee established by Sacramento City Code for the Panhandle Finance Plan.
g. “PHIF Credits” means the outstanding fee credits or reimbursements owed for developer constructed or advance-funded PHIF Eligible Facilities. h. “PHIF Eligible Facility” means a public improvement or segment of a public improvement that is identified in the 2018 Finance Plan as being funded by the PHIF.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 71
i. “PHIF Funding Obligation” means the maximum funding obligation of the PHIF for a given year.
j. “PHIF Share” means the portion of a PHIF Eligible Facility’s cost that is funded, in whole or part, by the PHIF.

2. Annual PHIF Adjustment for PHIF Eligible Facilities. a. Each July 1, the City will adjust the PHIF in accordance with the difference between (1) the Funding Requirement for the current year; and (2) the funding that would be available, if the then-existing PHIF were applied to remaining development.
b. Examples of Annual PHIF Adjustment for PHIF Eligible Facilities:

As of April 1, 2022 4.00% -6.00% 6.00%
Costs Comparison (as of April 1, 2022)
Aggregate Costs and Administration (2021$) $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 Aggregate Costs and Administration (2022$) [1] $52,000,000 $47,000,000 $53,000,000 Escalation Factor 4.00% -6.00% 6.00%
Credits Owed (as of April 1, 2022)
Credits Owed (2021$) $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Credits Owed (2022$) [2] $3,120,000 $3,000,000 $3,180,000 Funding Requirement Calculation
Aggregate Costs and Administration (2022$) $52,000,000 $47,000,000 $53,000,000 Plus: Credits Owed (2022$) [2] $3,120,000 $3,000,000 $3,180,000 Less: Cash on Hand, April 1, 2022 ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) 2022 Funding Requirement $54,120,000 $49,000,000 $55,180,000 Revenue from Remaining Development (as of April 1, 2022) Fee Revenue Based on 2021 Fees and Remaining Development [3] $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 2022 Funding Requirement $54,120,000 $49,000,000 $55,180,000 Revenue from Remaining Development $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 Fee Change ($) $4,120,000 ($1,000,000) $5,180,000
Fee Change (% ) 8.24% -2.00% 10.36%
[1] Based on the adjustment procedures described in Sections 3 and 4 below. [2] Credits owed are escalated annually based on the year over year change to the aggregate cost but are never decreased. [3] Reflects future fee revenue from all development (applying unadjusted fee rates to all remaining development), including development that is eligible for future fee credits.

Hypothetical Fee Change (Effective July 1, 2022)
Hypothetical: Percentage Cost Change s
Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
72 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

3. Adjustments to Aggregate Costs: Remaining Roadways, Sewer, Drainage, and Trails Facilities3.
a. Adjustment by Index.

1. Except as specified in Subsection 3(b) and Sections 4 and 5 below, for all PHIF Eligible Facilities, the cost adjustment to remaining PHIF Eligible Facilities is the greater of the following (but in no event less than zero percent in net aggregate):

A. The ENR Index; or
B. The CalTrans Index 3-year moving average.

2. Index measurement.

A. ENR Index: Year-over-year change as of each March.

B. CalTrans Index: 12-quarter average through quarter 1 of the current year over 12-quarter average through quarter 1 of the prior year.

3. Precision. All calculations will be carried out to three decimal places. b. Adjustment by Benchmarking.

1. Before April 1 of each calendar year, a third-party professional engineering consultant who is under contract to the City will estimate the cost to construct all PHIF Eligible Facilities subject to this subsection 3(b). The cost estimate will anticipate cost changes to July 1 of the calendar year in which the estimate is made. The cost estimate plus an additional contingency (not to exceed an amount equal to 15% of the cost estimate) is the “Draft Benchmark Estimate” of Aggregate Costs for the year.

2. Panhandle landowners shall have the right, assignable only with the written consent of the City at the City’s sole discretion, to hire an independent third-party engineer to validate the cost estimates reflected in the “Draft Benchmark Estimate”. The City and Landowner agree to work in good faith to resolve differences, if any, in the engineer’s estimates. The agreed upon cost estimate shall be the “Benchmark Estimate.”

3. If the percentage change between the Aggregate Costs for the then- current year and the Aggregate Costs for the same set of PHIF Eligible 3 Storm drainage land acquisition costs are excluded from the cost adjustment procedures detailed in this section. Storm drainage land acquisition costs are updated annually based on an annual appraisal of the value of North Natomas public land and are not included as part of the benchmark cost estimates.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 73
Facilities for the immediately preceding year differ by an amount equal to, or more than, plus or minus 5% in aggregate from the percentage change determined by index in accordance with Subsection 3(a) above, then the City will use the then-current year’s Benchmark Estimate of Aggregate Costs to determine the Funding Requirement.

Note that for the purposes of estimating the roadway, sewer, drainage and trails facilities costs in this Finance Plan, the Benchmark Estimate of Aggregate Costs was used. Since the proposed Panhandle Fee Program and Panhandle Impact Fees have not yet been adopted, a comparison was not made this year. Rather, the engineer’s cost estimates were used to establish costs. The comparison methodology will first be performed in 2023 following adoption of the Panhandle Impact Fees.
c. Comprehensive Review and Nexus Study.

Per California Government Code section 66016.5(a)(8) created by California Assembly Bill 602, nexus studies must be updated every eight years. The City may perform a comprehensive review and nexus study for the PHIF every three years unless the City determines that prevailing market conditions do not justify doing so (e.g., if development is lacking or the remaining development is limited).
d. Sample cost adjustments for roadways, sewer, drainage, and trail facilities:

Sample #1 Sample #2
Benchmarking increase of 4% Benchmarking increase of 4.5% ENR Index increase of 2% ENR Index increase of 1%
CalTrans Index increase of 3.1% CalTrans Index decrease of 1% Change in Aggregate Cos ts : increase of 3.1% Change in Aggregate Costs: increase of 1% Sample #3 Sample #4
Benchmarking decrease of 3% Benchmarking decrease of 5% ENR Index decrease of 0.5% ENR increase of 0.5%
CalTrans Index decrease of 1% Cal Trans Index decrease of 1% Change in Aggregate Cos ts : 0% Change in Aggregate Cos ts : decrease of 5% Sample #5
Benchmarking increase of 6%
ENR Index increase of 1%
CalTrans Index decrease of 1%
Change in Aggregate Cos ts : increase of 6%
Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
74 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

4. Adjustment to Outstanding PHIF Credits.

Effective July 1 of each year, outstanding PHIF credits are adjusted annually based on the same adjustment factor applied to the PHIF Aggregate Costs, with the exception that the outstanding PHIF credits will not be decreased.

5. PHIF Funding Obligation; Change in List of Facilities Funded with PHIF.
a. The Finance Plan shows not just the estimated cost of each PHIF Eligible Facility but also the PHIF Share for the PHIF Eligible Facility. Each year, after adjusting costs in accordance with sections 1 through 4 above, the City shall determine the aggregate PHIF share for all PHIF Eligible Facilities, and that aggregate amount will be the PHIF Funding Obligation for that year.
b. Each year, the City may revise the PHIF Share for each PHIF Eligible Facility and shall give Landowner 30-days’ prior written notice of any revision that will result in a Removed PHIF Facility (defined below), as follows:

1. If a PHIF Eligible Facility is removed from the Panhandle Finance Plan because it will no longer be funded by the PHIF (a “Removed PHIF Facility”), then the City may allocate the Removed PHIF Facility’s PHIF Share (determined in accordance with subsection 3(b)(1) above) to another PHIF Eligible Facility on the list. Public improvements not identified in the Panhandle Finance Plan may not be funded with the PHIF.

2. The City may not require, as a condition for approving the Landowner’s request for land-use entitlements on all or part of the Property, that the Landowner or any other signatory to a Panhandle DA construct all or part of a Removed PHIF Facility. This limitation does not apply if the Landowner requests and receives a change in the then-existing zoning on all or part of the Property and the City determines that the change creates a need for construction of a Removed PHIF Facility.

3. If the City has previously required the Landowner to build a PHIF Eligible Facility as a condition of approval for a land-use entitlement granted to the Landowner, then the City may not subsequently remove the PHIF Eligible Facility from the list of remaining PHIF Eligible Facilities and thereby deny the Landowner the opportunity to obtain reimbursement from the PHIF program.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 75

6. Scope of PHIF Eligible Facilities.

The scope of each PHIF Eligible Facility is as described in the Finance Plan, as amended, and may not be revised except as required to comply with federal or state law. With respect to public roadways and streets, the scope is to be based on the City’s street-design standards for lands within the Panhandle area.

7. Adequate Funding for PHIF Eligible Facilities.

The City may not cite, as a reason for increasing the amount of the PHIF Funding Obligation, the loss of potential funding from sources identified in the Panhandle Finance Plan as Non-PHIF Funding Sources, such as PDAF, federal funding, state funding, regional funding, grants, gifts, contributions, fees, reimbursements, the City’s general fund, the City’s Major Street Construction Tax, or private funds.

Procedure for Adjusting the Panhandle DA Fees
The City will set the amount of the Panhandle DA Fees by adjusting the prior year’s Panhandle DA Fees in accordance with the NNFP fee amounts and the following definitions and procedures:

1. Definitions.
a. “CPI Index” means the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers.
b. “ENR Index” means the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco.
c. “Finance Plan” means the Panhandle Finance Plan, as amended. d. “PDAF” means the Panhandle DA Fee established by the Panhandle DAs. e. “PDAF Eligible Facility” means a public improvement or segment of a public improvement that is identified in the North Natomas Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Financing Plan Update – 2018 (or any amendments thereof) as being funded by the PDAF.

2. Adjustments to PDAF: Transit, Fire, Community Center, and Library.

The transit, fire, and library DA Fees in this Finance Plan are calculated assuming the applicable FY 17-18 NNFP development impact fees paid under the NNFP, escalated to 2021 dollars. The community center DA Fee in this Finance Plan is set equal to the FY 21-22 NNFP community center fee.

Panhandle Finance Plan
May 2022
76 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
For each of these public facilities, the City will adjust the PDAF annually by the percentage change in the ENR Index from March to March, effective each July 1, in accordance with the North Natomas Nexus Study.

3. Adjustment to the PDAF Regional Park Land Acquisition Fee.

The regional park land acquisition fees in this Finance Plan are calculated assuming the applicable FY 2017-18 NNFP development impact fees escalated to 2021 dollars. The City will adjust the regional park land acquisition PDAF annually by the percentage change in the CPI Index from April to April, effective each July 1, in accordance with the NNFP.

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Cost Allocations and
Cost Adjustments
Appendix B: Capital Improvement
Cost Estimates
Appendix C: Estimated Fee Revenue
Appendix D: Potential Panhandle Services
CFD Detailed Cost Estimates and
Allocation Methodology

APPENDIX A:

Cost Allocations and Cost Adjustments
Tabl
e A-1 Cost Allocation: Roadway Improvements ................ A-1 Table A-2 Cost Allocation: Sanitary Sewer ............................. A-2 Table A-3 Cost Allocation: Drainage Improvements and
Land Acquisition .................................................. A-3 Table A-4 Cost Allocation: Trails .......................................... A-4 Table A-5 Annual Esca lation Factors ..................................... A-5

Table A-1
Panhandle Finance Plan
Cost Allocation: Roadway Improvements
Trip Demand Percentage Distribution
Factor per Unit Total of Total Total Cost pe
r
Land Use Units [1] EDUs Trips Cost Unit
Residential Land Uses
Estates (E) 340 0.99 337 20.5% $2,970,193 $8,736
Traditional (T) 869 0.99 860 52.3% $7,591,463 $8,736
Village (V) 453 0.99 448 27.3% $3,957,345 $8,736
Subtotal Residential Land Uses 1,662 1,645 100.0% $14,519,000 Total 1,645 100.0% $14,519,000
trans alloc
Source: DKS Associates; City of Sacramento Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Nexus Study; EPS. [1] Trip demand factor from City of Sacramento TDIF Nexus Study based on PM peak trip vehicle miles traveled per dwelling unit.

Cost Allocation:

Roadway
Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx A-1
Table A-2
Panhandle Finance Plan
Cost Allocation: Sanitary Sewe
r
ESDs EDU Percentage Distribution
Net per Acre Factor Total of Total of Total Cost per
Land Use Units Acres [1] per Unit EDUs EDUs Costs Unit
Residential Land Uses
Estates (E) 340 75.7 6.00 1.34 454 25.3% $79,491 $234
Traditional (T) 869 147.7 6.00 1.02 886 49.4% $155,097 $178 Village (V) 453 60.5 7.50 1.00 454 25.3% $79,412 $175
Subtotal Residential Land Uses 1,662 283.9 1,794 100.0% $314,000 Total 283.9 1,794 100.0% $314,000
sewer alloc
Source: MacKay & Somps; EPS.
[1] Equivalent Single Family Dwellings (ESDs) per acre equal to factors in Table 1 of the 2020 Sanitary Sewer Study Level Two for Natomas Panhandle.

Cost Allocation:

Sanitary Sewer
Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx A-2
Table A-3
Panhandle Finance Plan
Cost Allocation: Drainage Improvements and Land Acquisition Impervious Percentage Distribution
Net Surface Total of Total of Total Cost pe
r
Land Use Units Acres per Acre [1] EDUs EDUs Costs Unit
Residential Land Uses
Estates (E) 340 75.7 0.40 30 25.3% $3,784,396 $11,131
Traditional (T) 869 147.7 0.40 59 49.4% $7,383,822 $8,497 Village (V) 453 60.5 0.50 30 25.3% $3,780,647 $8,346
Subtotal Residential Land Uses 1,662 283.9 120 100.0% $14,948,865 Total [2] 283.9 120 100.0% $14,948,865
sd alloc
Source: City of Sacramento; EPS.
[1] From Table 5-3 of the Sacramento City/County Hydrology Standards-Volume 2:
4-6 units per acre 0.40
6-8 units per acre 0.50
[2] See Table 3-3 for total cost.

Cost Allocation:

Storm Drainage
Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx A-3
Table A-4
Panhandle Finance Plan
Cost Allocation: Trails
Percentage
of Total Distribution
Persons Persons of Total Cost pe
r
Land Use Units [2] Served Served Costs Unit
Persons per Household [1] 2.98
Residential Land Uses per unit
Estates (E) 340 1,013 20.5% $214,392 $631
Traditional (T) 869 2,590 52.3% $547,961 $631
Village (V) 453 1,350 27.3% $285,646 $631
Total [2] [3] 1,662 4,953 100.0% $1,048,000
trails alloc
Source: City of Sacramento; EPS.
[1] Average household size for the City of Sacramento according to the 2010 US Census. [2] Total cost equals the estimated Panhandle cost contributio n for the Sotnip Trail and the cost of the Powerline
(WAPA Corridor) trails as shown below and detailed in Table 3-6:

Sotnip Trail Contribution: $381,000
Powerline (WAPA Corridor) Trail: $667,000
Total: $1,048,000
[3] According to the Project conditions of approval, the Panhandle's contribution for the Sotnip Trail will be paid on a per-unit basis by the first 50 percent of permits. This Finance Plan allocates the total cost on a planwide basis to equalize costs across all benefitting Panhandle land uses.

Cost Allocation:

Trails
Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx A-4
Table A-5
Panhandle Finance Plan
Annual Escalation Factors
March Annual % % Increase April Annual % % Increase Annual Annual % % Increase March Index Annual % % Increase Year Index Change to FY 21-22 Index Change to FY 21-22 Average Change to FY 21-22 3-Yr. Avg. Change to FY 21-22 2017 11,609.44 13.159% [1] 274.589 12.684% [1] 274.924 80.2192 2018 12,014.72 3.491% 9.342% [2] 283.422 3.217% 9.173% [3] 285.550 3.865% 8.465% [4] 85.4033 6.463% 19.180% [2] 2019 12,048.19 0.279% 9.038% 294.801 4.015% 4.959% 295.004 3.311% 4.989% 93.9825 10.045% 8.300% 2020 12,810.67 6.329% 2.549% 298.074 1.110% 3.806% 300.084 1.722% 3.211% 100.2317 6.649% 1.548% 2021 13,137.16 2.549% 0.000% 309.419 3.806% 0.000% 309.721 3.211% 0.000% 101.7833 1.548% 0.000% esc
Source: Engineering News-Record; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Caltrans; EPS. [1] Percentage change in ENR CCI (March index) or CPI (April index) from 2017 to 2021 used to escalate North Natomas 2017-18 public facilities fees to establish Panhandle 2021-22 public facilities fees. See Table 3-9.
[2] Percentage change in ENR CCI (March index) or Caltrans Index (3-year average of quarterly indices ending in 1st quarter) from 2018 to 2021 used to escalate some infrastructure costs and for comparison to benchmark costs. [3] Percentage change in April CPI from 2018 to 2021 used to escalate TMA costs. [4] Percentage change in annual average CPI from 2018 to 2021 used to escalate estimated Panhandle Services CFD special tax.

ENR Construction Cost Index
San Francisco
CPI For All Urban Consumers
3-Year Average Through First Quarter
Caltrans IndexCPI For All Urban Consumers
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx A-5

THIS PAGE INTE

NTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX B:

Capital Improvement Cost Estimates

Updated by Harris & Associates January 6, 2022)
FOR
City of Sacramento
Prepared by MacKay & Somps (November 29, 2017)

FINANCE PLAN

COST ESTIMATE
Panhandle
within the
City of Sacramento, California
A-E
Summary of Total Costs
SECTION PROJECT NAME TOTAL COST 2018 to 2021 % Change
A Roadway Segments, Signals, and Traffic Circles [1] 14,655,000$ 17.043% B Sanitary Sewer 1,164,000$ 12.573%
C Storm Drain 14,495,000$ 13.954%
D Potable Water 2,948,000$ 9.428%
E Trails 5,279,000$ 9.455%
Total 38,541,000$
[1] Includes supplemental roadway costs from Section G.

TOTAL
A-1
Roadway Index
Summary of Total Costs

SHEET PROJECT NAME TOTAL
2021 COST 2018 to 2021 % Change
A-1.1 Del Paso Median and Travel Lane (South Side) 1,558,900$ 16.518% G-1.1 Del Paso Frontage Improvements (North Side) 1,267,000$ 16.882% G-1.2 Sorento Road Horse Fence (West Side) 201,000$ 9.239% G-1.3 Sorento Road Frontage Improvements (West Side) 733,000$ 16.349% A-1.2 Street "C"/Faletto Avenue 1,313,200$ 20.102% A-1.3 Street "C" 1,260,600$ 20.103%
A-1.4 Club Center Drive 1,371,800$ 19.308% A-1.5 Club Center Drive 823,300$ 19.319% A-1.6 Street "F" 347,800$ 16.986%
A-1.7 Club Center Drive/Street "G" 1,293,000$ 19.236% Roadway Segments Total 10,170,000$

SHEET PROJECT NAME TOTAL
2021 COST 2018 to 2021 % Change
G-1.4 National Drive at Del Paso Road 88,550$ 18.462% G-1.4 Club Center Drive at Del Paso Road 88,550$ 18.462% Entry Monumentation Total 177,000$

SHEET PROJECT NAME TOTAL
2021 COST 2018 to 2021 % Change
A-2.1 Del Paso Road/National Drive 547,700$ 9.365% A-2.2 Del Paso Road/Club Center Drive 755,200$ 9.338% A-2.3 Del Paso Road/Sorento Road 755,200$ 9.338% Signalization Total 2,058,000$

SHEET PROJECT NAME TOTAL
2021 COST 2018 to 2021 % Change
A-3.1 Traffic Circle - Club Center/Street "C" 563,800$ 19.046% A-3.2 Traffic Circle - Club Center/Street "G" 563,800$ 19.046% A-3.3 Traffic Circle - National Drive 563,800$ 19.046% Traffic Circles Total 1,691,000$
Sheet Off-Site Roadway Cost (Elkhorn Blvd) TOTAL
2021 COST 2018 to 2021 % Change
G-1.5 Segment - State Route 99 to East Commerce 25,000$ 19.444% G-1.5 Segment - East Commerce Way to Natomas Blvd. 251,000$ 19.444% G-1.5 Segment - Natomas Blv d. to City Limit East 130,000$ 19.444% G-1.5 Segment - City Limit E ast to Panhandle Limit East 80,000$ 19.444% G-1.5 Contingency 73,000$ 19.444%
559,000$ 19.444%
Total 14,655,000$ 17.043%
* Totals rounded
A-1
A-1a Panhandle Finance Plan

ROADWAY INDEX
SEGMENT DESCRIPTION SECTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST (Rounded) 2 018 to 2021 % Change 1 Del Paso Road A-1.1 PARTIAL 2610 L.F. 597$ 1,558,900$ 16.518% 2 National Drive A-1.2 HALF 690 L.F. 842$ 580,800$ 20.099% 3 National Drive A-1.3 FULL 760 L.F. 1,659$ 1,260,600$ 20.103% 4 Club Center Drive A-1.4 FULL 290 L.F. 2,110$ 612,000$ 19.298% 5 Club Center Drive A-1.5 HALF 780 L.F. 1,055$ 823,300$ 19.319% 6 Club Center Drive A-1.4 FULL 360 L.F. 2,110$ 759,800$ 19.315% 7 Street 'F' A-1.6 FULL 240 L.F. 1,449$ 347,800$ 16.986% 8 Club Center Drive A-1.7 HALF 250 L.F. 924$ 230,900$ 19.267% 9 Faletto Avenue A-1.2 HALF 870 L.F. 842$ 732,400$ 20.105% 10 Street 'G' A-1.7 HALF 1150 L.F. 924$ 1,062,100$ 19.230% 7,968,600$
7,969,000$
Totals rounded

TOTAL ROADWAY SEGMENTS ESTIMATED COST
Note: Engineering and Contingency with section costs

ROADWAY INDEX

ROADWAY SEGMENTS

SUBTOTAL
1 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1E a r t h w o r k
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50 $ 2.07 44.51 $ EROSION CONTROL LF 13.10 $ 0.5 6.55 $
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 51.06$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75 $ 0 - $
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE -$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (6" AC) SF 4.60 $ 12 55.20 $ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (16" AB) SF 4.80 $ 13 62.40 $ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64 $ 0 - $ CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00 $ 0 - $
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60 $ 2 47.20 $ TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 164.80$
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS (NON-DECORATIVE) LF 50.00$ 0 -$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 0 -$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 11 72.60$ LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 8.75$ 0 -$
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 72.60$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 86.54$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 86.54$
A-1.1
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway

PARTIAL HALF STREET SECTIONS
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
6 CONTINGENCY
374.99$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 56.25$
431.24$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 431.24$ 12.94$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 431.24$ 6.47$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 431.24$ 51.75$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 431.24$ 6.47$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 431.24$ 10.78$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 431.24$ 56.06$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 144.47$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 2.0% 431.24$ 8.62$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES 8.62$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 431.24$ 12.94$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 12.94$
597$
* Varies based on street section
** Varies based on street section. Type A light is assumed.

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL
2 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1E a r t h w o r k
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 1.56 33.54$ EROSION CONTROL LF 13.10$ 0.5 6.55$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 40.09$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 0.5 17.88$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 17.88$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (4" AC) SF 3.10$ 21.5 66.65$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (8" AB) SF 2.40$ 24.5 58.80$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 5 38.21$ CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 1 31.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 0 -$
TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 194.66$
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS (NON-DECORATIVE) LF 35.80$ 0.5 17.90$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 0.5 89.50$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 0 -$
LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 8.75$ 6 52.48$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 159.88$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 123.75$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 123.75$
A-1.2
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway

HALF STREET SECTION
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
6 CONTINGENCY
536.26$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 80.44$
616.70$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 616.70$ 18.50$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 616.70$ 9.25$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 616.70$ 74.00$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 616.70$ 9.25$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 616.70$ 15.42$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 616.70$ 80.17$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 206.60$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 616.70$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 616.70$ 18.50$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 18.50$
842$
* Varies based on street section
** Based on 950 LF of street section. Type A light is assumed.

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
3 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1E a r t h w o r k
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 3.11 66.87$ EROSION CONTROL LF 13.10$ 1 13.10$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 79.97$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 1 35.75$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 35.75$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (4" AC) SF 3.10$ 43 133.30$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (8" AB) SF 2.40$ 44 105.60$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 10 76.42$ CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 2 62.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 0 -$
TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 377.32$
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS (NON-DECORATIVE) LF 35.80$ 1 35.80$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 1 179.00$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 0 -$
LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 8.75$ 12 104.97$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 319.77$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 243.84$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 243.84$
A-1.3
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway

FULL STREET SECTION
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
6 CONTINGENCY
1,056.65$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 158.50$
1,215.15$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 1,215.15$ 36.45$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 1,215.15$ 18.23$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 1,215.15$ 145.82$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 1,215.15$ 18.23$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 1,215.15$ 30.38$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 1,215.15$ 157.97$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 407.07$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 1,215.15$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 1,215.15$ 36.45$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 36.45$
1,659$
* Varies based on street section
** Based on 950 LF of street section. Type A light is assumed.

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL
4 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1E a r t h w o r k
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 4.17 89.66$ EROSION CONTROL LF 13.10$ 1 13.10$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 102.76$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 1 35.75$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 35.75$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (5" AC) SF 3.90$ 43 167.70$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (10" AB) SF 3.00$ 50 150.00$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 10 76.42$ CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 2 62.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 2 47.20$ TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 503.32$
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS (NON-DECORATIVE) LF 35.80$ 1 35.80$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 1 179.00$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 11 72.60$ LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 8.75$ 12 104.97$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 392.37$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 310.26$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 310.26$
A-1.4
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway

FULL STREET SECTIONS
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
6 CONTINGENCY
1,344.46$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 201.67$
1,546.13$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 1,546.13$ 46.38$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 1,546.13$ 23.19$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 1,546.13$ 185.54$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 1,546.13$ 23.19$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 1,546.13$ 38.65$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 1,546.13$ 201.00$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 517.95$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 1,546.13$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 1,546.13$ 46.38$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 46.38$
2,110$
* Varies based on street section
** Based on 950 LF of street section. Type A light is assumed.

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
5 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1E a r t h w o r k
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 2.09 44.94$ EROSION CONTROL LF 13.10$ 0.5 6.55$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 51.49$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 0.5 17.88$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 17.88$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (5" AC) SF 3.90$ 21.5 83.85$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (10" AB) SF 3.00$ 25 75.00$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 5 38.21$ CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 1 31.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 1 23.60$ TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 251.66$
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS (NON-DECORATIVE) LF 35.80$ 0.5 17.90$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 0.5 89.50$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 5.5 36.30$ LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 8.75$ 6 52.48$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 196.18$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 155.16$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 155.16$
A-1.5
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway

HALF STREET SECTIONS
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
6 CONTINGENCY
672.37$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 100.86$
773.22$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 773.22$ 23.20$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 773.22$ 11.60$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 773.22$ 92.79$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 773.22$ 11.60$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 773.22$ 19.33$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 773.22$ 100.52$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 259.03$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 773.22$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 773.22$ 23.20$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 23.20$
1,055$
* Varies based on street section
** Based on 950 LF of street section. Type A light is assumed.

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
6 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1E a r t h w o r k
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 4.17 89.66$ EROSION CONTROL LF 13.10$ 1 13.10$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 102.76$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 1 35.75$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 35.75$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (5" AC) SF 3.90$ 43 167.70$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (10" AB) SF 3.00$ 50 150.00$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 10 76.42$ CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 2 62.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 2 47.20$ TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 503.32$
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS (NON-DECORATIVE) LF 35.80$ 1 35.80$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 1 179.00$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 11 72.60$ LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 8.75$ 12 104.97$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 392.37$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 310.26$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 310.26$
A-1.6
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway

FULL STREET SECTIONS
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
6 CONTINGENCY
1,344.46$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 201.67$
1,546.13$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 1,546.13$ 46.38$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 1,546.13$ 23.19$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 1,546.13$ 185.54$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 1,546.13$ 23.19$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 1,546.13$ 38.65$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 1,546.13$ 201.00$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 517.95$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 1,546.13$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 1,546.13$ 46.38$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 46.38$
2,110$
* Varies based on street section
** Based on 950 LF of street section. Type A light is assumed.

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
7 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1E a r t h w o r k
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 1.52 32.68$ EROSION CONTROL LF 13.10$ 1 13.10$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 45.78$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 1 35.75$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 35.75$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (4" AC) SF 3.10$ 25 77.50$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (6" AB) SF 3.00$ 31 93.00$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 10 76.42$ CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 2 62.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 0 -$
TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 308.92$
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS (NON-DECORATIVE) LF 35.80$ 1 35.80$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 1 179.00$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 0 -$
LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 8.75$ 12 104.97$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 319.77$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 213.07$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 213.07$
A-1.7
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway

FULL STREET SECTIONS
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
6 CONTINGENCY
923.29$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 138.49$
1,061.78$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 1,061.78$ 31.85$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 1,061.78$ 15.93$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 1,061.78$ 127.41$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 1,061.78$ 15.93$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 1,061.78$ 26.54$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 1,061.78$ 138.03$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 355.70$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 1,061.78$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 1,061.78$ 31.85$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 31.85$
1,449$
* Varies based on street section
** Based on 950 LF of street section. Type A light is assumed.

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL
8 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1E a r t h w o r k
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 1.33 28.60$ EROSION CONTROL LF 13.10$ 0.5 6.55$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 35.15$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 0.5 17.88$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 17.88$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (5" AC) SF 3.90$ 14.5 56.55$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (10" AB) SF 3.00$ 18 54.00$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 5 38.21$ CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 1 31.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 1 23.60$ TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 203.36$
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS (NON-DECORATIVE) LF 35.80$ 0.5 17.90$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 0.5 89.50$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 5.5 36.30$ LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 8.75$ 6 52.48$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 196.18$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 135.77$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 135.77$
A-1.8
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway

HALF STREET SECTIONS
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
6 CONTINGENCY
588.34$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 88.25$
676.59$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 676.59$ 20.30$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 676.59$ 10.15$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 676.59$ 81.19$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 676.59$ 10.15$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 676.59$ 16.91$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 676.59$ 87.96$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 226.66$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 676.59$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 676.59$ 20.30$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 20.30$
924$
* Varies based on street section
** Based on 950 LF of street section. Type A light is assumed.

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
9 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1E a r t h w o r k
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 1.56 33.54$ EROSION CONTROL LF 13.10$ 0.5 6.55$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 40.09$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 0.5 17.88$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 17.88$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (4" AC) SF 3.10$ 21.5 66.65$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (8" AB) SF 2.40$ 24.5 58.80$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 5 38.21$ CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 1 31.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 0 -$
TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 194.66$
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS (NON-DECORATIVE) LF 35.80$ 0.5 17.90$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 0.5 89.50$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 0 -$
LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 8.75$ 6 52.48$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 159.88$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 123.75$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 123.75$
A-1.9
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway

HALF STREET SECTION
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
6 CONTINGENCY
536.26$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 80.44$
616.70$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 616.70$ 18.50$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 616.70$ 9.25$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 616.70$ 74.00$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 616.70$ 9.25$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 616.70$ 15.42$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 616.70$ 80.17$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 206.60$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 616.70$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 616.70$ 18.50$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 18.50$
842$
* Varies based on street section
** Based on 950 LF of street section. Type A light is assumed.

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL
10 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1E a r t h w o r k
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 1.33 28.60$ EROSION CONTROL LF 13.10$ 0.5 6.55$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 35.15$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 0.5 17.88$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 17.88$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (5" AC) SF 3.90$ 14.5 56.55$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (10" AB) SF 3.00$ 18 54.00$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 5 38.21$ CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 1 31.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 1 23.60$ TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 203.36$
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS (NON-DECORATIVE) LF 35.80$ 0.5 17.90$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 0.5 89.50$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 5.5 36.30$ LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 8.75$ 6 52.48$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 196.18$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 135.77$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 135.77$
A-1.10
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway

HALF STREET SECTIONS
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
6 CONTINGENCY
588.34$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 88.25$
676.59$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 676.59$ 20.30$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 676.59$ 10.15$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 676.59$ 81.19$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 676.59$ 10.15$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 676.59$ 16.91$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 676.59$ 87.96$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 226.66$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 676.59$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 676.59$ 20.30$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 20.30$
924$
* Varies based on street section
** Based on 950 LF of street section. Type A light is assumed.

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL
A-2
Traffic Signals
Summary of Total Costs

SHEET PROJECT NAME TOTAL COST
(rounded)
2018 to 2021
% Change
A-2.1 Del Paso Road/National Drive 547,700$ 9.365% A-2.2 Del Paso Road/Club Center Drive 755,200$ 9.338% A-2.3 Del Paso Road/Sorento Road 755,200$ 9.338% Traffic Signals Total 2,058,000$
NOTES:

1. The amount is only the cost for the signalization. Roadway widening and improvements will happen with Del Paso Road, National Drive, Club Center Drive Improvements

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1 SIGNALIZATION
6 x 6 x 2 x 2
Signal LS 273,400.00$ 1 273,400.00$
F&I Poles (sizes vary) included included included
F&I - Pedestrian Heads, included included included
F&I - Pedestrian Push button w/ audible signal included included included F&I - Signal Heads included included included
F&I - Detector Loops (vehicle and bike) included included included F&I - New Pull Boxes included included included
F&I Conduit included included included
F&I Wiring included included included
F&I - 'Street Lights 165 Watt included included included Service Point included included included
F&I - Mast-Arm-Mounted Illuminated Street Name Signs included included included F&I - Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emptions System included included included Concrete Flatwork Controller Pad included included included Start-up, Test included included included
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 SIGNALIZATION 273,400.00$
2 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 82,020.00$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 MINOR ITEMS 82,020.00$
A-2.1
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Intersection signal exists as interim condition. Some modifications and additions would be required to complete fully functioning ultimate condition intersection. Amount for upgrade included in above pricing.

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
3 CONTINGENCY
355,420.00$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 53,313.00$
408,733.00$
4 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 408,733.00$ 12,261.99$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 0.0% 408,733.00$ -$
DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 408,733.00$ 49,047.96$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 408,733.00$ 6,131.00$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 408,733.00$ 10,218.33$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 408,733.00$ 53,135.29$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 130,794.56$
5 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 2% 408,733.00$ 8,174.66$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 UTILITIES 8,174.66$
6 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 0.0% 408,733.00$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 6 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION -$
547,702$
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1 SIGNALIZATION
6 x 6 x 2
Signal LS 382,700.00$ 1 382,700.00$
F&I Poles (sizes vary) included included included
F&I - Pedestrian Heads, included included included
F&I - Pedestrian Push button w/ audible signal included included included F&I - Signal Heads included included included
F&I - Detector Loops (vehicle and bike) included included included F&I - New Pull Boxes included included included
F&I Conduit included included included
F&I Wiring included included included
F&I - 'Street Lights 165 Watt included included included Service Point included included included
F&I - Mast-Arm-Mounted Illuminated Street Name Signs included included included F&I - Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emptions System included included included Concrete Flatwork Controller Pad included included included Start-up, Test included included included
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 SIGNALIZATION 382,700.00$
2 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 114,810.00$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 MINOR ITEMS 114,810.00$
A-2.2
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Cost Estimate
INTX
HERE

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
3 CONTINGENCY
497,510.00$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 74,626.50$
572,136.50$
4 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 572,136.50$ 17,164.10$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 0.0% 572,136.50$ -$
DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 572,136.50$ 68,656.38$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 572,136.50$ 8,582.05$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 572,136.50$ 14,303.41$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 572,136.50$ 74,377.75$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 183,083.68$
5 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0% 572,136.50$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 UTILITIES -$
6 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 0.0% 572,136.50$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 6 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION -$
755,220$

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1 SIGNALIZATION
6 x 6 x 2
Signal LS 382,700.00$ 1 382,700.00$
F&I Poles (sizes vary) included included included
F&I - Pedestrian Heads, included included included
F&I - Pedestrian Push button w/ audible signal included included included F&I - Signal Heads included included included
F&I - Detector Loops (vehicle and bike) included included included F&I - New Pull Boxes included included included
F&I Conduit included included included
F&I Wiring included included included
F&I - 'Street Lights 165 Watt included included included Service Point included included included
F&I - Mast-Arm-Mounted Illuminated Street Name Signs included included included F&I - Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emptions System included included included Concrete Flatwork Controller Pad included included included Start-up, Test included included included
TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 SIGNALIZATION 382,700.00$
2 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 114,810.00$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 MINOR ITEMS 114,810.00$
A-2.3
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway
Roadway Cross Section index
Preliminary Cost Estimate

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
3 CONTINGENCY
497,510.00$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 74,626.50$
572,136.50$
4 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 572,136.50$ 17,164.10$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 0.0% 572,136.50$ -$
DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 572,136.50$ 68,656.38$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 572,136.50$ 8,582.05$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 572,136.50$ 14,303.41$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 572,136.50$ 74,377.75$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 183,083.68$
5 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0% 572,136.50$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 UTILITIES -$
6 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 0.0% 572,136.50$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 6 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION -$
755,220$

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
A-3
Traffic Circles
Summary of Total Costs

SHEET PROJECT NAME TOTAL COST
(rounded)
2018 to 2021
% Change
A-3.1 Traffic Circle - Club Center/Street "C" 563,800$ 19.046% A-3.2 Traffic Circle - Club Center/Street "G" 563,800$ 19.046% A-3.3 Traffic Circle - National Drive 563,800$ 19.046% Traffic Circles Total 1,691,000$
NOTES:

1. Rush River Road in Sacramento was used as example to develop components and quantities

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1 Earthwork
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 770 16,555.00$ EROSION CONTROL LF 6.60$ 325 2,145.00$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 18,700.00$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 325 11,618.75$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 11,618.75$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (5" AC) SF 3.90$ 7300 28,470.00$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (10" AB) SF 3.00$ 9200 27,600.00$ 8' WIDE CONCRETE APRON SF 12.64$ 1900 24,018.68$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 1600 12,227.67$ PEDESTRIAN RAMPS EA 2,145.00$ 8 17,160.00$
CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 320 9,920.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 830 19,588.00$ TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 138,984.36$
A-3.1
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway
Traffic Circle
Club Center Drive/Street "C"
Project Description:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS LF 35.80$ 325 11,635.00$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 245 43,855.00$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 6550 43,230.00$ LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 5.50$ 1500 8,250.00$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ 6' PRIVACY WALL W/ PILASTERS LF 188.00$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 106,970.00$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 82,881.93$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 82,881.93$
6 CONTINGENCY
359,155.04$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 53,873.26$
413,028.29$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 413,028.29$ 12,390.85$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 413,028.29$ 6,195.42$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 413,028.29$ 49,563.40$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 413,028.29$ 6,195.42$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 413,028.29$ 10,325.71$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 413,028.29$ 53,693.68$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 138,364.48$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 413,028.29$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 413,028.29$ 12,390.85$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 12,390.85$
563,784$
* Varies based on street section
** Varies based on street section. Type A light is assumed.

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1 Earthwork
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 770 16,555.00$ EROSION CONTROL LF 6.60$ 325 2,145.00$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 18,700.00$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 325 11,618.75$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 11,618.75$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (5" AC) SF 3.90$ 7300 28,470.00$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (10" AB) SF 3.00$ 9200 27,600.00$ 8' WIDE CONCRETE APRON SF 12.64$ 1900 24,018.68$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 1600 12,227.67$ PEDESTRIAN RAMPS EA 2,145.00$ 8 17,160.00$
CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 320 9,920.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 830 19,588.00$ TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 138,984.36$
A-3.2
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway
Traffic Circle
Club Center Drive/Street "G"
Project Description:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS LF 35.80$ 325 11,635.00$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 245 43,855.00$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 6550 43,230.00$ LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 5.50$ 1500 8,250.00$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ 6' PRIVACY WALL W/ PILASTERS LF 188.00$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 106,970.00$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 82,881.93$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 82,881.93$
6 CONTINGENCY
359,155.04$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 53,873.26$
413,028.29$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 413,028.29$ 12,390.85$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 413,028.29$ 6,195.42$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 413,028.29$ 49,563.40$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 413,028.29$ 6,195.42$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 413,028.29$ 10,325.71$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 413,028.29$ 53,693.68$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 138,364.48$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 413,028.29$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 413,028.29$ 12,390.85$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 12,390.85$
563,784$
* Varies based on street section
** Varies based on street section. Type A light is assumed.

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1 Earthwork
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 21.50$ 770 16,555.00$ EROSION CONTROL LF 6.60$ 325 2,145.00$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 18,700.00$
2 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE LF 35.75$ 325 11,618.75$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 DRAINAGE 11,618.75$
3 PAVEMENT
* ASPHALT CONCRETE (5" AC) SF 3.90$ 7300 28,470.00$ * AGGREGATE BASE W/ LIME TREATMENT (10" AB) SF 3.00$ 9200 27,600.00$ 8' WIDE CONCRETE APRON SF 12.64$ 1900 24,018.68$ SIDEWALK (6" PCC/6"AB) SF 7.64$ 1600 12,227.67$ PEDESTRIAN RAMPS EA 2,145.00$ 8 17,160.00$
CURB & GUTTER LF 31.00$ 320 9,920.00$
TYPE 14A MEDIAN CURB LF 23.60$ 830 19,588.00$ TOTAL OR ITEM 3 PAVEMENT 138,984.36$
A-3.3
Panhandle Finance Plan - Roadway
Traffic Circle
National Drive
Project Description:

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
4 MISCELLANEOUS
** STREET LIGHTS / ELECTROLIERS LF 35.80$ 325 11,635.00$ JOINT TRENCH LF 179.00$ 245 43,855.00$
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING SF 6.60$ 6550 43,230.00$ LANDSCAPING BUFFER SF 5.50$ 1500 8,250.00$ LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/PUE SF 5.50$ 0 -$ 6' PRIVACY WALL W/ PILASTERS LF 188.00$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 4 MISCELLANEOUS 106,970.00$
5 MINOR ITEMS
MINOR ITEMS % 30.0% 82,881.93$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 MINOR ITEMS 82,881.93$
6 CONTINGENCY
359,155.04$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 53,873.26$
413,028.29$
7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING STUDIES % 3.0% 413,028.29$ 12,390.85$ ENVIROMENTAL DOCUMENT % 1.5% 413,028.29$ 6,195.42$ DESIGN ENGINEERING % 12.0% 413,028.29$ 49,563.40$ DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION % 1.5% 413,028.29$ 6,195.42$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 413,028.29$ 10,325.71$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 13.0% 413,028.29$ 53,693.68$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 7 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 138,364.48$
8 UTILITIES
UTILITIES RELOCATION % 0.0% 413,028.29$ -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 8 UTILITIES -$
9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION
ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION % 3.0% 413,028.29$ 12,390.85$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 9 ENVIROMENTAL MITIGATION 12,390.85$
563,784$
* Varies based on street section
** Varies based on street section. Type A light is assumed.

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(THE ABOVE EXCLUDES LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY & MAJOR STRUCTURES WORK)

GRAND TOTAL
B-1
Sanitary Sewer Index
Summary of Total Costs
SHEET PROJECT NAME TOTAL COST 2018 to 2021 % Change
B-1.1 Trunk Sanitary Sewer 1,164,000$ 12.573% Sanitary Sewer Total 1,164,000$
B-1
B-1.1 Panhandle Finance Plan

SANITARY SEWER INDEX

ITEM DESCRIPTION DEPTH
(Feet) QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST (Rounded)
1 15" trunk sewer line 14 1,280 L.F. 138 $ 176,400$ 2 18" trunk sewer line 14 2,120 L.F. 145 $ 308,400$ 3 21" trunk sewer line 15' - 17' 720 L.F. 190 $ 136,500$ 4 48" trunk sewer manhole 14' - 17' 13 EA. 9,482 $ 123,300$ 5 60" trunk sewer manhole 14' - 17' 3 EA. 11,242 $ 33,700$ 778,000$
117,000$
269,000$
1,164,000$

1. NOTES:

1. 15% CONTINGENCY
FUNDING SOURCES:

Trunk sewer assumes construction concurrent with road improvements: excludes pavement removal and replacement, roadway and erosion control related items.

Eligible for SASD reimbursements/credit.

Preliminary figure equal to $500K +/-

TRUNK SANITARY SEWER

SUBTOTAL
30% ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT

TOTAL TRUNK SEWER ESTIMATED COST
C-1
Storm Drain Index
Summary of Total Costs
SHEET PROJECT NAME TOTAL COST 2018 to 2021 % Change
C-1.1 Storm Drain System 9,654,000$ 13.603%
C-1.2 Detention Basin Expansion 4,841,000$ 14.661% Onsite Public Frontage Total 14,495,000$
C-1
C-1.1 Panhandle Finance Plan

STORM DRAIN INDEX
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST (Rounded) 1 24" Storm Drain 2,040 LF 72.40 $ 147,700$ 2 27" Storm Drain 970 LF 77.35 $ 75,000 $ 3 30" Storm Drain 470 LF 80.41 $ 37,800 $ 4 42" Storm Drain 790 LF 105.81 $ 83,600 $ 5 48" Storm Drain 2,170 LF 111.38 $ 241,700$ 6 60" Storm Drain 1,150 LF 222.76 $ 256,200$ 7 66" Storm Drain 690 LF 316.08 $ 218,100$ 8 72" Storm Drain 4,910 LF 345.02 $ 1, 694,000$ 9 78" Storm Drain 8,800 LF 413.31 $ 3, 637,100$ 10 78" Storm Drain Outfall 2 EA 32,800.00 $ 65,600 $ 6,457,000$
969,000$
2,228,000$
9,654,000$
Notes:

3. Storm Drain System is not reimbursable by City of Sacramento 15% CONTINGENCY
30% ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
Storm Drain System
TOTAL

SUBTOTAL

1. Storm drain assumes construction concurrent with road improvements, and excludes pavement removal and replacement.

2. Storm drain system includes the components listed above because each segment of pipe is required for a complete functioning system.

C-1.2
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST (Rounded) 1 Detention Pond - Excavation 88,900 c.y. $5.50 489,000$ 2 Detention Pond - Finish Grading 444,170 s.f. $0.11 48,600$ 3 Pump Station Outlet Structure 1 l.s. $16,400.00 16,400$ 4 Pump Station Inlet Structure 1 l.s. $21,900.00 21,900$ 5 Pump Station 1 l.s. $546,700.00 546,700$
6 Weir Erosion Protection - Rip Rap 1' deep 425 tons $49.00 20,800$ 7 Detention Pond - Maint. Path (6" ab @ 12') 39, 600 s.f. $1.69 67,000$ 8 Metal access gate 1 e.a. $5,194.96 5,200$
9 12 Concrete access ramp 2,760 s.f. $8.75 24,100$
10 6" Concrete Spillway 3,600 s.f. $8.70 31,300$
11 Geotextiles 444,170 s.f. $0.22 97,100$
12 Rip Rap/Cobble Rock Protection at Outfall Str. (2) 41 tons $48.24 2,000$ 13 Hydroseed 328,000 s.f. $0.11 36,100$
14 Detention Pond - Fencing: Post & Cable 3,300 l.f. $11.00 36,300$ 15 Detention Pond - Fencing: tubular steel (housing) 850 l.f. $37.00 31,500$ 16 Detention Pond - Landscaping (25% coverage & trees) 116,850 s.f. $ 5.50 642,700$ 2,117,000$
318,000$
731,000$
3,166,000$
Real-Estate Acquisition 6.7 acres 250,000.00$ $1,675,000 Total Cost 4,841,000$
Notes:

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

1. School has already acquired the land and excavated their portion of the basin (6.9 acres). Dirtwork and above quantities Detention Basin Expansion

SUBTOTAL
15% CONTINGENCY
30% ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT

D-1
Potable Water Index
Summary of Total Costs
SHEET PROJECT NAME TOTAL COST 2018 to 2021 % Change
D-1.1 Transmission Main 2,948,000$ 9.428%
Potable Water Total 2,948,000$
D-1
D-1.1 Panhandle Finance Plan

POTABLE WATER INDEX

ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST (Rounded)
1 18" Water transmission main 950 l.f. 147 $ 140,000$ 2 24" Water transmission main 9,300 l.f. 197$ 1,832,100$ 1,972,000$
296,000$
680,000$
2,948,000$
REIMBURSEMENT SOURCES:

1. 1.

2. TRANSMISSION MAIN

SUBTOTAL
15% CONTINGENCY
30% ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT

TOTAL TRANSMISSION MAIN ESTIMATED COST
T-Main construction costs assume construction concurrent with road improvements: excludes pavement removal and replacement, utility conflict resolution.

Reimbursement available, applied as water meter credits.

NOTES
Transmission main costs include fittings and valves at 500' spacing.

E-1 Panhandle Finance Plan

WAPA CORRIDOR TRAIL INDEX

ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT
PRICE
COST
(Rounded)
1 12' Trail with DG shoulders 7,800 l.f. 86$ 667,000$ 2 20' Landscape Area 231,600 s.f 7.40$ 1,713,800$ 3 Open Space In WAPA Corridor 19.1 a.c. 8,388$ 160,200$ 4 Park Space in WAPA Corridor - Landscape/turf 100,500 s.f 7.40$ 743,700$ 5 Park Space in WAPA Corridor - Minimal Landscape/Natural 269,500 s.f 7.40$ 1,994,300$ 5,279,000$
5,279,000$
Landscape items and unit prices above include contingency and engineering. Base price is $5/sf

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL WAPA CORRIDOR WITH TRAIL ESTIMATED COST
NOTES

POWERLINE CORRIDOR CLASS I BIKE TRAIL

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1 EARTHWORK
CLEAR AND GRUB SF 0.11$ 16 1.75$
TRAIL ROUGH GRADING CY 5.96$ 0.15 0.89$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 2.65$
2 PAVEMENT
ASPHALT CONCRETE (3" AC) SF 2.30$ 12 27.60$ AGGREGATE BASE (6" AB) SF 1.80$ 12 21.60$ DECOMPOSED GRANITE SF 2.80$ 4 11.20$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 PAVEMENT 60.40$
3 MISCELLANEOUS
SIGNAGE/STRIPING LF 0.24$ 1 0.24$
NATIVE LANDSCAPING/IRRIGATION SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 3 MISCELLANEOUS 0.24$
4 CONTINGENCY

63.29$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 9.49$

72.78$
5 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
DESIGN ENGINEERING % 5.0% 72.78$ 3.64$ PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION % 5.0% 72.78$ 3.64$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 72.78$ 1.82$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 5.0% 72.78$ 3.64$ MISC % 2.5% 72.78$ 1.82$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 12.74$
86$

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

GRAND TOTAL
TRAIL
Panhandle Finance Plan - Trails
7,800 LF
Trails Cross Section Index
Preliminary Per Foot Cost Estimate
Typical Cross Section:

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST
1 EARTHWORK
CLEAR AND GRUB AC 4,767.00$ 1 4,767.00$
ROUGH GRADING CY 3.58$ 403 1,440.88$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 1 EARTHWORK 6,207.88$
2 PAVEMENT
ASPHALT CONCRETE (3" AC) SF 2.30$ 0 -$ AGGREGATE BASE (6" AB) SF 1.80$ 0 -$ DECOMPOSED GRANITE SF 2.80$ 0 -$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 2 PAVEMENT -$
3 MISCELLANEOUS
SIGNAGE/STRIPING LF 0.24$ 0 -$
NATIVE LANDSCAPING/IRRIGATION SF 5.50$ 0 -$ TOTAL FOR ITEM 3 MISCELLANEOUS -$
4 CONTINGENCY
6,207.88$
CONTINGENCY % 15.0% 931.18$
7,139.07$
5 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
DESIGN ENGINEERING % 5.0% 7,139.07$ 356.95$ PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION % 5.0% 7,139.07$ 356.95$ CONSTRUCTION STAKING % 2.5% 7,139.07$ 178.48$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT % 5.0% 7,139.07$ 356.95$ MISC % 2.5% 7,139.07$ 178.48$
TOTAL FOR ITEM 5 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT 1,249.34$
8,388$ GRAND TOTAL
OPEN SPACE at CORRIDOR
Panhandle Finance Plan - Trails

19.1 AC
Preliminary Per Acre Cost Estimate

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
G-1
Supplemental Finance Report
Summary of Additional Road Costs
SHEET PROJECT NAME TOTAL COST 2018 to 2021 % Change
G-1.1 Del Paso Frontage Improvements (Northside) 1,267,000$ 16.846% G-1.2 Sorento Road Horse Fence (West Side) 201,000$ 9.239% G-1.3 Sorento Road Frontage Improvements (West Side) 733,000$ 16.312% G-1.4 Entry Monumentation 177,000$ 18.395% G-1.5 Elkhorn Boulevard (Off-Site) 559,000$ 19.444% Sanitary Sewer Total 2,937,000$
G-1
G-1.1
Del Paso Frontage Improvements (Northside)
Roadway Segment TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST Landscape (18' wide) 23,500 s.f. 8.75$ 206,000$ Soundwall 2,700 l.f. 208.56$ 563,000$
Pilasters 20 e.a. 1,749.50$ 35,000$
12' Wide PCC Trail 31,300 s.f. 9.53$ 298,000$
1,102,000$
165,000$
1,267,000$

SUBTOTAL
15% CONTINGENCY
G-1.2
Sorento Road Horse Fence (West Side)
Fence/Soundwall TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST Horse Fence 3,200 l.f. 55$ 175,000$
175,000$
26,000$
201,000$

SUBTOTAL
15% CONTINGENCY
G-1.3
Sorento Road Frontage Improvements (West Side)
Roadway Segment TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST Landscape 20,500 s.f. 8.75 $ 179,000$
12' Wide PCC Trail 48,000 l.f. 9.53 $ 458,000$
SUBTOTAL 637,000$
15% CONTINGENCY 96,000$
733,000$
G-1.4
Entry Monumentation
Entry Monumentation TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST National Drive at Del Paso Road 1 e.a. 77,467 $ 77,000 $ Club Center Drive at Del Paso Road 1 e.a. 77,467 $ 77,000 $ SUBTOTAL 154,000$
15% CONTINGENCY 23,000$
177,000$
G-1.5
Elkhorn Boulevard
Roadway Segment TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST Segment - State Route 99 to East Commerce 1 l.s. 24,872$ 25,000$ Segment - East Commerce Way to Natomas Blvd. 1 l.s. 250,796 $ 251,000$ Segment - Natomas Blvd. tp City Limit East 1 l.s. 129,543 $ 130,000$ Segment - City Limit East to Panhandle Limit East 1 l.s. 79,799$ 80,000$ 486,000$
73,000$
559,000$

SUBTOTAL
15% CONTINGENCY
Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH

PROJECT BOUNDARY

ROADWAY

SEGMENTS
LEGEND
A-1.1
A-1.2
A-1.3
A-1.4
A-1.5
A-1.6
A-1.7

Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY
A-1.1
1 Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY
A-1.2
2 9

Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY
A-1.3
3 Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY
A-1.4
4 6

Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY
A-1.5
5 Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY
A-1.6
7 Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY
A-1.7
10 8

Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY

TRAFFIC

SIGNALS
A-2.3
A-2.1
A-2.2

Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY

TRAFFIC

CIRCLES
A-3.3
A-3.1
A-3.2

Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY
TRUNK

SANITARY
SEWER
21" SS
18" SS
15" SS

Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY

STORM DRAIN
SYSTEM
78" OUTFALL

STRUCTURES
LEGEND
78" SD
72" SD
66" SD
60" SD
48" SD
42" SD
30" SD
27" SD
24" SD

Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.Detention Basin
April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY

DETENTION
BASIN

EXPANSION
78" OUTFALL

STRUCTURES
PUMPS
LAND

ACQUISITION

EXISTING

BASIN - LAND

OWNED BY

TWIN RIVERS
LAND

ACQUISITION

Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 4
Village 3
Village 5
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4
Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Street "C"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.

April 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
*SNLD = Suburban Neighborhood Low Density (Detached Single-Family Residential ) -E = Estate (4.5 du/ac average net density)
-T = Traditional (6.0 du/ac average net density)
-C = Compact (7.5 du/ac average net density)
TOTALS

LAND USE SUMMARY
Zoning UnitsGeneral Plan
Park - Ninos Parkway A-OS
PUD Land Use
PR
Acres (N)Acres (G)

7.0±8.5±
*
Major Roads (Del Paso Rd & Elkhorn Blvd) varies
Detention Basin - Open Space A-OS
Collector and Residential Streets varies
varies
PR
varies

4.7±

13.4±

47.8±

4.7±

13.6±

0.0±
Open Space - Ninos Parkway A-OSPR 23.3±27.5±
Planned Development APD 119.0±123.0±(Krumenacher Property) SNLD-E
SNLD-C
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R-1
R1-A
455±
444±
SNLD-T R1-A 766±
High School / Middle School
Elementary School R1-A
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
111.5± 101.2±

59.3±
127.8±

60.4±

10.0±

65.2±
140.2±

65.5±

11.8±SNLD (3-8 du/ac)
Park - Quimby A-OSPR 15.5±17.9±
589.4± 589.4± 1,665± DU
SNLD (3-8 du/ac) R1-A
= Pedestrian Connection Only
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Open Space Corridor
Detention Basin
Park
School
SNLD-E
SNLD-T
SNLD-C

PROJECT BOUNDARY
WATER

TRANSMISSION
MAIN
24" TM
18" TM

(PR/A-OS)

6.5 ± AC. (NET)

20.2 ± AC. (GR)

14.6± AC. (GR)
SNLD-E
(SNLD/R1-A)
(SNLD/R1)
(SNLD/R1)
SNLD-E

47.0 ± AC. (GR)
Village 7

87.3 ± AC. (GR)
Planned

11.6± AC. (GR)

11.6 ± AC. (NET)
Planned
(PD/A)
Development 2

20.8 ± AC. (GR)
Village 8

17.6 ± AC. (GR)

16.4 ± AC. (NET)
Village 11

65.5 ± AC. (GR)

13.6 ± AC. (GR)

13.4± AC. (NET)
(SNLD/R1-A)
(PR/A-OS)
(PR/A-OS)

60.4 ± AC. (NET)

10.5 ± AC. (NET)

12.3 ± AC. (GR)

11.3 ± AC. (NET)
(SNLD/R1-A)

13.0 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

23.3 ± AC. (GR)

4.6 ± AC. (GR)

21.2 ± AC. (NET)
(PR/A-OS)

4.1 ± AC. (NET)

4.1 ± AC. (GR)
(PR/A-OS)

3.1 ± AC. (NET)

11.7 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

10.0 ± AC. (NET)

14.4 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

12.2 ± AC. (NET)

36.4 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

34.3 ± AC. (NET)

21.4 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

19.9 ± AC. (NET)

25.9± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

22.7 ± AC. (NET)

13.0 ± AC. (GR)
Open Space 4
(PR/A-OS)

12.3 ± AC. (NET)

30.0 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

26.1± AC. (NET)

5.7± AC. (GR)
(PR/A-OS)

5.0 ± AC. (NET)

19.8 ± AC. (GR)

18.6 ± AC. (NET)
Ninos Parkway
Open Space 3
Ninos Parkway
Park 2
Quimby
Middle School
Detention Basin
Open Space
Village 12
SNLD-T
Village 9
Village 5
SNLD-T
(SNLD/R1-A)
SNLD-C
Village 3
Village 4
SNLD-C
SNLD-T
Elementary School
Quimby
Park 1
Village 1
SNLD-T
Village 2
SNLD-T
Open Space 2
Ninos Parkway
Village 14
SNLD-T

12.2 ± AC. (GR)
(SNLD/R1-A)

12.2 ± AC. (NET)
Village 13
SNLD-T
High School/

6.9 ± AC. (GR)

16.6 ± AC. (NET)
Park 4
Ninos Parkway

13.3 ± AC. (NET)
Village 10
SNLD-C
Village 6

38.9 ± AC. (NET)
Development 1
PD
(PD/A)

83.3 ± AC. (NET)
PD

20.2 ± AC. (NET)
(SNLD/R1)
SNLD-E
(SNLD/R1-A)
SNLD-C

2.0 ± AC. (GR)
(PR/A-OS)

1.5 ± AC. (NET)
Park 3
Ninos Parkway
(PD/A)
PD
Develop-

24.1 ± AC. (GR)

24.1 ± AC. (NET)
Planned
ment 3
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION;

FINAL ALIGNMENT TO BE

DETERMINED
Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

Street "C"
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.
(National Drive)Street "C"

5.4 ± AC. (GR)
(PR/A-OS)

5.1 ± AC. (NET)
Open Space 1
Ninos Parkway
(National Drive)

PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN
October 18, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH

NINOS TRAIL

NINOS TRAIL LANDSCAPING

OPEN SPACE (NATURAL)
PARK: MINIMAL LANDSCAPE/NATURAL
PARK: LANDSCAPE/TURF
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 5
Village 3
Village 4
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
Center
Suburban
Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.
(National Drive)
Street "C"

PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN
June 01, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH

Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 5
Village 3
Village 4
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
Center
Suburban
Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.
(National Drive)
Street "C"

PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN
June 01, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH

Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 5
Village 3
Village 4
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
Center
Suburban
Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.
(National Drive)
Street "C"

PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN
June 01, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 5
Village 3
Village 4
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
Center
Suburban
Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.
(National Drive)
Street "C"

PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN
June 01, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 5
Village 3
Village 4
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
Center
Suburban
Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.
(National Drive)
Street "C"

PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN
June 01, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 5
Village 3
Village 4
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
Center
Suburban
Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.
(National Drive)
Street "C"

PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN
June 01, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH
Village 7
Planned
Planned
Development 2
Village 8
Village 11
Open Space 3
Open Space 2
Park 2
Middle School
Detention Basin
Village 12
Village 9
Village 5
Village 3
Village 4
Elementary School Park 1
Village 1
Village 2
Open Space 1
Village 14
Village 13
High School/
Park 4Village 10
Village 6
Development 1
Park 3
Develop-
Planned
ment 3
Center
Suburban
Aimwell Ave.

Elkhorn Boulevard
Del Paso Road
Mayfield St.

Club Center Dr.

Domino Avenue
Faletto Avenue
Sandmark Drive
Amazon Avenue
Barros Drive
Sorento Road
Street "A"
Street "B"
Street "E"
Mayfield St.

Street "D"
Club Center Dr.

Street "F"
Club Center Dr.

Barros Drive
Club Center Dr.

National Drive
Street "G"
Aimwell
Ave.

Faletto Ave.

Cadman Ct.

E. Levee Rd.
(National Drive)
Street "C"

PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN
June 01, 2017

PANHANDLE
City of Sacramento
TRUXEL RD.

ARENA BLVD.

BLVD.

NORTHGATE
US-99
US-99 & I-5
DEL PASO RD.

I-80
I-80
I-5

PROJECT
SITE
SORENTO RD.NATOMAS BLVD.

ELKHORN BLVD.

NORTH MARKET BLVD.

DEL PASO RD.

NORTH

THIS PAGE INTE

NTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX C:

Estimated Fee Revenue
Tabl
e C-1 Estimated Fee Revenue at Buildout ........................ C-1 Table C-2 Panhandle Fee Program Fees ................................ C-2 Table C-3 Panhandle TDIF Rates .......................................... C-3

Table C-1
Panhandle Finance Plan
Estimated Fee Revenue at Buildout (2021$)
Total
Item Revenue Estates Traditional Village
Number of Units 340 869 453
Fee Revenue [1]
Processing Fees
Administrative Processing Fee $272,568 $55,760 $142,516 $74,292 Building Permit $4,728,328 $1,060,559 $2,491,956 $1,175,813 Technology Surcharge $378,266 $84,845 $199,356 $94,065
Plan Review Fee $992,949 $222,717 $523,311 $246,921
Technology Surcharge $79,436 $17,817 $41,865 $19,754
Planning Review Fee $148,942 $33,408 $78,497 $37,038
Planning Inspection Fee $558,432 $114,240 $291,984 $152,208 Seismic/Strong Motion $77,856 $17,714 $41,085 $19,057
General Plan Recovery Fee $1,557,124 $354,276 $821,704 $381,143 Green Building/CBSC Fee $24,704 $5,780 $13,035 $5,889
Construction Excise Tax $2,945,515 $706,384 $1,529,788 $709,344 Fire Inspection Fee $420,323 $94,860 $222,247 $103,216
Fire Review Fee $217,722 $44,540 $113,839 $59,343
Subtotal Processing Fees $12,402,166 $2,812,901 $6,511,182 $3,078, 083 City Development Impact Fees
Adjusted Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) $3,636,456 $743,920 $1,901,372 $991,164 Water Development Fee $5,522,976 $1,129,851 $2,887,765 $1,505,360 Water Easement Tap Installation Fee $3,028,164 $619,480 $1,583,31 8 $825,366 Water Meter Installation $1,116,864 $228,480 $583,968 $304,416 Residential Construction Water Use Fee $334,062 $68,340 $174,669 $91,053 Sewer Development Fee $251,560 $51,462 $131,532 $68,566 City Business Operations Tax $239,557 $54,504 $126,416 $58,637 Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) $116,340 $23,800 $60,830 $31,710 Neighborhood and Community Parks $6,501,744 $1,330,080 $3,399,528 $ 1,772,136 Citywide Parks/Facilities $3,309,042 $676,940 $1,730,179 $901,923 Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Fee $7,106,585 $1,894,922 $3,697,226 $1,514,436 Mixed Income Housing Ordinance/Housing Trust Fund $11,245,088 $2, 575,500 $5,924,408 $2,745,180 Residential Construction Tax $639,870 $130,900 $334,565 $174,405 Subtotal City Development Impact Fees $43,048,308 $9,528,179 $22, 535,776 $10,984,352 Other Agency Fees
Twin Rivers and Robla Elementary School District Fees $15,141,90 0 $3,468,000 $7,977,420 $3,696,480 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Dev. Impact Fee $7,793,625 $ 1,785,000 $4,106,025 $1,902,600 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee $2,290,269 $4 68,527 $1,197,499 $624,243 Air Quality Mitigation Fee $459,433 $93,987 $240,221 $125,224 Sacramento Area Sewer District (Expansion) $5,815,408 $1,550,639 $ 3,025,487 $1,239,282 Regional SAN (New) $10,768,098 $2,202,860 $5,630,251 $2,934,987 Subtotal Other Agency Fees $42,268,733 $9,569,013 $22,176,903 $10,5 22,817 Panhandle Fee Program Revenue
Roadways $14,519,000 $2,970,193 $7,591,463 $3,957,345
Sanitary Sewer $314,000 $79,491 $155,097 $79,412
Storm Drainage $14,948,865 $3,784,396 $7,383,822 $3,780,647 Trails $1,048,000 $214,392 $547,961 $285,646
Regional Park Land Acquisition $3,968,856 $811,920 $2,075,172 $1,081,764 Transit $975,594 $199,580 $510,103 $265,911
Fire Facilities $990,552 $202,640 $517,924 $269,988
Community Center $611,616 $125,120 $319,792 $166,704
Library $1,555,632 $318,240 $813,384 $424,008
Subtotal Panhandle Fee Program Revenue $38,932,115 $8,705,972 $19 ,914,718 $10,311,425 Panhandle Fee Program Admin Fee Revenue $1,167,963 $261,179 $597, 442 $309,343 Total Fee Revenue $137,819,284 $30,877,244 $71,736,021 $35,206,019 fee rev
Source: City of Sacramento; various public agencies; EPS. [1] See Table 6-1 for fees per unit.

Residential
Prepared by EPS 5/23/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx C-1
Table C-2
Panhandle Finance Plan
Panhandle Fee Program Fees (FY 2022-23)
Source
/ Total Fee
Item Assumption Revenue Estates (E) Traditional (T) Village (V) Units 1,662 340 869 453
Panhandle DA Fee Component per unit per unit per unit
Regional Park Land Acquisition Table 3-9 $3,968,856 $2,388 $2,388 $2 ,388 Transit Table 3-9 $975,594 $587 $587 $587
Fire Facilities Table 3-9 $990,552 $596 $596 $596
Community Center Table 3-9 $611,616 $368 $368 $368
Library Table 3-9 $1,555,632 $936 $936 $936
Subtotal $8,102,250 $4,875 $4,875 $4,875
Fee Program Administration 3% $243,068 $146 $146 $146
Total $8,345,318 $5,021 $5,021 $5,021
Panhandle Impact Fee Component
Roadways Table A-1 $14,519,000 $8,736 $8,736 $8,736
Sanitary Sewer Table A-2 $314,000 $234 $178 $175
Storm Drainage (Including Land Acquisition) Table A-3 $14,948,865 $11,131 $8,497 $8,346 Trails Table A-4 $1,048,000 $631 $631 $631
Subtotal $30,829,865 $20,731 $18,042 $17,888
Fee Program Administration 3% $924,896 $622 $541 $537
Total $31,754,761 $21,353 $18,583 $18,424
Total Panhandle Fee Program $40,100,078 $26,374 $23,604 $23,445 sfd
Source: MacKay & Somps (November 29, 2017); Harris (January 2022); City of Sacramento; EPS Residential
Prepared by EPS 5/24/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx C-2
Table C-3
Panhandle Finance Plan
Panhandle TDIF Rates
Land Use Baseline Panhandle
Effective Date
Residential Land Use Categories
Single-Family $2,740 $2,188
Multifamily $1,574 $1,257
Nonresidential Land Use Categories
Retail First 5000 SF $0.41 $0.33
5001 SF and above $4.11 $3.28
Office First 5000 SF $0.41 $0.32
5001 SF and above $4.06 $3.24
Major Medical Facilities First 5000 SF $0.39 $0.31
5001 SF and above $3.91 $3.12
Schools First 5000 SF $0.15 $0.12
5001 SF and above $1.53 $1.22
Church/Assembly First 5000 SF $0.09 $0.07
5001 SF and above $0.87 $0.70
Industrial First 5000 SF $0.28 $0.22
5001 SF and above $2.78 $0.22
Warehouse First 5000 SF $0.13 $0.11
5001 SF and above $1.32 $1.06
Gas Station $ 4,117 $ 3,289
Hotel/Motel $ 1,130 $ 903
ptdif
Source: City of Sacramento
----------------------- per room -------------------------- Panhandle TDIF Rates
Include Credits
for Alternative Modes
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------ per unit --------------------------- ---------------------- per pump ------------------------- 07/01/22
Prepared by EPS 5/19/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202107 Panhandle DIF Nexus Study\Models\202107 FP M7.xlsx C-3

THIS PAGE INTE

NTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX D:

Potential Panhandle Services CFD
Detailed Cost Estimates and
Allocation Methodology
Table
D-1 City Cost Allocation Table—Summary of
Total Maintenance Costs and Maximum
Special Tax Rate ................................................ D-1 Table D-2 Maintenance Items, Responsibilities, and Costs....... D-2 Table D-3 Maintenance Benefit Units ................................... D-3 Table D-4 CFD Maintenance Cost Allocation Table—
Streetscapes ..................................................... D-4 Table D-5 CFD Maintenance Cost Allocation Table—
Parks and Open Space ........................................ D-5 Table D-6 CFD Maintenance Cost Allocation Table—
Utilities ............................................................. D-6

Table D‐1
Panhandle Finance Plan
City Cost Allocation Table ‐ Summary of Total Maintenance Costs and Maximum Special Tax Rate DRAFT
Capital Subtotal Cost Annual Total Cost Total City Maximum Facility: Allocation Admin. Allocation Maint. Costs Special Tax Benefit
Unit: 3.00%
City Maintenance Costs (2018$): $667,872 $20,036 $705,243 $37,372 Estimated Maximum Special Taxes (2018$)
Residential Units per Unit
Estates (E) 340 $408 $12 $431 $146,563 $431
Traditional (T) 869 $402 $12 $424 $368,650 $424
Village (V) 453 $397 $12 $419 $190,031 $419
1,662 $705,243
10/25/2017
Estimated Maximum Special Taxes Adjusted to 2021$ 8.465% Adjusted by percentage change in annual average CPI for San Francisco‐Oakland‐Hayward from 2018 through 2021.

Residential
per Unit
Estates (E) 340 $443 $13 $468 $158,969 $468
Traditional (T) 869 $436 $13 $460 $399,856 $460
Village (V) 453 $431 $13 $455 $206,117 $455
$764,942 2021$
Source: City of Sacramento; EPS.
$142 $270 $23 $11
$142 $270 $18 $11
$142 $270 $30 $11
$10
$10
& Repair/Replacement
Cost per Unit
Landscape Contingency
Daily
Trip Rate
$17,336
$10
Parks and
Streetscapes Open Space Utilities
$218,069 $414,000 $35,803
Daily Residents Developable
Trip Rate Served Acres
$131 $249 $17
$131 $249 $28
$131 $249 $21
D-1
Table D‐2
Panhandle Finance Plan
Maintenance Items, Responsibilities, and Costs (2018$)
DRAF
T
Unit Maintenance Included
Item Quantity Price Unit Responsibilit y in CFD? CFD Non‐CFD Streetscapes
Sorento Road Landscape (A‐1.1a) 20,50 0 $0.65 Sq. Ft. HOA Yes $13,325 $13,325 Sorento Road Landscape (A‐1.1a) ‐ Utilities 1 $1,61 0 Each HOA Yes $1,61 0 $1,610 ROW Landscape (back of curb to back of walk ‐ A‐1.2) 54,300 $0.65 Sq. Ft. City Yes $35,295 $0 Del Paso Road Landscape (A‐1.3) 23,50 0 $0.65 Sq. Ft. HOA Yes $15,275 $15,275 Del Paso Road Landscape (A‐1.3) ‐ Utilities 1 $1,89 0 Each HOA Yes $1,89 0 $1,890 Ninos Parkway Landscape 78,500 $0.65 Sq. Ft. HOA Yes $51,025 $51,025 Ninos Parkway Landscape ‐ Utilities 1 $3,969 Each HOA Yes $3,969 $3,969 5' Wide Sidewalk (B‐1.1) 35,20 0 $0.25 Sq. Ft. City Yes $8,80 0 $0 Sorento Road Horse Fence (A‐1.1) 3,200 $0.94 LF HOA Yes $3,00 0 $3,000 Sorento Road Masonry Wall 5,568 $1.11 LF HOA Yes $6,187 $6,187 Del Paso Road Soundwall (C‐1.1) 2,700 $1.11 LF HOA Yes $3,00 0 $3,000 Del Paso Road Pilasters (C‐1.1) 20 $250 Each HOA Yes $5,00 0 $5,000 Sorento Road Trail (12' Wide PCC) 48,000 $0.37 Sq. Ft. HOA Yes $17,76 0 $17,760 Del Paso Road Trail (12' Wide PCC) 31,300 $0.37 Sq. Ft. HOA Yes $11,581 $11,581 Ninos Parkway Bike Trail (12' Wide AC Paving) (A‐1.4) 94,20 0 $0.25 Sq. Ft. HOA Yes $23,55 0 $23,550 Ninos Parkway Shoulders (2‐2' DG Wide) (A‐1.4) 31,400 $0.18 Sq. Ft. HOA Yes $5,652 $5,652 Entry Feature / Landscape Monumentation (TBD) ‐ National (F‐1) 500 $0.65 Sq. Ft. HOA Yes $325 $325 Entry Features / Landscape Monumentation (TBD) ‐ Del Paso (F‐1) 500 $0.65 Sq. Ft. HOA Yes $325 $325 Del Paso Road Median (12' Wide)
1 31,272 $0.87 Sq. Ft. City No $0 $0
Major Collector Medians (12' Wide)1 118,800 $0.87 Sq. Ft. City No $0 $0 A Streets Contract Admin & Inspection 1 $10,50 0 Each City Yes $10,50 0 $0 Subtotals $218,069 $163,474
1 100% of these street medians qualify for funding through the Citywide Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District.

Parks and Open Space
Open Space 4 / Ninos Parkway 12.30 $2,50 0 Per Acre HOA Yes $30,75 0 $30,750 Open Space 3 / Ninos Parkway 4.10 $2,50 0 Per Acre HOA Yes $10,25 0 $10,250 Park 4 / Ninos Parkway 6.50 $15,00 0 Per Acre HOA Yes $97,50 0 $97,500 Park 3 / Ninos Parkway 1.50 $15,00 0 Per Acre HOA Yes $22,50 0 $22,500 Park 2 / Quimby 10.50 $15,00 0 Per Acre City Yes $157,50 0 $0 Park 1 / Quimby 5.00 $15,00 0 Per Acre City Yes $75,00 0 $0 Open Space 2 / Ninos Parkway 3.10 $2,50 0 Per Acre HOA Yes $7,75 0 $7,750 Open Space 1 / Ninos Parkway 5.10 $2,50 0 Per Acre HOA Yes $12,75 0 $12,750 Subtotals $414,000 $181,500
Utilities
E‐1.1 Detention Basin (area between 10‐year and 100‐year flood plains) 1.62 $15,00 0 Per Acre City Yes $24,27 7 $0 Landscaping along street frontages (behind sidewalk) 14,825 $0.65 SF City Yes $9,63 6 $0 Landscaping along street frontages ‐ Utilities 1 $1,89 0 Each City Yes $1,89 0 $0 Subtotals $35,803 $0
Subtotal Contingent Special Tax $667,872 $344,974
Contingency and Administration Costs
Landscaping Contingency & Repair/Replacement (15% of lsc. costs) 15% $115,570 $17,336 Administration (3% of Maintenance Costs) 3% $667,872 $20,03 6 Subtotal Contingency and Admin Costs $37,372
Total Project Contingent Special Tax Summary
Subtotal Annual Maintenance $667,872
Subtotal Contingency and Admin Costs $37,372
Total Contingent Special Tax $705,243
Sources: Panhandle Public Facilities Financing Plan; City of Sacramento. 10/25/2017 aintenance Cost Estimat
D-2
Table D‐3
Panhandle Finance Plan
Maintenance Benefit Units
Maintenance
Item:

Benefit
Land Use Unit:

Residential
Estates (E) 8.20 per unit 2.98 per unit 1.00 per acre
Traditional (T) 8.20 per unit 2.98 per unit 1.00 per acre Village (V) 8.20 per unit 2.98 per unit 1.00 per acre
1 Assumes a resident‐to‐employee ratio of 1.0 : 0.5 (i.e., 1.0 employees equals 0.5 residents).

Source: City of Sacramento. 10/25/2017
Residents
Trip Rate Served Acres
Parks and
Maintenance Open Space (Detention Basin)
Daily Persons Developable
Landscape Utilities
D-3
Table D‐4
Panhandle Finance Plan
CFD Maintenance Cost Allocation Table ‐ Streetscapes (2018$) DRAF
T
Daily Contingency
Net Trip Rate Total Pct. Cost & Repair/
Land Use Cost Units Acres per Unit Trips Allocation Allocation Total Streets Replacement Streets CFD Cost $218,069 92.6% 7.4%
$17,336
Total CFD Cost $235,404
Residential
Estates (E) 340 75.7 8.20 2,788 20.46% $48,157 $142 $131 $10 Traditional (T) 869 147.7 8.20 7,126 52.29% $123,084 $142 $131 $10 Village (V) 453 60.5 8.20 3,715 27.26% $64,163 $142 $131 $10 Total 1,662 283.9 13,628 100.00% $235,404
Source: City of Sacramento. 10/25/2017
Cost per Unit
Landscaping Cotingency &
Repair/Replacement
D-4
Table D‐5
Panhandle Finance Plan
CFD Maintenance Cost Allocation Table ‐ Parks and Open Space (2018$) DRAFT
Persons Total
Net per  Persons Percentage Cost Cost per
Land Use Units Acres Household Served Allocation Allocation Unit/Sq. Ft.

Total CFD Cost $414,000
Residential per unit
Estates (E) 340 75.7 2.98 1,013 20.46% $84,693 $249
Traditional (T) 869 147.7 2.98 2,590 52.29% $216,466 $249 Village (V) 453 60.5 2.98 1,350 27.26% $112,841 $249
Total 1,662 283.9 4,953 100.00% $414,000
Source: City of Sacramento. 10/25/2017
D-5
Table D‐6
Panhandle Finance Plan
CFD Maintenance Cost Allocation Table ‐ Utilities (2018$) DRAF
T
Units/ Net Percentage Cost Cost per
Land Use Sq. Ft. Acres Allocation Allocations Unit/Sq. Ft.

Total CFD Cost $35,803
Residential units per unit
Estates (E) 340 75.7 26.66% $9,547 $28
Traditional (T) 869 147.7 52.03% $18,627 $21
Village (V) 453 60.5 21.31% $7,630 $17
Total 1,662 283.9 100.00% $35,803
Source: City of Sacramento. 10/25/2017
D-6
Exhibit B

PHIF Schedule

Estate Traditional Village per unit per unit per unit
$8,736 $8,736 $8,736
$234 $178 $175
$11,131 $8,497 $8,346
$631 $631 $631
$20,731 $18,042 $17,888
$622 $541 $537
$21,353 $18,583 $18,424
Panhandle Impact Fee Component
Single Family Residential
Roadways
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Drainage (Including Land Acquisition)
Trails
Subtotal Impact Fee
Fee Program Administration
Total Impact Fee
RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council

AUTHORIZING

Establishment of an Accounting Funds and Multi-Year Operating Project for the Panhandle Impact and Developer Agreement (DA) Fees

BACKGROUND

A. The Panhandle project is a residential development project that is planned to be constructed on a 589-acre parcel within the North Natomas Community Plan area. On July 3, 2018, the City Council (Council) approved the Panhandle Planned Unit Development (PUD) Public Facilities Finance Plan (Resolution No. 2018-0285).

B. On May 31, 2022, Council adopted the Panhandle PUD Public Facilities Finance Plan and Development Impact Fee Nexus Study – 2022 Update (2022 Finance Plan) per Resolution No. 2022-0167. The 2022 Finance Plan sets forth the framework for the “Panhandle Fee Program,” which is a program for utilizing the Panhandle Impact Fee (PHIF) and the Panhandle Development Agreement Fee (DA Fee) to construct needed backbone infrastructure and public facilities in the area identified in the 2022 Finance Plan (the “Panhandle Area”).

C. On June 21, 2022, Council established the PHIF by adding Article XI to Chapter 18.56 of the City Code pursuant to Ordinance No. 2022-xxxx. Also on June 21, 2022, Council established the amount of the PHIF by Resolution No. 2022-xxxx. The DA Fee will be paid pursuant to the terms and conditions of the development agreements that were executed between the Panhandle developers and the City as a condition of approval for the Panhandle development projects.

D. Two new accounting funds need to be created to account for the receipt and use of the PHIF and the DA Fee, in accordance with Article IX, section 114, of the City Charter, and Government Code section 66006 for the PHIF.

E. A new multi-year operating project (MYOP) needs to be created to account for the administrative component of the PHIF and DA Fee, in accordance with Government Code section 66006 for the PHIF.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Background statements set forth above are true and correct.

Section 2. The City Manager or the City Manager’s designee is authorized and directed to create two new funds to be known as the Panhandle Impact Fee Fund and Panhandle DA Fee Fund, respectively.

Section 3. A new MYOP is established as the Panhandle Fee Program.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXXX

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council

June 21, 2022

ADOPTION OF REDUCED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE

WITHIN THE PANHANDLE AREA

BACKGROUND

A. The Panhandle project is a residential development project that is planned to be constructed on a 589-acre parcel within the North Natomas Community Plan area. On July 3, 2018, the City Council (Council) approved the Panhandle Planned Unit Development (PUD) Public Facilities Finance Plan (Resolution No. 2018-0285).

B. On May 31, 2022, Council adopted the Panhandle PUD Public Facilities Finance Plan and Development Impact Fee Nexus Study – 2022 Update (2022 Finance Plan) per Resolution No. 2022-0167. On June 21, 2022, Council established the Panhandle Impact Fee (PHIF) by adding Article XI to Chapter 18.56 of the City Code pursuant to Ordinance No. 2022-xxxx. Also on June 21, 2022, Council established the amount of the PHIF by Resolution No. 2022-xxxx. The PHIF will provide funding for a variety of backbone infrastructure projects and certain public facilities in the area identified in the 2022 Finance Plan (Panhandle Area), shown on the attached Exhibit A, including bikeway infrastructure.

C. On February 14, 2017, Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-0071 approving the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) nexus study (TDIF Nexus Study) to provide legally required findings for establishment of a citywide TDIF and establishing the amount of the TDIF. Pursuant to City Code section 18.56.330, TDIF funds are primarily used to finance transportation infrastructure projects identified in the TDIF Nexus Study. The TDIF Nexus Study included a TDIF Expenditure Plan which specifies the new transportation improvements projects that are to be funded, either fully or in part, with the citywide TDIF.

D. City Code section 18.56.340(B)(2) states that Council may, by resolution, adopt reduced TDIF amounts in areas subject to specific area finance district fees where those districts include funding toward infrastructure identified in the TDIF Nexus Study.

E. The PHIF will partially fund the Panhandle transportation infrastructure with citywide benefit (specifically bikeway and pedestrian infrastructure) which is also identified on the TDIF Expenditure Plan within the TDIF Nexus Study.

F. Accordingly, City staff recommends that the TDIF rate established for the Panhandle Area be reduced because the PHIF includes funding for the above-mentioned transportation infrastructure that is identified in the TDIF Nexus Study.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings.

The City Council finds and declares as follows:

1. All of the Background statements set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by reference as findings.

2. The Panhandle development will result in additional growth that will place burdens on transportation facilities within the City. Such development will necessitate the need for construction of new and expanded transportation infrastructure to meet the needs of and to address the impacts caused by the Panhandle development. The PHIF will generate funding to partially mitigate the transportation impacts caused by the Panhandle development, which will help protect the public’s health, safety, and general welfare.

3. The Panhandle Transportation Infrastructure, which is identified in the 2022 Finance Plan, will be funded in part by the PHIF. The Panhandle Transportation Infrastructure is identified on the TDIF Expenditure Plan within the TDIF Nexus Study.

4. Pursuant to City Code section 18.56.340(B)(2), Council is authorized reduce TDIF amounts in areas subject to specific area finance district fees where those districts include funding toward infrastructure identified in the TDIF Nexus Study.

SECTION 2. Reduced Transportation Development Impact Fee.

Council hereby reduces the amount of the TDIF for development within the Panhandle Area by establishing the following TDIF rates for Panhandle Area development:

SECTION 3. Effective Date.

The reduced TDIF rates for the Panhandle Area shall take effect on August 20, 2022.

Exhibit A

Map of the Panhandle Plan Area