West Sacramento City Council
May 3, 2023

Under the California State Subdivision Agreements, the default is that a city's individual distribution will go to the county. This is a reflection of the Agreements drafters’ concern that smaller cities' piecemeal payouts would be unlikely to cause a measurable benefit if allocated directly to the city, cognizance that many health services are handled at a county level, and cognizance of the benefits in aggregating resources for larger impacts. However, a subdivision can request payout of a portion or all of its allocated settlement funds directly to the city, instead of to the county, at any time by giving 60 days' notice to the settlement fund administrator.

Funds received from the 2022 National Settlements must be put toward “opioid remediation”, broadly defined as including care, treatment, and other programs and expenditures (including reimbursement for past such programs or expenditures, except where the agreement restricts the use of funds solely to future opioid remediation) designed to (1) address the misuse and abuse of opioid products, (2) treat or mitigate opioid use or related disorders, or (3) mitigate other alleged effects of, including on those injured as a result of, the opioid epidemic. The settlements also include broad and non-exhaustive lists of qualifying opioid remediation expenditures. This is similar to the 2021 Settlement Agreements. Any funds received pursuant to the 2022 Settlement Agreements will be in addition to funds received pursuant to the 2021 Settlement Agreements.

Each of the proposed 2022 National Settlements has two phases before distribution of Settlement Funds. First, each state has to decide whether to participate in the Settlements. California has joined all five. Second, the eligible subdivisions (generally, cities and counties over 10,000 in population) within each participating state must decide whether to participate in the Settlements. Further, if a critical mass of subdivisions do not join, the Settlements will not be finalized.

The deadline to join the 2022 Settlement Agreement was April 18, 2023. Based on prior direction from the City Council concerning participation in the 2021 National Settlement Agreements, staff tentatively signed the five 2022 Settlement Agreements and the five California State Subdivision Agreements. The City Council is being asked to ratify the City's participation in the ten agreements.

ANALYSIS
The initial deadline for subdivisions to indicate their participation in the 2022 National Settlements was April 18, however, the settling defendants have until May 18 to determine whether to proceed. Therefore, the exact amount of settlement funds for the City is unclear at this time. As a reminder, the more subdivisions that participate, the higher the overall payment to each participating state and subdivision.

Assuming that all California subdivisions participate, and the state receives the maximum amount of funds permitted by the Settlements, the City is estimated to receive between $500,000 and $1,000,000 from the Settlements. For reference, Yolo County, another subdivision under the Settlements, would receive between $3.5 million and $7 million, as well as some additional funds for being a litigating entity. These amounts are about the same as the City and County received by signing onto the 2021 Settlement Agreements.

The City has the option to directly receive all, some, or none of its allocated settlement funds. The City can also receive the funding then send it to the County, but the City would incur reporting responsibilities in such situation.

Council need not make a decision at this time on how to use the settlement payments, and the City can change its method of distribution at any time, now or in the future, by giving 60 days' notice.

If the City chooses to directly receive all or any portion of the allocated settlement funds, the City will be required to use the funds for opioid abuse abatement purposes such as prevention, treatment, and recovery programs.

The City will also be required to comply with certain reporting requirements. If the City elects to directly pay the County, those reporting requirements will not apply to the City.

The City continues to require overdose intervention medication (Naloxone) for first responders and as part of the harm-reduction programming at homeless shelters and permanent supportive housing locations as part of the housing first approach. Additionally, the City continues to need additional support from Yolo County Health and Human Services Agency to sustain and grow the co-responder program. This program helps support community members who find themselves in crises that are often aggravated by substance use disorders, including those associated with opioid use and addiction. As such, the City would prefer to have the revenues received under these settlement agreements distributed directly to the City for use on those programs. These and other uses of the settlement funds would be brought to City Council for approval. Maintaining the settlement funds with the City does not preclude Council from contributing funds to the County for County-wide opioid abatement programs.
142
Ratification of Opioid Settlements – Manufacturers, Pharmacies May 3, 2023

Environmental Considerations
The City Council's ratification is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Codes section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) where it can be seen with certainty that effectuating a settlement agreement to receive opioid epidemic abatement funding has no possibility to have a significant effect on the environment.

Commission Recommendation
N/A
Strategic Plan Integration
N/A
Alternatives
The Council's primary alternative is to decline to ratify the City's participation in the settlement agreements, thereby declining to receive abatement funding and preserving the City's option to pursue litigation against the manufacturers and pharmacies. Staff is prepared to implement this alternative, but does not recommend it in view of the significant cost and uncertain results of pursuing the City's own litigation.

Coordination and Review
The Finance Department staff produced this report in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office and Police Department.

Budget/Cost Impact
There is no cost associated with the ratification of effectuating a settlement agreement to receive opioid epidemic abatement funding. Future requested use of these settlement funds would be brought to the Council for approval.

ATTACHMENT
N/A
143

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 3, 2023 ITEM # 7
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF FOLLOW-UP RESPONSE TO YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ON INSPECTING THE INSPECTORS: HIRING PRACTICES AT CITY OF WEST

SACRAMENTO, BUILDING DIVISION
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Liane Lee, Human Resources Manager
City Manager’s Office
Andrea Ouse, Director
Community Development Department
Amanda Berlin, Assistant City Manager
City Manager’s Office
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to seek City Council authorization on a follow-up response to a report from the Yolo County Grand Jury titled “Inspecting the Inspectors: Hiring Practices at City of West Sacramento, Building Division.”

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council review and authorize the attached follow-up response to the Yolo County Grand Jury report titled “Inspecting the Inspectors: Hiring Practices at City of West Sacramento, Building Division.”

BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2022, city staff received a Grand Jury report titled “Inspecting the Inspectors: Hiring Practices at City of West Sacramento, Building Division.” According to Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the City Council was required to respond in writing and in electronic form to certain findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury report within 90 days. After review and authorization by the Council at the meeting on August 17, 2022, staff submitted a response to the Grand Jury on behalf of the Council to the identified findings and recommendations.

A copy of the report and the Council’s response are included as Attachments 1 & 2.

ANALYSIS
On February 9, 2023, the Mayor received a letter from the Grand Jury requesting follow-up information on the responses provided to Findings F-1 and F-3 in the Grand Jury report regarding hiring procedures for new building inspectors. (See Attachment 3.) Staff has prepared a response to the Grand Jury follow-up letter with updated information on the City’s hiring procedures for new building inspectors. The draft response is provided for Council review and approval as Attachment 4.

Environmental Considerations
N/A
Commission Recommendation
N/A
Strategic Plan Integration
N/A
Alternatives
The City Council’s response to the Grand Jury report is required by law. As an alternative to staff’s recommendation, however, the Council could choose to make revisions to the proposed response letter.

Coordination and Review
This report was prepared by City Manager’s Office with input from the Community Development Department. 144
Follow Up Response to Yolo County Grand Jury Report
May 3, 2023

Budget/Cost Impact
None.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Yolo County Grand Jury Report titled “Inspecting the Inspectors: Hiring Practices at City of West Sacramento, Building Division.”

2. Response to the Yolo County Grand Jury Report titled “Inspecting the Inspectors: Hiring Practices at City of West Sacramento, Building Division.”

3. February 9, 2023 Letter from Yolo County Grand Jury

4. Draft City Council Response to February 9, 2023 Letter from Yolo County Grand Jury 145

GRAND JURY
County of Yolo
P. O. Box 2142
Woodland, California 95776
June 21, 2022
City of West Sacramento
1110 W Capitol Ave, 3rd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Office (916) 617-4500
Re: Enclosed Report –
Inspecting the Inspectors: Hiring Practices at City of West Sacramento, Building Division Dear Aaron Laurel,
On behalf of the 2021-2022 Yolo County Grand Jury, I am providing to you the following report:

Inspecting the Inspectors: Hiring Practices at City of West Sacramento, Building Division This report will be released to the public on June 23, 2022. This report is being provided to you in advance of its general release pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, subdivision (f), which provides:

A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

It is very important that you comply with this confidentiality requirement.

The Penal Code also prescribes the obligations of a governing board or elected county official with regard to responding to the grand jury's findings and recommendations. Specifically, if the Attachment 1
146
report contains one or more recommendations directed to you as an elected county official, or to the governing board of which you are a member, you must respond to those recommendations and to the supporting findings, as directed in the report.

The time within which to respond is prescribed by subdivision (c) of Penal Code section 933, which states in relevant part:

No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury.

The Penal Code also prescribes the content of your responses. Subdivisions (a) through (c) of Penal Code section 933.05 state:
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 147
governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response to the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.

Please be aware that your responses will be a matter of public record and widely read by both community members and local media. Therefore, it is important that your responses be as clear and specific as possible. A response that is vague, does not provide a clear explanation of any action that has or will be taken, or that does not include a specific time frame for implementation, is neither helpful nor legally sufficient. Furthermore, if a response does not comply with the applicable provisions of the California Penal Code, you may be directed by the presiding judge to provide an amended response.

Please submit all responses in writing to:
• The Honorable Daniel M. Wolk, 1000 Main Street, Woodland, CA, 95695 • Yolo County Grand Jury Foreperson, PO Box 2142, Woodland, CA 95776.

Please submit all responses by way of email attachments to the Yolo County Grand Jury Foreperson at [email protected].

The 2021-2022 Yolo County Grand Jury's reports, and the responses to them, will be posted on the Grand Jury's website. We would appreciate receiving an electronic copy, as well as a signed hard copy, of your response.

Thank you for your cooperation in providing a meaningful and timely response.

Sincerely,
Michael Familia
Foreperson
Yolo County Grand Jury
148
1 Inspecting the Inspectors:

Hiring Practices at City of West Sacramento, Building Division

SUMMARY
There is a potential risk to public safety due to issues with the hiring and vetting process regarding the Building and the Human Resources divisions of the City of West Sacramento.

The 2021-22 Yolo County Grand Jury investigated allegations concerning conduct specifically related to a particular staff member in the Building Division of the Community Development Department in the City of West Sacramento. This employee will be referred to as the Subject of the Complaint (SOTC) throughout this investigative report. The grand jury’s investigation focused on additional allegations regarding an inadequate vetting of the SOTC by the Human Resources Department (HR) prior to making a job offer, discussed in detail herein. Through the course of its investigation, the grand jury has determined that the City of West Sacramento conducted an inadequate vetting of the SOTC, that the Building Division has an incomplete system for flagging improper building inspections, and that the Building Division has a history of quelling staff concerns rather than addressing them through the official HR complaint process.

In sum, the consequences of the above actions lead this grand jury to be very concerned about the public’s safety in and around inspected buildings related to the SOTC’s work.

DEFINITIONS
CBC California Building Code
CBPC California Business and Professions Code
CDD Community Development Department
CSLB Contractors State License Board
HR Human Resources Division
ICC International Code Council
Personnel Rules City of West Sacramento Personnel Rules SOTC Subject of this Complaint

BACKGROUND
There are eight to ten full-time employees working in the Building Division under the Chief Building Official including the Permit Services Manager, the Senior Building Plans Examiner, three Permit Technicians, two Building Inspectors, a Fire Plans Examiner, and a Plan Check Engineer.

The complaint states that during April 2019 HR staff failed to properly review the prior work experience of the SOTC or conduct a proper background check of the SOTC during the hiring 149
2 process. The grand jury concludes
that a proper review of the SOTC’s
recent work background would have
revealed that the SOTC, while
performing work as a licensed
contractor, had been previously
suspended due tomultiple violations
of the California Business and
Professions Code (CBPC) for improper
building contractor practices.

The following facts were established
during the course of the grand jury’s
investigation. In February 2019, the
SOTC applied for a building inspector
position with the City of West
Sacramento. In April 2019, the SOTC
accepted a full-time position as a Building Inspector II. The grand jury confirmed that the SOTC did not possess any of the certifications to perform the essential duties of a building inspector.

While the City of West Sacramento does not require certifications prior to hire, the job description states in part:
“… At the option of the city, persons hired into this class may be required to either possess at entry or obtain within specified time limits, designated licenses, certificates or specialized education and training relevant to the area of assignment. Additional requirements may include, but are not limited to the following:
● Possession of, or ability to obtain and maintain a Building Inspector’s Certificate as issued by the I.C.C. within one (1) year of employment ● Certified Combination Inspector
● Certified Building Inspector
● Certified Electrical Inspector
● Certified Mechanical Inspector
● Accessibility Specialist Certification”
Public records obtained from the ICC reflect that the SOTC did obtain a certification as a California Residential Building Inspector on or about October 2020. While the above requirements outline the expectation that an inspector in this position would be certified within one year of their employment, the SOTC took more than 18 months to attain this one certification. Of further concern to this grand jury is the fact that the SOTC was conducting independent inspections of both residential and commercial building projects without any of the above certifications and with a professional history of documented improper business practices, as discussed below in the Discussion section. 150
3 During the grand jury’s investigation, it was learned that employees in the Building Division began noticing an increase in telephonic complaints from residential and commercial building permit applicants during 2020 and 2021. The community complaints principally centered on the SOTC allegedly not conducting proper construction inspections or not conducting the inspections at all. It was reported by multiple interviewees that these community complaints were particularly of concern because the community reports of the SOTC’s actions did not align with the information the SOTC uploaded to the building permit electronic tracking system known as Acela. This concern with the SOTC’s inconsistencies was further corroborated with documentation provided to the grand jury. Additionally, it was reported during this investigation that multiple staff reported their concerns about these allegedly improper inspections by the SOTC to management, however staff felt management reprimanded them rather than going forward with a formal HR complaint process. The grand jury requested access to the Acela platform but was not given said access.

The grand jury was notified on April 7, 2022, that the SOTC is no longer employed by the City of West Sacramento. However, the grand jury determined that the issues with HR hiring and vetting practices still need to be addressed.

APPROACH
Testimony and evidence presented to the grand jury during its investigation confirmed the existence of serious problems in the hiring and vetting processes for Building Division applicants, as described in the following section of this report. The grand jury also reviewed public information available from websites including the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Contractors State License Board, the International Code Council, and the City of West Sacramento Building Division.

DISCUSSION
Concern #1 – professional red flags
A review of SOTC’s contractor license history reveals that this license was previously suspended or revoked, and later reinstated, on at least 11 occasions between 2007 and 2017. The most recent complaint against the SOTC’s contractor’s license includes the following statement: “On or about June 20, 2017, an industry expert retained by the Board inspected the project and found that [SOTC’s] construction work did not meet accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction.” It was this 2017 CSLB investigation into the SOTC’s work product that uncovered 14 reasons for discipline, which resulted in the revocation of the SOTC’s contractor’s license for at least four years and a payment of a five-figure sum to the substantiated victims of the unbecoming conduct. This information is easily accessible on the CSLB website under a search of the SOTC’s name.

There are many unanswered questions regarding how the SOTC’s employment application went through the hiring process without a thorough review of the SOTC’s past work experience, 151
4 including notable sanctions regarding the SOTC’s documented subpar work product.

Unfortunately, this grand jury was not given access to the HR documentation for this candidate prior to the drafting of this report.

Concern #2 – failure to certify
Staff corroborated that it was a common practice within the Building Division to require newly hired building inspectors to obtain additional certifications for electrical inspector, plumbing inspector, mechanical inspector, and combination inspector within two years of their hire date.

Available ICC public records reviewed by the grand jury confirm that the SOTC only obtained the California Residential Building Inspector Certification. There is no ICC record showing the SOTC obtained any of the additional certifications mentioned above.

During employment, the SOTC was tasked with inspecting residential and commercial projects, however the SOTC was only certified to inspect residential projects.

Concern #3 – lack of support for staff
Through its investigation, the grand jury has determined that little to no action was taken when staff complaints about the SOTC were brought to management, and that management was hostile after the complaints were made. It has been corroborated throughout the investigation that upper management regularly sided with the SOTC, and staff were chastised or disciplined for elevating concerns to management. There is evidence that concerned staff never filed a formal complaint with HR to have their overall concerns documented and addressed.

FINDINGS
F-1. Management failed to conduct an adequate background check and failed to properly vet the SOTC to ensure all qualifications for the position were met, as specified by the City of West Sacramento’s personnel rules.

F-2. Management failed to verify timely completion of certifications necessary for the SOTC to independently inspect construction projects to which the SOTC was assigned during the SOTC’s employment.

F-3 For over two years, supervisory and management staff failed to address the pattern of community complaints regarding the SOTC’s work.

F-4. The grand jury was not given access to the HR file of the SOTC or to the electronic tracking system, Acela, despite formal and lawful grand jury requests. 152
5 RECOMMENDATIONS
R-1. The City of West Sacramento should update the personnel rules to guide management to conduct more thorough background checks of an applicant’s work history and implement a vetting process to ensure the candidate selected for hire is fully qualified for the position.

R-2. The City of West Sacramento should update the personnel rules to require that the building department management conduct follow-up annual reviews of professional licenses, certifications and training requirements, to ensure employees are current with requirements for their positions.

R-3. The City of West Sacramento should ensure that supervisory and management staff adhere to the employee complaint policy and act to resolve any verbal or formal complaints filed by staff.

R-4. The City of West Sacramento should ensure that management staff are trained in the HR processes when a staff member lodges a complaint against another City of West Sacramento employee.

R-5. The City of West Sacramento should consider an independent audit of the SOTC’s work to ensure the safety and compliance of projects inspected by the SOTC for the safety of the public.

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section (PC) 933 and PC §933.05:
- The City Council of West Sacramento is requested to respond to Findings F-1, F-2, F-3 and F-4 and R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4, and R-5 by October 1, 2022. 153
1110 West Capitol Avenue
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 617-4500
www.cityofwestsacramento.org
August 17, 2022
Honorable Daniel M. Wolk
1000 Main Street
Woodland, CA 95695
Yolo County Grand Jury Foreperson
P.O. Box 2142
Woodland, CA 95776
via e-mail: [email protected]
RE: West Sacramento City Council Response to Grand Jury Report - Inspecting the Inspectors:

Hiring Practices at City of West Sacramento, Building Division Dear Judge Wolk:

The City Council is in receipt of the Grand Jury’s report on the Hiring Practices of the City’s Building Division dated June 21, 2022. The report makes four findings (F1-F4) and five recommendations (R1-R5). Pursuant to Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requested the City Council respond to all findings and all recommendations within 90 days. As requested, the City Council has completed the responses requested by the Grand Jury.

GRAND JURY FINDINGS
F-1. Management failed to conduct an adequate background check and failed to properly vet the SOTC to ensure all qualifications for the position were met, as specified by the City of West Sacramento’s personnel rules.

The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. The screening process conducted by Human Resources upon submission by the SOTC of their application for employment included evaluation and verification of the candidate meeting the Minimum Qualifications (MQs) for the position per the job description. MQs include education, experience, and required licenses/certificate. The SOTC met the MQs and was placed on an Eligibility List and selected for interview by the department hiring manager/subject matter expert. The first interview panel, comprised of subject matter experts from outside agencies/municipalities, conducted candidate interviews.

Subsequent to the panel interview, the panel evaluated the candidates and made the recommendation to the department hiring manager/subject matter expert that the SOTC move to the final interview process. After the final interview was completed, the SOTC was conditionally offered the position.

Once the candidate completed the interview processes and was selected, the department hiring manager/subject matter expert contacted and vetted the employee provided job references and communicated to Human Resources that a Conditional Offer of Employment should be extended.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C3A1611D-1EE3-4ED1-B442-4B5C962C9F72 154
Grand Jury Response Letter
August 17, 2022

2 Non-safety personnel are subject to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Background check, which the SOTC passed.

The Building Inspector I/II job description contains the following language:

Possession of, or ability to obtain and maintain a Building Inspector’s Certificate as issued by the I.C.C. within one (1) year of employment.

The Grand Jury Report stated, “Public records obtained from the ICC reflect that the SOTC did obtain a certification as a California Residential Building Inspector on or about October 2020.

While the above requirements outline the expectation that an inspector in this position would be certified within one year of their employment, the SOTC took more than 18 months to attain this one certification.”
The SOTC had until the end of their 12-month probationary period, April 22, 2020, to obtain the required ICC certification. The SOTC was scheduled to take the exam for the ICC certification in March 2020 and was notified by the ICC the exam was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic with no new exam date scheduled. The SOTC’s supervisor at the time exercised the option to extend the SOTC’s 1-year probationary period by 6-months per Personnel Rule 3.9.2 Length of Probation. The SOTC’s probationary period was extended until October 22, 2020 and an ICC certificate was obtained on October 14, 2020, within the 18-month period and complying with the requirements of the Building Inspector I/II job description.

F-2. Management failed to verify timely completion of certifications necessary for the SOTC to independently inspect construction projects to which the SOTC was assigned during the SOTC’s employment.

The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The SOTC was hired and supervised by the former Chief Building Official (CBO), who retired in December 2021. Until August 2021, the former CBO was supervised by the former Community Development Director, who retired in December of 2019, and an interim Community Development Director from December 2019 to August 2021.

Thus, the current Building Division management staff cannot expressly confirm whether management that hired and supervised SOTC failed to verify timely completion of certifications necessary for the SOTC to independently inspect construction projects. Upon review of the SOTC’s personnel file, it does contain a Memo from the CBO to the SOTC dated April 8, 2020 extending his probationary period to obtain the ICC Residential Building Inspector Certificate and also a Status Change Form with verification of the SOTC obtaining the CA Residential Building Inspector Certificate on October 14, 2020.

F-3 For over two years, supervisory and management staff failed to address the pattern of community complaints regarding the SOTC’s work.

The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Prior to August 2, 2021, the respondent is unable to confirm if supervisory and management staff addressed the pattern of community complaints regarding SOTC’s work; and if complaints were received, how they were addressed.

However, with the arrival of the new Community Development Director in August 2021, any complaints about the SOTC’s work elevated to the Director’s level were addressed directly with the SOTC and/or with the SOTC’s supervisor and documented in writing. As mentioned previously in Finding F-2, numerous leadership changes occurred in the Building Division during the SOTC’s tenure, culminating in the retirement of both the Permit Services Supervisor and the Chief Building Official in December 2021. With new leadership in the Department and Division, the level of accountability and written feedback increased significantly until the SOTC resigned from the organization on February 16, 2022.

F-4. The grand jury was not given access to the HR file of the SOTC or to the electronic tracking system, Acela, despite formal and lawful grand jury requests.

The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. Human Resources provided all of the documentation that was requested by Santos Cervantes, Chair, Detention & Public Safety Committee for the Grand Jury, including current and former employee contact information; current DocuSign Envelope ID: C3A1611D-1EE3-4ED1-B442-4B5C962C9F72 155
Grand Jury Response Letter
August 17, 2022

3 and former employee hire dates; former employee dates of resignation; Harassment and Sexual Harassment Policy; 60 Administrative Policies specific to Human Resources; specifics regarding interview panels; information regarding employee hired to replace a retired building inspector; names of employees who were building inspectors when COVID-19 restrictions/lockdown began; and, names of individuals who acted as temporary building inspectors.

Human Resources never received a request from Mr. Cervantes, or from any other person on behalf of the Grand Jury, to provide the SOTC, or any other employees’ HR (Personnel) File.

Community Development is not aware of a request from Mr. Cervantes or from any other person on behalf of the Grand Jury, to provide the access to the Accela electronic permit tracking system.

Please know that the Chief Building Official, the Permit Services Manager and the Senior Plans Examiner in place at the time of the initial request from Mr. Cervantes are no longer with the organization and requests to, and responses by, those staff members cannot be verified.

GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS
R-1. The City of West Sacramento should update the personnel rules to guide management to conduct more thorough background checks of an applicant’s work history and implement a vetting process to ensure the candidate selected for hire is fully qualified for the position.

The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. As described in the response to Finding F-1, the screening process conducted by Human Resources upon submission of a candidate’s application for employment includes evaluation and verification of the candidate meeting the Minimum Qualifications (MQs) for the position per the job description. MQs include education, experience, and required licenses/certificate. The department hiring manager/subject matter expert conducts and vets the employee job references pertinent to work history.

R-2. The City of West Sacramento should update the personnel rules to require that the building department management conduct follow-up annual reviews of professional licenses, certifications and training requirements, to ensure employees are current with requirements for their positions.

The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. The Personnel Rules govern all employees of the City of West Sacramento and addresses broad employment practices and not individual departmental operating procedures. The Building Division has recently established a process to ensure an annual review of professional licenses, certifications, and training requirements, to ensure employees are current with requirements for their positions and practice.

R-3. The City of West Sacramento should ensure that supervisory and management staff adhere to the employee complaint policy and act to resolve any verbal or formal complaints filed by staff.

The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. All reasonable efforts are made to ensure supervisory and management staff act to resolve any verbal or formal complaints filed by staff. Human Resources staff are readily available to employees, supervisors and managers to resolve any issues. Training is and will continue to be made available to ensure staff adhere to the employee complaint procedure and act to resolve employee raised issues.

R-4. The City of West Sacramento should ensure that management staff are trained in the HR processes when a staff member lodges a complaint against another City of West Sacramento employee.

The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. Human Resources staff actively provide counseling and best practice guidance to managers and supervisors in addressing employee concerns and complaints and the processes to follow when an employee comes to them with a complaint.

R-5. The City of West Sacramento should consider an independent audit of the SOTC’s work to ensure the safety and compliance of projects inspected by the SOTC for the safety of the public.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C3A1611D-1EE3-4ED1-B442-4B5C962C9F72 156
Grand Jury Response Letter
August 17, 2022

4 The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. During the SOTC’s tenure from April 2019 – February 2022, he conducted an estimated 1,000+ inspections. Many of the projects inspected by the SOTC have been completed and buildings are occupied. An audit of the SOTC’s work would result in widespread disruption to businesses and residents and would be cost prohibitive. If there are safety concerns raised by the public on specific aspects of a project inspected by the SOTC for which the SOTC was not certified to inspect, the respondent will arrange for an inspection at no charge to the property owner. To date, there have been no such requests.

Sincerely,
Martha Guerrero
Mayor of West Sacramento
cc: Yolo County Grand Jury Foreperson (via email only)
DocuSign Envelope ID: C3A1611D-1EE3-4ED1-B442-4B5C962C9F72 157
158
159
1110 West Capitol Avenue
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 617-4500
www.cityofwestsacramento.org
Attachment 2
May 3, 2023
Steven A. Oldham
Yolo County Grand Jury 2022-23 Foreperson
P.O. Box 2142
Woodland, CA 95667
via e-mail: [email protected]
Re: Follow-up Letter to 2021-22 Grand Jury Report: “Inspecting the Inspectors: Hiring practices at the City of West Sacramento”
Dear Foreperson Oldham:

The City is in receipt of your letter dated February 9, 2023 that includes two requests for additional information regarding the above referenced matter.

1. Preemployment Checks
That always before hiring new inspectors the Building Division performs a background check of relevant occupational licenses issued to the individual by state or federal agencies (e.g., California State License Board, Architect's Board, Board for Professional State Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists).

City response:

When job candidates submit an employment application to the City where the position requires some form of professional license and/or certificate, the applicant must list those in their possession. If the job description requires a license/certificate at time of hire, those applicants not possessing those credentials will be screened out as not meeting the minimum qualifications.

For those positions where credentials are not required upon hiring, the hiring Department will verify that they are obtained in a timely manner – typically during the employee’s probationary period - and will not permit the employee to perform any work requiring those credentials until such credentials are obtained.

2. Post Hiring Checks
The City of West Sacramento has procedures to periodically determine (such as by a check of public records or self-certification by an inspector) that each building inspector submit a certification that he or she has not been subject to discipline by any regulatory/professional licensing board or association.
160
2 City response:

The Community Development Department keeps a log of certificates and credentials for all applicable positions. As part of annual performance reviews, the Department verifies all applicable employee credentials are in good standing.

Sincerely,
Martha Guerrero
Mayor of West Sacramento
161

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 3, 2023 ITEM # 8
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 23-30 ADOPTING ELECTRIC

VEHICLE CHARGING FEES IN THE CITY BOOK OF FEES
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Stephanie Chhan, Senior Transportation Planner
Community Development Department
Larry Lee, Parking Manager
Economic Development & Housing Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide information for the purpose of conducting a public hearing for Council consideration of Resolution 23-30 adopting Electric Vehicle Charging Fees in the Book of Fees.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Adopt Resolution 23-30 adopting Electric Vehicle Charging Fees in the Book of Fees; 3) Adopt a City of West Sacramento Employee Electric Vehicle Charging Program; and 4) Direct staff to return to City Council with an Electric Vehicle Charging Equity Program for consideration prior to implementation.

BACKGROUND
In 2013, the City of West Sacramento (City) installed its first electric vehicle (EV) charging station at City Hall.

Currently, the City operates one dual-port Level 2 (L2) EV charging station at City Hall and two L2 stations at the Bridge District parking lot. In an effort to support widespread adoption of EVs and reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions locally, the City made EV charging stations publicly accessible and free of charge. From January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2022, the City has supported:
 31,694 sessions
 372,045 Kilowatt-hour (kWh)
 2 hour 52 minutes average active charging
 1 hour 11 minutes average overstay (vehicles remained plugged in after completing charge)  538 unique drivers in 2022
By supplying 372,045 kWh for EV chargers between 2014 to 2022, staff estimates the City has spent $85,000 on electricity for EV charging from the city’s General Support Services Fund (Fund 104).

In December 2018, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Board of Directors authorized the award of a Green Region grant in the amount of $2,665,000 to the City of West Sacramento’s Plug-in Partnership (PiP) Program. The PiP Program supports increased adoption and use of zero emission vehicles through the citywide installation of EV charging stations, including collaboration with local fleet-operating stakeholders, and installation of medium- and heavy-duty freight and electrified transit vehicle accessible charging stations. The grant required 11.47% local match met through in-kind donations of labor and equipment with the City’s primary partner in the submitted grant application, ChargePoint Inc.

Through the PiP Program, City staff have worked with engineering firm Kimley-Horn to design for the installation of 10 single port L2, 26 dual port L2, and 12 single port Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) EV ChargePoint charging stations at 12 sites across the city. A breakdown of the EV charging equipment at each site is included as Attachment 1. Once completed, with the exception of the Police Station (funded through a Clean Air Funds grant by the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District), all sites will be available to the general public. The City Council approved the purchase of the equipment and the first 5 years of vendor provided maintenance and network subscription costs with Rexel Energy Solutions (ChargePoint’s third party supplier) on July 20, 2022.

The City Council also approved a construction contract with Quantum Energy Services & Technology, Inc. on February 15, 2023, and the contractor began installation in mid-April 2023. 162
Electric Vehicle Charging Fee Policy
May 3, 2023

ANALYSIS
While the City wishes to continue supporting resident adoption of EVs in furtherance of the City’s climate and equity goals, the growth of EV ownership throughout California coupled with the large number of chargers to be installed in West Sacramento makes it impractical for the City to continue subsidizing the cost of electricity for EV charging. Staff is therefore proposing the City Council adopt EV charging fees to partially cover the cost of electricity, long-term maintenance, and management of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) citywide. The intended outcome for the pricing structure is to not only recover the costs of the EVSE, but also reduce the occurrence of overstays and increase EV space turnover through a penalty or escalation fee after an established time frame. Per California Government Code Sections 66016-66018, the City may impose a charge for specific government services or products provided directly to the feepayer that is not provided to non-payers. The amount of the fee may not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.

Since the City was awarded a grant to install EVSE and provide for the first five years of ChargePoint maintenance and network costs, the costs for the City to provide EV chargers to the public includes the cost of electricity, operations, maintenance, equipment replacement, and program administration.

Staff has calculated that City costs will exceed what the market will bear. Pacific, Gas, & Electric (PG&E) electricity rates are substantially higher than the rates at Sacramento Municipal Utility District. PG&E can also cause substantial delays in getting EVSE energized. Additionally, some private and commercial businesses provide free or subsidized EV charging as an incentive to draw in customers (Maverik, Dutch Bros, etc.). More EVSE will also be installed by private development as the City’s zoning code requires one EV charger for every five parking spaces. Staff does not recommend full cost recovery at this time as it would make the cost to charge too high, not be competitive, and could result in low usage. Attachment 2 provides a survey of EV charging rates at surrounding publicly accessible EV charging stations. City staff recommends imposing an EV charging fee for the City’s publicly accessible EV chargers to meet the following goals:
 Recover electricity costs;
 Recover operating costs (ChargePoint Cloud and ChargePoint 10% ChargePoint network transaction processing fee);
 Recover maintenance costs (ChargePoint Assure – warranty maintenance);  Provide funding for EVSE replacement costs at 10-year useful life;  Recover costs for fees to design and install EVSE; and  Recover costs for staff time (0.50 Full Time Employee [FTE]) to manage and maintain the system.

Staff has developed five pilot EV charging fee scenarios for comparison as detailed in Attachment 3. Based on the cost study conducted, cost recovery for operations, maintenance, program administration, site leasing, and replacement equipment is up to $1.06 per kWh for L2 charging stations if each of the L2 stations average one 3-hr charging session a day, and up to $1.84 per kWh for DCFC stations if each of the DCFC stations average one 0.50-hr charging session a day. Given that adoption of EVs in California in 2022 was just over 9%, up from

7.84% in 2021, there is still a significant amount of growth in EV adoption anticipated in the next decade. It is possible that the City’s charging stations could average less than one session a day until the availability of EVSE in West Sacramento is recognized. Electricity costs are variable costs that fluctuate with more charging sessions, whereas operating, maintenance, program administration, and equipment replacement costs are fixed costs. As shown in Attachment 3, more daily sessions will distribute the estimated fixed costs amongst more drivers and allow for a lower charging fee. Staff estimates that the City needs to set fees to a net recovery of approximately $430 per day ($157,000 annually) for L2 stations and $486 per day ($178,000 annually) for DCFC stations to support the costs of the EV charging program as identified above. The proposed fee implemented by approval of Resolution 23-30 (Attachment 4), sets a fee to partially recover electricity, operation, maintenance, and program administration costs.

High fees that significantly exceed nearby EV charging fees in Sacramento may result in lower demand of West Sacramento EV chargers, incentivizing locals to drive further into Sacramento to charge vehicles and increasing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Furthermore, staff anticipates there will likely be a period before use of the new EV charging facilities (especially in the disadvantaged communities where EV ownership is less prevalent) become regular occurrences.

Staff recommends Scenario 3: City Subsidizes Fee to Probable Market Tolerable Rate for a two-year pilot term.

This fee structure will set the EV charging fees at a competitive market rate while staff monitors the usage of the program during the pilot term. Staff recommends and has developed the charging fee scenarios to recover all costs by kWh rather than by time/session. Charging speeds vary from vehicle to vehicle and some EV batteries may charge at different rates depending on how full the battery is. Research has found that per-minute billing is not equitable for slower charging EV models and unintentionally benefits faster charging EV models. 163
Electric Vehicle Charging Fee Policy
May 3, 2023

Staff recommended Scenario 3 proposes the following competitive flat kWh rate applied evenly throughout the day:
 Level 2: up to $0.35 kWh
o 3 hour charging time limit at Lighthouse Charter School o 4 hour charging time limit at all other sites
 DCFC: up to $0.45 kWh
o 1 hour charging time limit
Staff recommends the following two-year pilot fee and operation model:
 24/7 access to public EV charging stations;
 No free EV charging;
 Penalty Fee to ensure turnover at the charging stations; o After 10-minute grace period when vehicle is fully charged or after the charging time limit, whichever comes first, an overstay fee of $0.50 per minute (maximum of $300 total for L2; $500 total for DCFC)
Based on the above fee policy, staff anticipates a revenue of $.085 kWh for L2 and $0.175 kWh for DCFC after accounting for PG&E electricity costs and ChargePoint’s 10% transaction fee. This would be approximately $18,000 annually across all L2 chargers if each of the L2 stations average one 3-hr charging session a day and approximately $21,000 annually across all DCFC chargers if each of the DCFC stations average one 0.5-hr charging session a day. With more charging sessions, the City will have a higher revenue stream to apply toward cost recovery.

The following situation describes the fees a Chevy Bolt EUV driver would encounter if they were interested in charging their vehicle at a City-owned EV charging station. Typically, a Chevy Bolt EUV’s battery capacity is 65 kWh, which can support approximately 247 miles. Suppose the driver’s battery is currently at 30 kWh, and they would like to charge their vehicle. Note: EV charging is not 100% efficient and numbers may vary from this example. The summary below provides a potential breakdown of the cost:
• Level 2 Charging Station:
o To charge at a City-operated L2 station would cost the driver $9.10 for approximately 26 kWh over 4 hours for 99 miles of range.
o At the 4-hour mark, the charger will end the session and stop charging the vehicle. o After the 4-hour mark, the vehicle will begin to incur a $0.50 per minute overstay fee until the vehicle is unplugged. The total maximum a person may be charged, inclusive of charging, is $300. • DCFC Station:
o To charge at a City-operated DCFC station would cost the driver $15.75 for approximately 35 kWh over 37 minutes for 133 miles of range.
o After a 10-minute grace period when the battery is fully charged, the vehicle will begin to incur a $0.50 per minute overstay fee until the vehicle is unplugged. The total maximum a person may be charged, inclusive of charging, is $500.

Users will be able to access the 72 new EV charging stations the same way users currently access the City’s existing EV chargers today, by signing up for a free ChargePoint account, linking a phone number and payment card, and initiating a charging session using either a free ChargePoint card or the free mobile app. The EV charging stations and mobile app will display the City’s fees and relevant messages.

EV Charging Overstay Fee
Over the past few years, the City has seen higher utilization of the stations and an increase in EV owners as the market shifts toward electric modes of transportation. Due to this high use, the City has received reports from staff and residents indicating the difficulty finding an open, designated space to charge their EV. The main problem is many EVs are not being moved from a charging space once fully charged. This creates frustrations for other drivers that need the stations and can discourage EV use and purchase when stations are not available due to slow space turnover.

A pricing structure will help with turnover of public EV charging stations. Staff proposes a $0.50 per minute overstay penalty fee with a 10-minute grace period or after the charging time limit, whichever comes first. Under Proposition 26, most fees imposed by the City may not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service or product. In other words, the City is not permitted to make a profit from the fee. However, Proposition 26 does not apply to penalties. Staff has worked with the city attorney to develop a fee structure that complies with Proposition 164
Electric Vehicle Charging Fee Policy
May 3, 2023

26. To maximize usage and availability, staff recommends a fee for overstays (when a vehicle is parked after charging maximum charging time or remains plugged into the EV charging equipment after charging is completed).

Overstay fees are a common industry best practice and can be highly effective at maximizing EV charger usage and opening a charger to the next user needing to charge. Most electric vehicles will display the estimated time required to charge, enabling users to plan their return before charging ends and avoid an overstay fee. Most electric vehicle manufacturers also provide a mobile app where users can track and manage their EV charging in real-time. Additionally, users can be notified by ChargePoint via text, app notification, and email when their vehicle is done charging. Staff will explore allowing users the ability to contest the fee under very limited extenuating circumstances or with documented evidence that a vehicle was not in violation of the policy, but recommends strict conformance with the proposed policy to maintain equitable access to EV chargers and efficiency of the EV charging network. Staff will coordinate with ChargePoint who already facilitates these disputes for other station owners.

Funding collected from these penalty fees will also be used to support enforcement, including staff time for program administration. Should the penalty fees collected fully support staff time, the penalty fees can be used to support the next year’s program administration costs or for future maintenance, operations, replacement costs; an EV Charging Equity Program; or activities/programs to expand EV adoption, at the City Council’s discretion.

As previously mentioned, the EV charging rates will apply to all sites. Lighthouse Charter School EV charging stalls will be restricted to school staff between the hours of 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM on weekdays, four of the City Hall EV charging stalls will be restricted to City employees between the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays, and the Police Station is restricted as it is funded through a Clean Air Fund grant.

Because the City will make 72 new EV charging station ports available to the public and EV charging patterns are difficult to estimate given the region’s supply of public EV chargers, staff will evaluate usage data to identify opportunities to maximize cost recovery and manage demand. Staff will return to Council with an updated EV charging fee structure should there be changes needed for reasons such as, but not limited to, better maximize cost recovery, manage demand, reflect updated energy and maintenance costs, inflation, and/or manage other unforeseen issues. Establishment of this fee requires that the City Council hold a public hearing prior to considering the Recommended Action. Resolution 23-30 will adopt Electric Vehicle Charging Fees in the Book of Fees and will be effective 60 days from adoption.

EV Charging Equity Program
Equity-based programs like tax rebates and credits have been implemented at the federal and state level to help remove financial obstacles to purchasing electric vehicles. While it is unrealistic for the City to replicate the scope or impact of these programs, the City could explore ways to offer greater accessibility to EV chargers in disadvantaged areas or possibly discounted charging rates on an income-qualified basis. Several considerations will need to be evaluated to develop such a program, including the resources required for program administration, software capabilities of the EV infrastructure, funding limitations, and eligibility criteria. Staff will return to City Council with a proposed EV Charging Equity Program for consideration, including an allocation of $65,000 in the upcoming two-year budget to support the potential program.

Employee EV Charging Program
In order to facilitate the City’s climate change goals and encourage EV adoption, as identified in the City’s General Plan, the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change, the upcoming Climate Action Plan, staff also recommends that the City Council approve an employee EV charging program for City employees’ personal vehicles. The City’s Electric Vehicle Workplace Charging Program is intended to encourage and support the use of an EV for employees as an alternative to internal combustion engines. City staff recommends a monthly flat fee of $5 for employees to join the Electric Vehicle Workplace Charging Program. Employees who join the program can charge their vehicles at one of the City-owned chargers without an additional cost. The monthly fee will be used to offset electricity costs from employee EV charging. City staff will still be subject to idle fees and overstay fees to maintain efficiency of the EV charging network.

Environmental Considerations
This action is not a project subject to CEQA because it involves the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses; and the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a 165
Electric Vehicle Charging Fee Policy
May 3, 2023

potentially significant physical impact on the environment (California Pub. Res. Code section 21080; CEQA Guidelines sections 15378).

Commission Recommendation
This report was shared with the Transportation, Mobility, and Infrastructure Commission on May 1, 2023.

Recommendations and feedback have been included in the presentation for City Council’s consideration.

Strategic Plan Integration
Approving Resolution 23-30 supports the 2022 strategic plan goals of “Climate & Energy” and “Mobility and Connectivity” and directly implements the goals, strategies and tactics set forth by: 2040 General Plan, Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change, Mobility Action Plan, and forthcoming Climate Action Plan. This work is critical to supporting the City’s ambitious goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change and making EV ownership more accessible and convenient for West Sacramento residents. The City selected priority locations based on electrical capacity, ease of development, distribution across the City, alignment with upcoming Mobility Hub locations identified in the Mobility Action Plan, and equity in supply charging stations that will support workplace and multifamily locations in the City’s disadvantaged communities.

Alternatives
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Recommended Action.

Alternatively, the City Council could modify the recommendation in one or more of the following ways:

1. Select another Pilot EV Charging Fee Policy developed by staff in Attachment 3; or

2. Propose additional modifications to the fees and direct staff to return at a future date with additional information and/or a modified fee schedule; or

3. Decline to act on this item and direct staff to continue offering free charging thereby subsidizing electric vehicle charging with City funds.

Staff does not recommend Alternative 1 as other funding scenarios may require additional funding allocation or may set EV charging fees at a rate that reduces demand. Staff does not recommend Alternative 2, which may delay the implementation of a fee policy and the initiation and public use of the new EV charging stations. Staff does not recommend Alternative 3, which will require the City to fully bear the costs of the EV charging stations.

Coordination and Review
This proposed fee was coordinated with the City Attorney’s office, Community Development, Parks and Recreation Capital Projects, Economic Development and Housing, and Finance Departments.

Budget/Cost Impact
Based on the above fee policy, staff anticipates a revenue of $.085 kWh for L2 and $0.175 kWh for DCFC after accounting for PG&E electricity costs and ChargePoint’s 10% transaction fee. This would be approximately $18,000 annually across all L2 chargers if each of the L2 stations average one 3-hr charging session a day and approximately $21,000 annually across all DCFC chargers if each of the DCFC stations average one 0.5-hr charging session a day. With more charging sessions, the City will have a higher revenue stream to apply toward cost recovery.

Staff has included an allocation of $131,000 for the 2-year pilot fee term - $65,000 for an EV Charging Equity Program and $66,000 to support costs of the EV charging program should cost recovery from the fee policy be lower than anticipated and supplemental funding is needed for unexpected costs – as part of the budget to be presented to City Council in late May 2023. Staff will return to City Council for consideration of an EV Charging Equity Program framework and implementation details and launch the program shortly thereafter. Staff will utilize the remaining funding from the Green Region grant, if approved by SACOG, for an Equity Program or for operations, maintenance, replacement, and program oversight of the EV charging program.

Staff has also submitted a decision package for a new position in the Economic Development & Housing Department as part of the budget process to support the EV charging program (0.50 FTE) and growing parking management needs in the City (0.50 FTE). A 0.50 FTE for the EV charging program is proposed to manage the operations and maintenance contracts; pay PG&E bills and ChargePoint fees; track and analyze the fee policy; develop and manage an EV Charging Equity Program; respond to penalty fee issues and appeals; and manage the City’s Employee EV Charging Program. Overstay fees collected from the EV charging program will be used to support an estimated 0.50 FTE for the program administration of the EV charging program for the new position.

Should the penalty fees collected fully support the 0.50 FTE staff time, the penalty fees can be used to support the next year’s program administration costs or for future maintenance, operations, replacement costs; an EV 166
Electric Vehicle Charging Fee Policy
May 3, 2023

Charging Equity Program, or City Council adopted activities/programs to expand EV adoption. It is important to note that should the new position not be approved as part of the budget process, operations, maintenance and implementation of the fees and programs proposed here will either not be possible or be very difficult as there is currently insufficient staff capacity to take on this additional workload.

It is possible with more charging sessions and/or with overstay fees, the EV charging program may see sufficient cost recovery without additional subsidy. Funding will be evaluated regularly, and annual allocations may be reduced or reallocated to the next year if sufficient funding is recovered from the EV chargers. Staff will reevaluate the proposed electric vehicle charging pilot fee policy and will return to Council should the fee need to be adjusted. The fee policy may further be updated should there be changes needed for reasons such as, but not limited to, better maximize cost recovery; manage demand; reflect updated energy costs, maintenance costs, and inflation; and/or manage other unforeseen issues.

ATTACHMENTS

1. EV Charging Stations by Site

2. Nearby Electric Vehicle Charging Fees

3. Pilot EV Charging Fee Policy Scenarios

4. Resolution 23-30
167
Attachment 1
City of West Sacramento - Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment by Site Location EV Charging Equipment to be Installed Parking Stalls with EV Charging City Hall1 7 CT4000 L2 Dual Port (inclusive of replacement of two existing)
1 CT4000 L2 Single Port
13 Standard (3 existing)
1 Standard Accessible (existing)
1 Van Accessible
Heritage Oaks Park 1 CT4000 L2 Dual Port 1 Standard
1 Van Accessible
Police Station2 1 CT4000 L2 Dual Port 2 Standard
New Corporation Yard 6 CT4000 L2 Dual Port
2 CPE250 DCFC Single Port
11 Standard (10 L2 and 1 DCFC)
1 Standard Accessible (1 L2)
2 Van Accessible (1 L2 and 1 DCFC)
Joey Lopes Park 4 CT4000 L2 Dual Port
2 CT4000 L2 Single Port
8 Standard
1 Van Accessible
1 Standard Accessible
Bridge Street Parking Lot 2 CPE250 DCFC Single Port 1 Standard 1 Van Accessible
4 existing Standard Accessible stalls with L2 ports
(equipment not to be replaced)
Community Center 4 CT4000 L2 Dual Port
2 CT4000 L2 Single Port
8 Standard
1 Van Accessible
1 Standard Accessible
Lighthouse Charter School 1 CT4000 L2 Dual Port
1 CT4000 L2 Single Port
2 Standard
1 Van Accessible
15th and Alabama Parking Lot 2 CT4000 L2 Single Port
2 CPE250 DCFC Single Port
2 Standard (1 L2 and 1 DCFC)
2 Van Accessible (1 L2 and 1 DCFC)
3rd Street and D Street Curbside 4 CPE250 DCFC Single Port 3 Standard 1 Van Accessible
7 th Street and Tower Bridge
Gateway Parking Lot
2 CT4000 L2 Dual Port
2 CT4000 L2 Single Port
4 Standard
1 Van Accessible
1 Standard Accessible
Elkhorn Plaza Curbside 2 CPE250 Single Port 1 Standard
1 Van Accessible
Total
26 CT4000 L2 Dual Port
10 CT4000 L2 Single Port
12 CPE250 DCFC Single Port
56 Standard
5 Standard Accessible
13 Van Accessible
1 One L2 at City Hall may be replaced with a Freewire DCFC charging station as a pilot. If this occurs, City may add the City Hall L2 to the Bridge Street Parking Lot. 2 The Police Station installation will utilize funding from a Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) Clean Air Fund grant awarded to the City in 2020 to meet demand from employees for EV charging that site. Staff has combined this effort with the PiP Program to realize cost savings for procurement of equipment, installation costs, and staff resources.
168
Attachment 1
City of West Sacramento - Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment by Site 169
Attachment 2
Nearby Electric Vehicle Charging Fees
Location Charging
Network
Charging Type Fees
ChargePoint L2 - Free EV Charging
- Parking Fee Varies by Location but generally $1.50 each half hour with varying daily maximums (Capitol: 10th & L St; City Hall: 10th & I St., 11th & I St.; Tower Bridge: Front St. & Capitol Mall; Old Sacramento: 2nd & I St.; Memorial: 14th & H, 15th & I St.)
City of Sacramento - Select Garages
Shell Recharge DCFC - $0.25 kWh + $0.35 access fee
- Parking: $1 per 20 mins; $12 max (Sacramento Valley Station) City of Winters
Community Center and 1 St/Abbey
St Parking Lot
Blink L2 - $0.49 per kWh
- Overstay fee: $2.50 per 30 minutes starting 30 minutes after fully charged
- Parking: $0
City of Vacaville Non-Network L2 - Free EV Charging and parking City of Woodland Non-Network L2 - Free EV Charging
- Parking: $0; Free public parking lots at City Hall, Public Library, and Park and Ride
7-Eleven at 4010 Lake Road ChargePoint DCFC - $0.46 per kWh - Overstay fee: $1.00 per minute starting 15 minutes after fully charged
Ikea at 700 Ikea Court ChargePoint L2 - $0.28 per kWh
- Parking: $0
Maverick Gas Station at 3975 Lake
Road
Non-network L2 - Free EV Charging and parking
Ziggurat at 707 3rd Street ChargePoint L2 - $0.12 kWh
- Parking: $1.00 per 20 minutes; maximum $15
L2 - Same per-KWh as DCFC OR .03 per min
- Parking fee dependent on property owner
Electrify America Network
(Sites nearby include Riverpoint
Marketplace, 16th/L St Parking Lot in
Sacramento; Target on Riverside in
Sacramento; Cannnery Parking Lot
in Sacramento; Old Davis Road in
Electrify
America
DCFC Pass Plus Member
- 0.36 per kWh OR 0.15 per minute from 1-90 kW and 0.29 per minute from 90-350 kW
- $4 monthly fee
170
Location Charging
Network
Charging Type Fees
Davis) Pass Member
- 0.48 per kWh OR 0.19 per minute from 1-90kW; .37 per
minute from 91-350 kW
- $0 monthly fee
- Parking fee dependent on property owner
EVgo Network
(Only DCFCs nearby. Sites nearby in
Sacramento provide curbside EV
charging include Southside Park,
22nd St, and 14th St)
EVgo DCFC Pay as You Go
- $0.34-$0.61 per kWh* plus $0.99 activation fee
- Optional reservation $3; $0/month membership fee
EVgo Basic
- $0.34-$0.61 per kWh*
- Optional reservation $3; $0.99/month membership fee
EVgo Plus
- $0.25-$0.46 per kWh*
- Free reservations; $6.99/month membership fee
EVgo PlusMax
- $0.22-$0.39 per kWh *
- Free reservations; $12.99/month membership fee
- *kWh rate vary by TOU and per plan.
- Parking fee dependent on property owner
171
Attachment 3
Electric Vehicle Charging Pilot Fee Policy Options
Scenario 1: Two Hour Free Charging for L2; Probable Market Tolerable Fees  L2 fee set at 35 cents per kWh
o 2-hr free charging
 DCFC fee set at 45 cents per kWh1
 In the conservative scenario, where each charging station only charges an average of 1 station per day2, the City may need to allocate $35,000 for electricity and ChargePoint Fees and approximately $335,000 per year to support operations, maintenance, program administration, leasing, and replacement costs. With more vehicle sessions, the City will subsidize more electricity.

Level 2 EV Charging Fee Scenarios
Estimated Number of Sessions
Per Day (for dual ports)
assuming 3 hr charge
1 2 4 6
Estimate kWh fee to Recover
Estimated Costs (Electricity after
2 hr, ChargePoint Cloud, Assure,
Equipment Replacement, Staff
Time, Construction, and Site
Leasing)
$2.68 $1.47 $0.86 $0.66
Estimated kWh Subsidy of free
2-hr charging, Electricity,
Operating, Maintenance, and
Replacement after 35 cent per
kWh fee
$2.33 +
$32,662.12
for electricity
$1.12 +
$65,324.23
for electricity
$0.51 +
$130,648.46
for electricity
$0.31 +
$195,972.70
for electricity
Estimated Annualized Subsidy
of all L2 chargers $198,441.17 $224,215.84 $275,765.18 $327,314.52 DCFC EV Charging Fee Scenarios
Estimated Number of Sessions
Per Day assuming .5 hr charge 1 3 6 9
Estimate kWh fee to Recover
Estimated Costs (Electricity,
ChargePoint Cloud, Assure,
Equipment Replacement, and
Staff Time, Construction)
$1.84 $0.78 $0.52 $0.43
Estimated kWh Subsidy of
Electricity, Operating,
Maintenance, and Replacement
after 45 cent per kWh fee
$1.39 $0.33 $0.07 -
3 1 Based on nearby DCFC charging fees and SMUD’s lower electricity rate, staff estimates that 40 cents per kWh is a competitive DCFC charging fee.
2 It is possible that a charging station may be used less (frequency and charging session) than assumed. 3 The City will not need to subsidize the program and could possibly recover costs. Staff is uncertain whether charging frequency will reach the estimated number of sessions. Staff will return to City Council with an updated fee schedule to ensure that the fee does not exceed the reasonable costs of providing EV charging program. 172
Estimated Annualized Subsidy
of all DCFC chargers $170,877.91 $122,308.79 $49,455.11 - 3 Scenario 2: All Reasonable Costs Passed on to the Driver  L2 fee set at 39 cents per kWh
 DCFC fee set to 45 cents per kWh4
 In the conservative scenario where each charging station only charges an average of 1 session per day5, the City may not need to allocate additional funding for electricity and ChargePoint Fees, but may need to allocate approximately $314,000 per year to support operations, maintenance, program administration, leasing, and replacement costs.

Level 2 EV Charging Fee Sessions Scenarios
Estimated Number of Sessions
Per Day (for dual ports)
assuming 3 hr charge
1 2 4 6
Estimate kWh fee to Recover
Estimated Costs (Electricity
ChargePoint Cloud, Assure,
Equipment Replacement, Staff
Time, Construction, and Site
Leasing)
$1.06 $0.66 $0.46 $0.39
Estimated kWh Subsidy of
Electricity Operating,
Maintenance, and Replacement
after 39 cent per kWh fee
$0.67 $0.27 $0.07 -
6 Estimated Annualized Subsidy
of all L2 chargers $143,483.61 $114,300.72 $55,934.93 - 5 DCFC EV Charging Fee Sessions Scenarios
Estimated Number of Sessions
Per Day assuming .5 hr charge 1 3 6 9
Estimate kWh fee to Recover
Estimated Costs (Electricity
ChargePoint Cloud, Assure,
Equipment Replacement, and
Staff Time, Construction)
$1.84 $0.78 $0.52 $0.43
Estimated kWh Subsidy of
Electricity, Operating,
Maintenance, and Replacement
after 45 cent per kWh fee
$1.39 $0.33 $0.07 -
5 4 Based on nearby DCFC charging fees and SMUD’s lower electricity rate, staff estimates that 40 cents per kWh is a competitive DCFC charging fee.
5 It is possible that a charging station may be used less (frequency and charging session) than assumed. 6 The City will not need to subsidize the program and could possibly recover costs. Staff is uncertain whether charging frequency will reach the estimated number of sessions. Staff will return to City Council with an updated fee schedule to ensure that the fee does not exceed the reasonable costs of providing EV charging program. 173
Estimated Annualized Subsidy
of all DCFC chargers $170,877.91 $122,308.79 $49,455.11 - 5 Scenario 3: City Subsidizes Fee to Probable Market Tolerable Rate  L2 fee set at 35 cents per kWh
 DCFC fee set at 45 cents per kWh7
 In the conservative scenario, where each charging station only charges an average of 1 station per day8, the City may not need to allocate additional funding for electricity and ChargePoint Fees, but may need to allocate approximately $322,000 per year to support operations, maintenance, program administration, leasing, and replacement costs.

Level 2 EV Charging Fee Sessions Scenarios
Estimated Number of Sessions
Per Day (for dual ports)
assuming 3 hr charge
1 2 4 6
Estimate kWh fee to Recover
Estimated Costs (Electricity,
ChargePoint Cloud, Assure,
Equipment Replacement, Staff
Time, Construction, and Site
Leasing)
$1.06 $0.66 $0.46 $0.39
Estimated kWh Subsidy of
Electricity, Operating,
Maintenance, and Replacement
after 35 cent per kWh fee
$0.71 $0.31 $0.11 $0.04
Estimated Annualized Subsidy
of all L2 chargers $152,004.16 $131,341.82 $90,017.14 $48,692.47 DCFC EV Charging Fee Sessions Scenarios
Estimated Number of Sessions
Per Day assuming .5 hr charge 1 3 6 9
Estimate kWh fee to Recover
Estimated Costs (Electricity,
ChargePoint Cloud, Assure,
Equipment Replacement, and
Staff Time, Construction)
$1.84 $0.78 $0.52 $0.43
7 Based on nearby DCFC charging fees and SMUD’s lower electricity rate, staff estimates that 45 cents per kWh is a competitive DCFC charging fee.
8 It is possible that a charging station may be used less (frequency and charging session) than assumed. 174
Estimated kWh Subsidy of
Electricity, Operating,
Maintenance, and Replacement
after 45 cent per kWh fee
$1.39 $0.33 $0.07 -
9 Estimated Annualized Subsidy
of all DCFC chargers $170,877.91 $122,308.79 $49,455.11 - 9 Scenario 4: Replacement Costs Funded by City, Other Costs Passed to Driver  L2 fee set at 33 cents per kWh
 DCFC fee set at 31 cents per kWh10
 In the conservative scenario, where each charging station only charges an average of 1 station per day11, the City may not need to allocate additional funding for electricity and ChargePoint fees, but will need to allocate approximately $128,000 per year to support operations, maintenance, program administration, and leasing costs.  Without recovering funding from drivers to support replacement costs, City Council will need to allocate or find funding in the future new equipment. Staff estimates that the equipment, design, and construction cost for all chargers will be approximately $2,000,000. Staff will track and monitor the program – if revenue is higher than anticipated, the excess revenue will go toward replacement costs. Staff will monitor and evaluate the funding to ensure that revenue does not exceed all reasonable costs of the program.

Level 2 EV Charging Fee Sessions Scenarios
Estimated Number of Sessions
Per Day (for dual ports)
assuming 3 hr charge
1 2 4 6
Estimate kWh fee to Recover
Estimated Costs (Electricity,
ChargePoint Cloud, Assure,
Staff Time, and Site Leasing)
$0.68 $0.47 $0.36 $0.33
Estimated kWh Subsidy of
Electricity Operating and
Maintenance, after 33 cent per
kWh fee
$0.35 $0.14 $0.03 -
12 Estimated Annualized Subsidy
of all L2 chargers $75,396.96 $58,994.90 $26,190.77 -
12 DCFC EV Charging Fee Sessions Scenarios
Estimated Number of Sessions
Per Day assuming .5 hr charge 1 3 6 9
9 The City will not need to subsidize the program and could possibly recover costs. Staff is uncertain whether charging frequency will reach the estimated number of sessions. Staff will return to City Council with an updated fee schedule to ensure that the fee does not exceed the reasonable costs of providing EV charging program. 10 DCFC fee is lower than L2 fee because replacement costs are not proposed to be passed on to the driver. DCFCs have high capital costs - replacement costs were high in Scenario 1 thru 3, but not assumed to be passed to the driver in Scenario 4.
11 It is possible that a charging station may be used less (frequency and charging session) than assumed. 12 The City will not need to subsidize the program and could possibly recover costs. Staff is uncertain whether charging frequency will reach the estimated number of sessions. Staff will return to City Council with an updated fee schedule to ensure that the fee does not exceed the reasonable costs of providing EV charging program. 175
Estimate kWh fee to Recover
Estimated Costs (Electricity,
ChargePoint Cloud, Assure, and
Staff Time)
$0.74 $0.41 $0.33 $0.31
Estimated kWh Subsidy of
Electricity Operating and
Maintenance, after 31 cent per
kWh fee
$0.43 $0.10 $0.02 -
12 Estimated Annualized Subsidy
of all DCFC chargers $52,740.80 $38,687.80 $17,608.31 - 12 Scenario 5: Replacement Costs and Staff Time Funded by City, Other Costs Passed to Driver
 L2 fee set at 27 cents per kWh
 DCFC fee set at 29 cents per kWh13
 In the conservative scenario, where each charging station only charges an average of 1 station per day14, the City may not need to allocate additional funding for electricity and ChargePoint fees, but will need to allocate approximately $44,000 per year for operations, maintenance, and leasing costs.
 Without recovering funding from drivers to support replacement and program administration costs, City Council will need to allocate or find funding in the future new equipment and allocate funding for a new position. Staff estimates that the equipment, design, and construction cost for all chargers will be approximately $2,000,000.

Additionally, City Council will need to identify funding for a 0.50 FTE staff.

Level 2 EV Charging Fee Sessions Scenarios
Estimated Number of Sessions
Per Day (for dual ports)
assuming 3 hr charge
1 2 4 6
Estimate kWh fee to Recover
Estimated Costs (Electricity,
ChargePoint Cloud, Assure, and
Site Leasing)
$0.35 $0.30 $0.28 $0.27
Estimated kWh Subsidy of
Electricity Operating and
Maintenance, after 27 cent per
kWh fee
$0.08 $0.03 $.01 -
15 Estimated Annualized Subsidy
of all L2 chargers $16,677.79 $13,056.55 $5,814.08 -
15 DCFC EV Charging Fee Sessions Scenarios
Estimated Number of Sessions
Per Day assuming .5 hr charge 1 3 6 9
13 DCFC fee is higher than L2 fee because replacement costs and staff time are not proposed to be passed on to the driver. Staff time was applied equally across all chargers and DCFCs have high capital costs. 14 It is possible that a charging station may be used less (frequency and charging session) than assumed. 15 The City will not need to subsidize the program and could possibly recover costs. Staff is uncertain whether charging frequency will reach the estimated number of sessions. Staff will return to City Council with an updated fee schedule to ensure that the fee does not exceed the reasonable costs of providing EV charging program. 176
Estimate kWh fee to Recover
Estimated Costs (Electricity,
ChargePoint Cloud, and Assure)
$0.51 $0.34 $0.30 $0.28
Estimated kWh Subsidy of
Electricity Operating and
Maintenance, after 29 cent per
kWh fee
$0.22 $0.05 $0.02 -
15 Estimated Annualized Subsidy
of all DCFC chargers $26,606.23 $17,484.11 $3,800.94 -
15 177
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION 23-30

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

AMENDING THE BOOK OF FEES TO ADOPT FEES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING

STATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to establish fees or service charges which do not exceed the reasonable cost of enforcing regulatory activities or providing product or service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised this authority by adopting Resolution No. 89-128 establishing the City of West Sacramento Book of Fees; and WHEREAS, this Book of Fees is amended from time to time to reflect changes in the cost of enforcing regulating activities or providing product or service; and WHEREAS, the City has installed or will install electric vehicle charging stations and infrastructure within the city and desires to set rates to charge users of the electric vehicle charging stations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the Book of Fees to adopt fees which will help recover actual costs; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, ORDERED, AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento that:

1. The various fee schedules attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated by reference herein are hereby adopted into the City of West Sacramento Book of Fees.

2. The City Council finds that as required by various government codes, it has held at least one public hearing at which oral or written presentations could be made, as a part of a regularly scheduled meeting, and that notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data of this matter is available, was noticed by publication two times over a period of ten days with at least five days intervening between dates of publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; and a first class mailing was made to anyone filing a written request.

3. The City Council hereby finds, based on the information and documents prepared for and presented to the Council to support this action, that the rates, fees, charges and costs approved hereby are for the purpose of and necessary for (a) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, (b) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, (c) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, and (d) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain and replace service within existing service areas and City boundaries.

4. The City Council finds that the fees specified by this Resolution do not exceed the cost of providing the product or service or the regulation for which the fee is levied.

5. The fees and charges adopted herein are to become effective on July 3, 2023 unless otherwise indicated on the fee schedule or provided for in California law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the West Sacramento City Council this 3rd day of May, 2023 by the following vote:
178
Resolution 23-30

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
179
Attachment 4 - Exhibit A

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

BOOK OF FEES
Administered by Finance DepartmentAdministrative Services – Finance Division Page 1 of 1 Description Authority Effective Date
Electric Vehicle Charging Station Fees Resolution 23-30 July 3, 2023 City operated electric vehicle charging station public charging fees are as follows:

Station Type Fee Amount Overstay Penalty Fee*
Level 2 Charging
Station
While Charging: up to $0.35 per
kWh
While parked, not charging:
$0.50 per minute (maximum
of $300)
Direct Current Fast
Charging Station
While Charging: up to $0.45 per
kWh
While parked, not charging:
$0.50 per minute (maximum
of $500)
*Grace period of 10 minutes when vehicle is fully charged or after the posted charging time limit, whichever comes first.
180

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 3, 2023 ITEM # 9
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION 23-32
ADOPTING THE 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR

THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:

Isaah Alford, Community Investment Specialist
Economic Development and Housing
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide the Council with information necessary to conduct a public hearing to receive comments and to adopt the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan for the use of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing and, upon closing the public hearing, approve Resolution 23-32 (Attachment 1) adopting the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan for the use of federal CDBG funding.

BACKGROUND
The City of West Sacramento (City) became eligible to receive federal CDBG Entitlement funding from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in fiscal year 2016/2017. In accordance with HUD regulations, the City developed a five-year Consolidated Plan examining the needs of low-income persons and neighborhoods and setting goals for the use of CDBG funding. The current HUD Income Limits for Yolo County can be found in Attachment 2. The consolidated planning process honors community connections established during previous outreach efforts and builds upon the community concerns voiced during the citizen participation process. The City’s 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan was adopted by the City Council on April 21, 2021 and subsequently approved by HUD. The Consolidated Plan identified six goals to be addressed within the fiveyear period:
 Consolidated Plan Goal #1: Address the supportive services needs of persons experiencing homelessness and those at risk of homelessness;
 Consolidated Plan Goal #2: Create low barrier housing opportunities for persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income households;
 Consolidated Plan Goal #3: Construct infrastructure improvements in low-income neighborhoods;  Consolidated Plan Goal #4: Provide Fair Housing services for low-and moderate-income residents;  Consolidated Plan Goal #5: Support small business success; and  Consolidated Plan Goal #6: Preservation of Affordable housing stock.

No more than 15% of the annual allocation may be spent on public services. Additionally, the City is limited to no more than 20% each year for general program administration for items such as required reporting to HUD, addressing fair housing issues, conducting environmental review of CDBG funded projects, or for planning activities such as developing the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and required fair housing studies.

ANALYSIS
HUD encourages jurisdictions to focus CDBG funds on activities that will provide a significant impact, rather than spreading funds around in a “scatter shot” manner. The impact of CDBG can be further enhanced by using funds to leverage other local, State or federal sources. The federal CDBG program is a flexible funding source which allows Entitlement jurisdictions to use the money for a wide range of activities including, but not limited to:
 Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing (new housing construction is not allowed).  Acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of public facilities serving low-income persons (e.g., parks, youth centers, health clinics or homeless shelters)
 Construction or rehabilitation of public infrastructure that serves low-income residential units or neighborhoods (e.g., sewer lines or street improvements).  Public services limited to low-income residents (e.g., homeless programs, youth programs, services for the elderly).
181
Public Hearing for Reso 23-32 Adopting the 2023-2023 AAP for the CDBG Program May 3, 2023

 Economic development activities that create jobs for low-income persons (e.g., business loans) or assistance to low-income microenterprise business owners.  General administration and planning studies for CDBG eligible projects.

On February 27, 2023, HUD announced that the City will receive a CDBG allocation of $518,743 for the 2023 program year, the third year of the 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan. Additional resources for the 2023 Annual Action Plan will include $80,000 in anticipated program income and a carry-over amount of $203,682.99 from prior year resources. Program income is received by the City as past CDBG loans are repaid, or payments are received; carry-over funds come from prior-year allocations that were not drawn down because the City is required to spend Program Income funds before any allocation funds are spent.

It is important to note that Consolidated Plan goals are planned to be fulfilled during the entirety of the five-year period and not all with CDBG funds. Additionally, given the limited CDBG funds received by the City, not every goal may be fulfilled. The draft 2023 Annual Action Plan (Attachment 3) recommends the following activities and funding allocations:

Activity Consolidated Plan Goal Alignment Allocation Amount Washington and Broderick
Lighting and Safety Project
Consolidated Plan Goal #3: Construct
infrastructure improvements in low-income
neighborhood;
$400,000.00
Washington Neighborhood,
Sidewalk, Lighting and
Landscaping Improvement
Project
Consolidated Plan Goal #3: Construct
infrastructure improvements in low-income
neighborhood;
$203,682.99
Homekey Supportive Services at
Rodeway Inn
Consolidated Plan Goal #1: Address the
supportive services needs of persons
experiencing homelessness and those at risk of
homelessness.
$78,995.00
General Administration and
Planning
Consolidated Plan Goal #4 (Low-Priority):

Provide Fair Housing services for low-and
moderate-income residents
$119,748.00
Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Project
Up to $400,000 will be used to support the Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Improvement Project to improve pedestrian safety and driver visibility throughout the Washington and Broderick neighborhoods by replacing and updating street and traffic lights, in addition to installation of security cameras to improve policing resources. The Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Improvement Project meets the CDBG Low/Mod Area Benefit Objective because it will primarily benefit the low-income residents of Census Tract 101.01 and will improve pedestrian safety and driver visibility throughout the Washington and Broderick neighborhoods (see Attachment 4 for project location).

The City Council approved 2022 CDBG funds to purchase the necessary supplies and equipment. City Staff solicited bids for lighting fixtures, signal cabinets, video detection cameras, and pedestrian push buttons through Opengov/Procurenow. City staff published an invitation to bid on November 30, 2022, selecting JAM Services, Inc. as the responsive, and responsible bidder. On February 2, 2023, the City Council approved the purchase of electrical materials from JAM Services. The proposed 2023 CDBG allocation will fund the oversight and installation of safety equipment.

Washington Neighborhood Sidewalk, Lighting and Landscape Improvement Project Up to $203,682.99 will be used to support the extension of ADA compliant walkways, trees, and adequate street lighting in the Washington Neighborhood along the southern side of E Street and both sides of F Street between Sixth and Fifth Streets, (see Attachment 5 for project location). The 440 West Project Developer will be installing the frontage on the northern side of E Street between 5th and 8th. Activities associated with this project include planning and design work; relocating architectural barriers to accessibility (utility poles and street sign poles); installing new ADA compliant sidewalk, curb and gutter; and installing lighting and landscaping improvements.

This project will promote walking and bicycle trips to jobs, park amenities and retail within the Washington Neighborhood. Additionally, the funds will be used to support anticipated NEPA/CEQA mitigation measures. 182
Public Hearing for Reso 23-32 Adopting the 2023-2023 AAP for the CDBG Program May 3, 2023

The E and F Street project is located in Census Tract 101.01, which is identified as low-income area challenged with aging infrastructure, underutilized properties, lack of lighting for security, derelict buildings, and lack of economic vitality. The E and F Street project is consistent with the strategies identified within Washington Realized; the project will address infrastructure deficiencies within the Washington neighborhood by completing disconnected sidewalk and street crossing networks to support walkability and connectivity to public transportation and riverfront trails. Additionally, three affordable housing developments, which provide over two hundred affordable units to the Washington Neighborhood, are located on E and F Streets between Sixth and Eighth Streets, west of the project site, and the 440 West development is planned directly to the north on E Street. This project will largely benefit low-income residents needing pedestrian/ADA accessibility to access public transportation within the Washington Neighborhood, specifically public bus stops along Fifth Street.

Homekey Supportive Services at 817 West Capitol Avenue
Up to $78,995 will be used to support the case management contract for the Homekey program at the former Rodeway Inn motel. In December 2020, the City purchased the 40-unit Rodeway Inn to serve homeless individuals susceptible to the COVID-19 virus. The City used CDBG program income, CDBG CARES Act (CDBGCV), local Measure E funds, federal Coronavirus Relief Funds and State of California Homekey Program funds to purchase the motel and provide non-congregate interim housing for persons experiencing homelessness.

The goal of the Homekey Program is to get program participants stabilized and moved into permanent housing.

It is anticipated that the project will serve 60 homeless households in 2023/2024.

General Administration and Planning
Up to $119,748 will be used for program administration activities including reporting to HUD, conducting environmental review of CDBG funded projects, planning activities such as developing the Annual Action Plan, and affirmatively furthering fair housing by providing fair housing counseling services to residents of West Sacramento.

Environmental Considerations
Activities receiving CDBG funding must satisfy all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. HUD requires the City to complete all required NEPA/CEQA reviews prior to initiating any grant activity.

Commission Recommendation
In January and February 2023 staff held presentations at the Economic Development and Housing (EDH) Commission and Parks, Recreation, and Intergenerational Services (PRIS) Commission, respectively, to announce the availability of CDBG funds and obtain feedback for funding recommendations. The EDH Commission recommended replenishing funds that were reallocated from the 2020 and 2021 Annual Action Plan into the Washington Neighborhood Sidewalk, Lighting and Landscape Improvement Project. In addition, the Mercy Coalition of West Sacramento offered public comment at both commission meetings concerning their proposed Mosaic Village Project, which seeks to expand on their Recovery Café mission to provide a sober living environment, workforce development programs and wellness, mental health and life-skills access. Both commissions were supportive of using CDBG funds for Mosaic Village. This proposed project is in its initial planning stage, but the Mercy Coalition and city staff will continue to work together for potential funding of this project in future allocations. F i n a l l y , t h e PRIS Commission recommended increasing public outreach to have input on funding activities for the annual action plan. The recommendations received from both Commissions assisted in framing the goals and activities for the 2023 Annual Action Plan.

Strategic Plan Integration
CDBG funding is a critical component of the City’s mission to provide quality municipal services, infrastructure, community improvements, financially sound city government and a superior workforce. Completion of the 2021- 2025 Consolidated Plan was a 2022 Strategic Plan Top Priority Management Agenda item.

Alternatives
The City Council’s primary alternatives are:

1. Hold the public hearing and elect not to approve 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan; or

2. Hold the public hearing and propose alternative activities for the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan Alternatives 1 and 2 are not recommended because HUD regulations require the City to encourage public participation in the development of the Annual Action Plan and the recommended activities in the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan were formulated from community feedback throughout the planning process. 183
Public Hearing for Reso 23-32 Adopting the 2023-2023 AAP for the CDBG Program May 3, 2023

Coordination and Review
This report and the funding recommendations were coordinated with Capital Projects and Transportation staff who manage the implementation of the Washington Neighborhood Sidewalk, Lighting and Landscaping Improvement Project and the Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Project.

Budget/Cost Impact
The City anticipates receiving $518,743 in CDBG funding for 2023. Annual allocations of CDBG funds are contingent upon the HUD budget as approved by congress. Additional resources for the 2023 Annual Action Plan will also include $80,000 in anticipated program income and a carry-over amount of $203,682.99 from prior year resources.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution 23-32

2. 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan

3. HUD Income Limits for Yolo County

4. Project Location - Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Project

5. Project Location - Washington Neighborhood Sidewalk, Lighting and Landscape Improvement Project 184
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 23-32

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO ADOPTING THE 2023/2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento (City) is eligible to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a federal Entitlement jurisdiction authorized under Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 and the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990; and
WHEREAS, per HUD regulations, the City must submit an Annual Action Plan to HUD that identifies funding allocations for the period of July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City conducted public hearings on January 25, 2023 and May 3, 2023 to receive public comments on development of the 2023/2024 Annual Action Plan per HUD regulations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento hereby approves the following 2023/2024 funding allocations for federal CDBG Entitlement funds, and Program income funds:

Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Project $400,000.00 Washington Neighborhood Sidewalk, Lighting
and Landscape Improvement Project $203,682.99
Homekey Program Supportive Services at 817 West Capitol Ave $78,995.00 General Administration and Planning $119,748.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of West Sacramento hereby:

1. Adopts the 2023/2024 Annual Action Plan for the federal CDBG program; and

2. Authorizes and directs the City Manager or his designee to execute any agreements, contracts or other documents required by HUD for submission of the Annual Action Plan; and

3. Authorizes and directs the City Manager or his designee to submit the 2023/2024 Annual Action Plan to HUD.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento this 3rd day of May, 2023, by the following vote:

YES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
185
Attachment 2
Executive Summary
AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction
The City of West Sacramento (City) became eligible to receive federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Fiscal Year 2016/17. In accordance with HUD regulations, the City developed a five-year Consolidated Plan examining the needs of low-income persons and neighborhoods and setting goals for the use of CDBG funding. The consolidated planning process honors community connections established during previous outreach efforts and builds upon the community concerns voiced during the citizen participation process.

The consolidated plan process included: a review of previously collected data, recent census data and other available data; citizen input received from focus groups; presentations to City Commissions, the City Council and interested groups; and three public hearings. The City of West Sacramento's 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan was adopted by the West Sacramento City Council on April 21, 2021 and approved by HUD. The 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan identified six goals to be addressed within the five-year period:
 Consolidated Plan Goal #1: Address the supportive services needs of persons experiencing homelessness and those at risk of homelessness;
 Consolidated Plan Goal #2: Create low barrier housing opportunities for persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income households;
 Consolidated Plan Goal #3: Construct infrastructure improvements in low-income neighborhoods;
 Consolidated Plan Goal #4: Provide Fair Housing services for low-and moderate-income residents;
 Consolidated Plan Goal #5: Support small business success; and  Consolidated Plan Goal #6: Preservation of Affordable housing stock.

For each year of the Consolidated Plan, the City must develop an Annual Action Plan (Action Plan) detailing how CDBG funds will be used to meet the overall goals of the Consolidated Plan. Once an Annual Action Plan is adopted, the federal CDBG Entitlement funding from HUD is distributed to the City on a fiscal-year basis (July-June). At the beginning of each program year (PY), the City is allocated its yearly award and required to use its funds as prescribed within that year's Annual Action Plan.

2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan This could be a restatement of items or a table listed elsewhere in the plan or a reference to another location. It may also contain any essential items from the housing and homeless needs assessment, the housing market analysis or the strategic plan.

The Action Plan serves as an outline of the City’s intent to pursue the overall goals of HUD’s community development and planning programs, including:
186
Annual Action Plan 2
 Provide decent and quality housing;
 To establish and maintain a suitable living environment; and  To expand economic revitalization opportunities.

The Action Plan also serves as:
 A planning document for the City, based on a participatory process;  An annual application for federal funds under HUD’s formula CDBG grant program; and  A strategy for administering HUD programs; and
 A plan that provides a basis for assessing performance.

Additionally, the 2023 Action Plan will prescribe how the current year's funding will further the goals outlined within the City's 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan. The 2023 Action Plan will provide funding for activities that further the following goals:
 Consolidated Plan Goal #1: Address the supportive services needs of persons experiencing homelessness and those at risk of homelessness;
 Consolidated Plan Goal #3: Construct infrastructure improvements in low-income neighborhoods; and
 Consolidated Plan Goal #4: Provide Fair Housing services for low-and moderate-income residents

3. Evaluation of past performance
This is an evaluation of past performance that helped lead the grantee to choose its goals or projects.

Since becoming eligible for the Federal Entitlement program, the City's CDBG allocations have been used to support projects that have furthered the goals outlined within the 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan:
 Consolidated Plan Goal #1 (High Priority): Reduce the incidence and impact of homelessness.  Consolidated Plan Goal #2 (High Priority): Achieve goals in the HUD Challenge Grant funded Washington Realized: A Sustainable Community Strategy.
 Consolidated Plan Goal #3 (Low Priority): Strengthen economic opportunities for lower-income households.
 Consolidated Plan Goal #4 (Low Priority): Affirmatively further fair housing compliance.

A summary of those projects is outlined below by program year.

Program Year 2016 Projects
 River Walk Trail: The 2016 Action Plan allocated funding for design and engineering for improvements to the River Walk Trail from the I Street Bridge north to the Broderick Boat Ramp, located in the Washington Neighborhood (Census Tract 101.01). This project will provide a bike/pedestrian route and ADA improvements to activate the riverfront and allow residents in the 187
Annual Action Plan 3
Washington neighborhood access to a viable option to reach the job centers in downtown Sacramento without using a motor vehicle. This project was in support of addressing Consolidated Plan Goal #2: Achieve goals in the HUD Challenge Grant funded Washington Realized: A Sustainable Community Strategy. The project is currently underway and is anticipated to be completed in April 2023.

Program Year 2017 & 2018 Projects
 Permanent Supportive Housing: The 2017 and 2018 Action Plans allocated funding to help acquire property suitable for the development of an initial minimum of 20 units of housing targeted to persons experiencing homelessness and persons at-risk of homelessness. The City partnered with Mercy Housing California to acquire a site to support up to 85 units of permanent supportive housing that would offer low barriers to entry and on-site supportive services to those targeted persons. The Mercy Housing PSH project was completed in December 2021 and remains 100% occupied. This project is in support of addressing Consolidated Plan Goal #1 (High Priority):

Reduce the incidence and impact of homelessness.

Program Year 2019 Project
 Washington Public Infrastructure Improvements: The 2019 Action Plan allocated funding support frontage improvements along E and F Streets between Sixth and Fifth Streets to allow for improved ADA accessibility to access public transportation, local parks, and riverfront trails within the Washington Neighborhood. This project is in support of Consolidated Plan Goal #2: Achieve goals in the HUD Challenge Grant funded Washington Realized: A Sustainable Community Strategy.

Program Year 2020 & 2021 Project
 Homekey Program: In an effort to assist the homeless amid the COVID-19 pandemic, City Council authorized acquisition of the 40-unit Rodeway Inn motel. The acquisition of the Rodeway Inn was made possible with funds from the State Homekey Program, This project was in support of Consolidated Plan Goal #1 to reduce the incidence and impact of homelessness.

Additionally, the City allocates a portion of its General Administration and Planning cap to fund activities that affirmatively further fair housing. This allocation set aside has been used to participate in the development of a Sacramento regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and fund a contract with a fair housing services consultant to provide fair housing outreach, counseling, education, testing, enforcement, and landlord/tenant dispute resolution. These services are offered to reduce discrimination and the incidence of homelessness due to avoidable evictions. These activities are in support of addressing Consolidated Plan Goal #4 (Low Priority): Affirmatively further fair housing compliance.

At the end of each program year, the City is required to complete a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). This annual report is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). More on the City's evaluation of past performance can be found within these reports. These annual reports are available for public review on the City of West Sacramento's website and copies are available at City Hall (1110 West Capitol Avenue; West Sacramento, CA 95691). 188
Annual Action Plan 4
Program Year 2022 Project
Microenterprise Assistance: The 2019 Action Plan allocated funding to provide a microenterprise technical assistance program for low- to moderate-income individuals who currently own or are actively working towards developing a business that is expected to be a microenterprise at the time it is formed. This goal is in support of Consolidated Plan Goal #3 (Low Priority): Strengthen economic opportunities for lowerincome households. The City entered a contract with the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (CHCC) to administer the program. Due to the COVID pandemic, the program was delayed but the CHCC was able to initiate services in 2022. The program provided a thorough business development and financial literacy process for participants. As a result, a total of 24 business development workshops were conducted in English and Spanish and 17 small businesses received technical assistance services. The City will continue to partner with the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and conduct business workshops in 2023.

4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process Summary from citizen participation section of plan.

The City's Economic Development and Housing (EDH) Commission conducted a public hearing on January 25, 2023 to announce the availability of Program Year (PY) 2023 CDBG funding and to receive public comments regarding possible activities for funding. On February 7, 2023, a presentation was made to the City's Parks, Recreation and Intergenerational Services (PRIS) Commission to receive Commission feedback regarding possible activities for funding. On May 5, 2023, the City Council will conduct a final public hearing to review the Annual Action plan prior to its adoption and provide authorization for submission to HUD for approval.

The draft Action Plan will be made available to the public for a 30-day review period starting March 17, 2023 and ending April 17, 2023. All public hearings and noticing periods were properly noticed in the West Sacramento News-Ledger and emailed to interested individuals and agencies including the Yolo County Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC), which acts as the local Continuum of Care, and the Bryte and Broderick Community Action Network (BBCAN).

5. Summary of public comments
In January and February 2023 staff held presentations at the Economic Development and Housing (EDH) Commission and Parks, Recreation, and Intergenerational Services (PRIS) Commission, respectively, to announce the availability of CDBG funds and obtain feedback for funding recommendations. The EDH Commission recommended replenishing funds that were reallocated from the 2020 and 2021 Annual Action Plan into the Washington Neighborhood Sidewalk, Lighting and Landscape Improvement Project. The project is still undergoing environmental review and once the environmental review is completed, staff plan on funding the construction phase of this project. In addition, Mercy Coalition of West Sacramento offered public comment at both commission meetings concerning their proposed Mosaic Village Project, which seeks to expand on their Recovery Café mission to provide a sober living environment, workforce development programs and wellness, mental health and life-skills access Both commissions were supportive using CDBG funds for Mosaic Village. This proposed project is in its’ initial planning stage, but Mercy Coalition and city staff will continue to work together for potential funding for this project in future allocations. Finally, the PRIS Commission recommended projects focusing on outreach for the public to have input on funding activities for the annual action plan. The 189
Annual Action Plan 5
recommendations received from both Commissions assisted in framing the goals and activities for the 2023 Annual Action Plan.

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All comments received through the citizen participation process are evaluated and closely considered by staff. CDBG funds are limited and not sufficient to fund all projects discussed during public hearings and other community outreach efforts. Many suggested activities are eligible for other funding such as Yolo County CalWorks and the City's newly adopted Measure E which will provide funds for homeless services and projects. Projects proposed for 2023 funding will support the City's 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan and address the most significant needs identified during the citizen participation process.

7. Summary
Citizen participation is critical to the CDBG planning process to identity the most pressing needs of lowerincome neighborhoods and persons. The City's 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan citizen participation process included extensive outreach to individuals, non-profit organizations, social service agencies and governmental agencies to ensure the most effective use of scarce local resources to affect long-term, substantial change in the lives of lower-income residents of West Sacramento. The citizen participation process for the 2023 Annual Action Plan builds on the consolidated planning process and exceeds the requirements in the City's Citizen Participation Plan.
190
Annual Action Plan 6
All comments received through the citizen participation process are evaluated and closely considered by staff. CDBG funds are limited and not sufficient to fund all projects discussed during public hearings and other community outreach efforts. Many suggested activities are eligible for other funding such as Yolo County CalWorks and the City's newly adopted Measure E which will provide funds for homeless services and projects. Projects proposed for 2023 funding will support the City's 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan and address the most significant needs identified during the citizen participation process. 191
Annual Action Plan 7
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b)

1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.

Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator West Sacramento Economic Development & Housing Department
Table 1 – Responsible Agencies
Narrative (optional)
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Isaah Alford, Community Investment Specialist
Economic Development and Housing Department
City of West Sacramento
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 3rd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 617-4555
[email protected]
192
Annual Action Plan
8 193
Annual Action Plan 9
AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)

1. Introduction
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l))
The City of West Sacramento Citizen Participation Plan outlines the process for development of the Action Plan. At a minimum, the City must:
 Conduct at least two public hearings;
 Provide presentations to the Economic Development and Housing Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Intergenerational Services Commission; and  Draft an Annual Action Plan and make it available for public review and comment for a 30-day period prior to adoption.

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness.

The City is an active participant in the Yolo County Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC), which acts as the local Continuum of Care, along with the Yolo County Department of Health and Human Services, the Housing Authority of Yolo County (Yolo County Housing), the U.S. Veteran’s Administration and local health, and mental health and service provider agencies. City staff attends monthly HPAC meetings and is a voting member. Additionally, a City Council member sits on the Yolo County 10-Year Homeless Plan Executive Committee, which oversees county-wide homeless efforts.

The City of West Sacramento is signatory to the ten-year plan entitled “One Piece at a Time: Ending and Preventing Homelessness for Yolo County Residents” available at www.yolocounty.org.

The City employs a full-time Homeless Outreach Coordinator who provides outreach, referrals and case management to homeless individuals; and acts as the City’s liaison with Yolo County and homeless service providers. The City is very involved with local developers of affordable housing. A member of the City Council sits on the Yolo County Housing Authority Advisory Board and City staff are available to provide technical assistance as needed to developers. The City has provided financial assistance to a number of affordable housing developers over the years. Recent examples include the development of West Gateway Place, a partnership between Jamboree Housing and the West Sacramento Housing Development Corporation. West Gateway Place Phase 1 opened in February 2017 with 76 affordable apartment homes. The City provided $8.11 million in permanent financing, which includes $1.1 million of State CDBG program income for public infrastructure needed to support the project. A second phase is under development and City staff are working closely with the developer to develop the project. The City has committed over $10 million for WGP II, including HOME Program Income Funds, Housing Trust Funds and a land carry back loan. The project is anticipated to close escrow in March 2023 and break ground in April 2023. Additionally, the City partnered with Mercy Housing California to develop an 85 units 194
Annual Action Plan 10
permanent supportive housing project. The City contributed over $3 million in gap financing, including CDBG funds and Housing Trust Funds. The PSH project was completed in December 2021 and is 100% occupied.

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS City staff participate in the local Continuum of Care known as the Yolo County Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC) to ensure that all homeless activities are coordinated with local service providers, the Yolo County Department of Health and Human Services, the Housing Authority of Yolo County and other community partners.

The City shares in the cost for the Yolo County Homeless Coordinator position, along with Yolo County and the Cities of Davis, Woodland and Winters. There are no emergency shelters located in West Sacramento, however the City provides funding to Fourth and Hope, an emergency shelter in Woodland serving many homeless persons originating from West Sacramento. In 2013, the City assisted Friends of the Mission, a non-profit organization associated with Fourth and Hope, to acquire and rehabilitate four units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless persons using NSP3 funding received from the State of California. In the mid-1990s, the City provided State CDBG funding to Shores of Hope (formerly United Christian Centers of Sacramento) for the acquisition and rehabilitation of an 11-unit transitional housing facility which now serves transitional aged homeless youth.

For many years, the City has hosted the quarterly Northern California Homeless Roundtable fostering education and collaboration for service providers throughout the region. As noted above, the City is signatory to the ten-year plan entitled “One Piece at a Time: Ending and Preventing Homelessness for Yolo County Residents” adopted in 2009. The City is assisting with a revision of this document to focus on a coordinated entry system for all agencies and programs assisting homeless persons in Yolo County.

The City employs a full time Homeless Outreach Coordinator who provides outreach, case management, referrals and housing search assistance to at-risk and homeless persons. The Homeless Coordinator is part of a Community Intervention Program, a joint partnership between the City's Police Department and the Yolo County Health and Human Services Department facilitating referrals to services such as medical, mental health, social security, food stamps, substance abuse treatment, financial assistance and job counseling.

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities
195
Annual Action Plan 11
Agency/Group/Organization Yolo County Homeless & Poverty Action Coalition Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Housing
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Public Housing Needs
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homelessness Strategy
Anti-poverty Strategy
Briefly describe how the
Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City emails public notices for all CDBG public
hearings and public review periods to the Yolo County
Homeless & Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC), which
then distributes the emails to their members. The City
meets with the Yolo County Homeless & Poverty Action
Coalition (HPAC) monthly. The City sent the draft 2023
Annual Action Plan to HPAC on March 17, 2023.

Agency/Group/Organization West Sacramento Economic Development and Housing Commission
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local Business and Civic Leaders
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Economic Development
Briefly describe how the
Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City's Economic Development and Housing (EDH)
Commission is composed of seven West Sacramento
residents tasked by the City Council to provide
recommendations regarding affordable housing and
economic development policy issues. The EDH
Commission conducted a public hearing on January 25,
2023 to receive public comments regarding the
availability of 2023 CDBG funds and possible activities for funding.

Agency/Group/Organization West Sacramento Parks, Recreation and Intergenerational Services Commission
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local Civic Leaders
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
196
Annual Action Plan 12
Briefly describe how the
Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The Parks, Recreation and Intergenerational Services
Commission is composed of eight City residents tasked
by the City Council to provide recommendations on
programs, facilities and services serving youth and the elderly; in addition to City recreational facilities and trails. The PRIS Commission received a presentation on
February 7, 2023 regarding the use of CDBG funds to
date and was asked to provide comments on activities
under consideration for 2023 CDBG funding.

Agency/Group/Organization Yolo County Homeless & Poverty Action Coalition Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Housing
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Public Housing Needs
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homelessness Strategy
Anti-poverty Strategy
Briefly describe how the
Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City emails public notices for all CDBG public
hearings and public review periods to the Yolo County
Homeless & Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC), which
then distributes the emails to their members. The City
meets with the Yolo County Homeless & Poverty Action
Coalition (HPAC) monthly. The City sent the draft 2023
Annual Action Plan to HPAC on March 17, 2023.

Agency/Group/Organization West Sacramento Economic Development and Housing Commission
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local Business and Civic Leaders
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Economic Development
Briefly describe how the
Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City's Economic Development and Housing (EDH)
Commission is composed of seven West Sacramento
residents tasked by the City Council to provide
recommendations regarding affordable housing and
economic development policy issues. The EDH
Commission conducted a public hearing on January 25,
2023 to receive public comments regarding the
availability of 2023 CDBG funds and possible activities for funding.

Agency/Group/Organization West Sacramento Parks, Recreation and Intergenerational Services Commission
197
Annual Action Plan 13
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local Civic Leaders
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Briefly describe how the
Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The Parks, Recreation and Intergenerational Services
Commission is composed of eight City residents tasked
by the City Council to provide recommendations on
programs, facilities and services serving youth and the elderly; in addition to City recreational facilities and trails. The PRIS Commission received a presentation on
February 7, 2023 regarding the use of CDBG funds to
date and was asked to provide comments on activities
under consideration for 2023 CDBG funding.
198
Annual Action Plan 14
Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The City consulted all agencies known to have an interest in the needs of low-income persons and all agencies identified in the Citizen Participation Plan as required for Action Plan development.

Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan?
Continuum of Care Yolo County Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC)
The 2023 Annual Action Plan is consistent
with the Yolo County 10 Year Homeless Plan
completed by HPAC in 2008 entitled One
Piece at a Time: Ending and Preventing
Homelessness for Yolo County Residents. The
Action Plan addresses goals to: 1) Create
permanent housing for people who are
homeless or at-risk of homelessness that is
linked with supportive services; and 2)
Facilitate and streamline access to housing
and housing-related supportive services by
people who are homeless or at-risk of
homelessness. An update to the 2008 10 Year
Homeless Plan is currently in development.

Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts Narrative (optional)
199
Annual Action Plan 15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c)

1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting The City's Economic Development and Housing (EDH) Commission conducted a public hearing on January 25, 2023 to announce the availability of Program Year (PY) 2022 CDBG funding and to receive public comments regarding possible activities for funding. On February 7, 2023, a presentation was made to the City's Parks, Recreation and Intergenerational Services (PRIS) Commission to receive Commission feedback regarding possible activities for funding. On May 5, 2023, the City Council will conduct a final public hearing to review the Annual Action plan prior to its adoption and provide authorization for submission to HUD for approval.

The draft Action Plan was made available to the public for a 30-day review period starting March 17, 2023 and ending April 17, 2023. All public hearings and noticing periods were properly noticed in the West Sacramento News-Ledger and emailed to interested individuals and agencies including the Yolo County Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC), which acts as the local Continuum of Care, and the Bryte and Broderick Community Action Network (BBCAN).
200
Annual Action Plan 16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Citizen Participation Outreach
201
Annual Action Plan 17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
1 Newspaper Ad Non-English
Speaking - Specify
other language:

Spanish
Nontargeted/
Broad community
A total of three
newspaper ads were
published. One was
to notice public
hearings, and one
was to notice the 30-
day comment period
for the 2023 Action
Plan. The last will be
notice the public
hearing at the May 3,
2023 Council
meeting.

NA
202
Annual Action Plan 18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
2 Public Hearing Non targeted/
Broad community
The Economic
Development and
Housing Commission
recommended
replenishing funds
that were reallocated
from the 2020 and
2021 Annual Action
Plan into the
Washington
Neighborhood
Sidewalk, Lighting
and Landscape
Improvement
Project. The project is
still undergoing
environmental
review and staff
noted that it would
not be advisable to
fund the project until
the environmental
review was
completed.

Mercy Coalition of
West Sacramento
offered public
comment
concerning their
proposed Mosaic
Village Project,
which seeks to
expand on their
Recovery Café
mission to provide
a sober living
environment,
workforce
development
programs and
wellness, mental
health and life-skills
access Both
commissions were
supportive using
CDBG funds for
Mosaic Village. This
proposed project is
in its’ initial
planning stage, but
Mercy Coalition
and city staff will
continue to work
together for
potential funding
for this project in
future allocations.
203
Annual Action Plan 19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
3 Internet Outreach Nontargeted/broad
community
For each public
hearing and public
comment period,
notices were
published on the
City's website. These
notices included
information and links
to CDBG program
documents.
4 Email Listservs Local Continuum
of Care
For each public
hearing and noticing
period, the City sent
emails to the
Broderick and Bryte
Community Action
Network, and the
Homeless and
Poverty Action
Coalition.

Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach
204
Annual Action Plan 20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Expected Resources
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
HUD has awarded $518,743 in federal Entitlement CDBG funds to the City of West Sacramento for fiscal year 2023/2024. The City estimates receiving $80,000 in program income and a carry-over amount of $203,682.99 from prior year resources from CDBG funded activities completed in the previous years. In addition, the City has obligated $21,000 in CDBG General Admin to the provision of fair housing services. These amounts are not included in the Anticipated Resources table below.

The following funding also is available for housing activities: $2,000,000 of State of California HOME program income; $270,000 of State of California CalHome program income; and $5,100,000 in the City of West Sacramento Housing Trust Fund. It is anticipated that much of this money will be used towards the development of affordable housing at West Gateway Place Phase 2.

Anticipated Resources
Program Source Expected Amount Available Year 1
of
Funds
Uses of Funds
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources: $
Total:
$
Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
CDBG PublicFederalAdmin and
Planning,
Economic
Development,
Housing, Public
Improvements
$518,743 $80,000 $203,682.99 $598,743 $802,425.99 FY 2023/2024 CDBG allocation of $518,743.

The City anticipates
$80,000 in program
income.

Table 1 - Expected Resources – Priority Table
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how 205
Annual Action Plan 21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
matching requirements will be satisfied
The CDBG program does not require matching funds. However, the City of West Sacramento strives to leverage federal funding with State, local and private sources. As noted above, the City also has State CalHome program income of $270,000 and $5,100.000 of local funds in the City’s Housing Trust Fund. It is anticipated that much of this money will be used towards the development of affordable housing at West Gateway Place Phase 2. The City uses local funds including General Fund and Measure N to pay for the City’s Homeless Coordinator and towards a portion of the salary of the Yolo County Homeless Coordinator and overhead at the Fourth and Hope homeless shelter.

In recent years, the City has used Project Homekey funds (a combination of federal and State funds for COVID-19 relief) to purchase a 40-unit motel and converted it to interim housing for homeless persons over age 65 or with health issues placing them at high risk of the COVID-19 virus.

The City provided land for the Mercy Housing 8- unit permanent supportive housing project, in addition to local Housing Trust Funds and CDBG funds in support of the development. The City assisted with applications for a State of California No Place Like Home grant, and private foundation donations from Sutter Health and Partnership Health Plan of California. Yolo County Housing provided 40 project-based vouchers to the project. 206
Annual Action Plan 22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 207
Annual Action Plan 23
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The City owned a parcel at 825 Delta Lane which it sold to the developer of West Gateway Place affordable housing phase 1 for the development of 77 units of affordable housing. The City still owns the adjacent parcel which is set aside for development of phase 2 of the project.

The City provided both land and CDBG funds in support of the development of an 85-unit permanent supportive housing project at 1801 West Capitol Avenue for homeless persons with disabilities. The project, a collaboration between Mercy Housing and Yolo County Housing, will operate on a low-barrier entry housing first model. The project was completed and housed in full capacity in December 2021.

Most of the remaining City owned parcels are not appropriate for residential or facility development due to location, size constraints or contamination issues. However, the City will continue to seek usable sites, when available.

Discussion
The City's federal Entitlement CDBG funds are only a portion of total funding allocated to serving the needs of low-income residents and neighborhoods. CDBG funds are allocated to projects where the funding can be used most efficiently, while more flexible funding sources are used for other critical service and infrastructure needs.
208
Annual Action Plan 24
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 209
Annual Action Plan 25
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Annual Goals and Objectives
AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives
210
Annual Action Plan 26
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Goals Summary Information
Sort Order Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Construct
infrastructure
improvements in
low-income
neighborhoods
2023 2024 Affordable
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Ageing and
Undersized
and improving
Infrastructure
Serving Lowand ModerateIncome
Neighborhoods
$603,682.99 Construct infrastructure
improvements in low-income
neighborhoods;
2 Address the
supportive
services needs of
persons
experiencing
homelessness
and those at risk
of homelessness
2023 2024 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Address the
supportive
services needs
of persons
experiencing
homelessness
and those at
risk of
homelessness
$78,995 Address the supportive
services needs of persons
experiencing homelessness
and those at risk of
homelessness;
3 Provide Fair
Housing Services
for low to
moderate
individuals
2023 2024 Affordable
Housing
NonHomeless
Special
Needs
Affirmatively
Further Fair
Housing Choice
$21,000 Provide Fair Housing services
for low-and moderateincome residents
Table 2 – Goals Summary
211
Annual Action Plan 27
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Construct infrastructure improvements in low-income neighborhoods Goal
Description
Up to $400,000 will be used to support the installation of materials for the Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Improvement Project. This Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Improvement Project will improve pedestrian safety and driver visibility throughout the Washington and Broderick neighborhoods (Census Tract 101.01) in the City of West Sacramento. To accomplish this, the proposed project will upgrade existing street lights to enhance the visibility of pedestrians, and will also include the addition of video detection at various traffic signal locations to improve driver and pedestrian safety. In addition, the project will also include upgrades to the traffic signal hardware within the Washington and Broderick neighborhoods (Census Tract 101.01).

Up to $203,682.99 will be used to support the extension of ADA compliant walkways, trees, and adequate street lighting in the Washington Neighborhood along the southern side of E Street and both sides of F Street between Sixth and Fifth Streets, (see Attachment 5 for project location). The 440 West Project Developer will be installing the frontage on the northern side of E Street between 5th and 8th. Activities associated with this project include planning and design work; relocating architectural barriers to accessibility (utility poles and street sign poles); installing new ADA compliant sidewalk, curb and gutter; and installing lighting and landscaping improvements. This project will promote walking and bicycle trips to jobs, park amenities and retail within the Washington Neighborhood. Additionally, the funds will be used to support anticipated NEPA/CEQA mitigation measures.

Goal Name Address the supportive services needs of persons experiencing homelessness and those at risk of homelessness 2 Goal
Description
The goal supportive services for the Homekey program are to get people stabilized and moved into permanent housing. It is anticipated that the project will serve 60 homeless households in 2023/2024. The goal of the supportive housing services for Homekey Program participants is to provide the necessary services like housing navigation, case management and health services which will allow them to achieve self-sufficiency. The goal of the Homekey Program is to find a permanent housing solution for program participants
212
Annual Action Plan 28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Projects
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction
The City's Action Plan will fund public infrastructure activities to low- and moderate-income residents.

Infrastructure activities will include improvements to streets and sidewalks, provide ADA access, and bike/pedestrian upgrades to the Washington and Broderick neighborhoods (Target Area CT 101.01).

Projects
# Project Name
1 Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Project
2 Washington Neighborhood Sidewalk, Lighting and Landscaping Improvement Project 3 Homekey Supportive Services at 817 West Capitol Ave
4 2023 General Administration and Planning
Table 3 - Project Information
Up to $400,000 will be used to support the installation of materials for the Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Improvement Project. This Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Improvement Project will improve pedestrian safety and driver visibility throughout the Washington and Broderick neighborhoods (Census Tract 101.01) in the City of West Sacramento. To accomplish this, the proposed project will upgrade existing street lights to enhance the visibility of pedestrians, and will also include the addition of video detection at various traffic signal locations to improve driver and pedestrian safety. In addition, the project will also include upgrades to the traffic signal hardware within the Washington and Broderick neighborhoods (Census Tract 101.01).

Up to $203,682.99 will be used to support the extension of ADA compliant walkways, trees, and adequate street lighting in the Washington Neighborhood along the southern side of E Street and both sides of F Street between Sixth and Fifth Streets, (see Attachment 5 for project location). The 440 West Project Developer will be installing the frontage on the northern side of E Street between 5th and 8th. Activities associated with this project include planning and design work; relocating architectural barriers to accessibility (utility poles and street sign poles); installing new ADA compliant sidewalk, curb and gutter; and installing lighting and landscaping improvements. This project will promote walking and bicycle trips to jobs, park amenities and retail within the Washington Neighborhood. Additionally, the funds will be used to support anticipated NEPA/CEQA mitigation measures.

The City continues to administer the Homekey program at 817 West Capitol Ave and will allocate $78,995 in CDBG funds for supportive services. In December 2020, the City purchased the 40-unit Rodeway Inn to serve homeless individuals susceptible to the COVID-19 virus. The City used CDBG program income, local Measure E funds, federal Coronavirus Relief Funds and State of California Homekey Program funds to provide non-congregate interim housing for persons experiencing homelessness. 213
Annual Action Plan 29
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs
The Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Improvement Project meets the CDBG Low/Mod Area Benefit Objective because it will primarily benefit the low-income residents of Census Tract 101.01 and will improve pedestrian safety and driver visibility throughout the Washington and Broderick neighborhoods.

The E and F Street project is located in Census Tract 101.01, which is identified as low-income area challenged with aging infrastructure, underutilized properties, lack of lighting for security, derelict buildings, and lack of economic vitality. The E and F Street project is consistent with the strategies identified within Washington Realized; the project will address infrastructure deficiencies within the Washington neighborhood by completing disconnected sidewalk and street crossing networks to support walkability and connectivity to public transportation and riverfront trails. Additionally, three affordable housing developments, which provide over two hundred affordable units to the Washington Neighborhood, are located on E and F Streets between Sixth and Eighth Streets, west of the project site, and the 440 West development is planned directly to the north on E Street. This project will largely benefit low-income residents needing pedestrian/ADA accessibility to access public transportation within the Washington Neighborhood, specifically public bus stops along Fifth Street.

The supportive services for the Homekey program will help program participants get stabilized and moved into permanent housing. It is anticipated that the project will serve 60 homeless households in 2023/2024.

214
Annual Action Plan 30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 215
Annual Action Plan 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information
Project Name Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Improvement Project Target Area Washington, Broderick and Bryte Neighborhoods – Local Target Area Goals Supported Improve Infrastructure in Low/Mod Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Aging and Undersized Neighborhood Infrastructure (CT101.01) Funding CDBG: $ 400,000
Description The Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Improvement Project will allocate $400,000 of CDBG funds to improve pedestrian safety and driver visibility throughout the Washington and Broderick neighborhoods.

Target Date
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit
from the proposed activities
Census Tract 101.01 is a Low-Income Zone and residents of this area are the primary users that willl benefit from the proposed activities.

Location Description The location of the project will be located within Census Tract 101.01 in the Washington and Broderick neighborhood..

Planned Activities The planned activities will include replacing and updating street and traffic lights, in addition to installation of some security cameras.

Project Name Washington Neighborhood Sidewalk, Lighting and Landscaping Improvement Project Target Area Washington Neighborhood
Goals Supported Construct infrastructure improvements in low-income neighborhoods Needs Addressed Washington Infrastructure Needs (CT 101.01) Funding CDBG: $203,682.99
216
Annual Action Plan 32
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Description Frontage improvements along E and F Streets between Sixth and Fifth Streets to allow for improved ADA accessibility to access public transportation, local parks, and riverfront trails within the Washington Neighborhood.

Target Date 2024
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit
from the proposed activities
6,796 of low-income residents will be benefitted from the proposed activity.

Location Description E and F Streets between Sixth and Fifth Streets Planned Activities The planned activities associated with this project include the following: planning and design work associated with the project; removing the existing sidewalk; removing and relocating architectural barriers to accessibility (utility poles and street sign poles currently located in the middle of the sidewalks); installing new sidewalk, curb and gutter where needed; and installing new lighting and landscaping.

Project Name Homekey Supportive Services at 817 West Capitol Ave Target Area Census Tract 101.01 West Sacramento
Goals Supported Provide Supportive Services for Homeless Persons Needs Addressed Housing Instability and Homelessness
Funding CDBG: $ 78,995
Description The City continues to administer the Homekey program at 817 West Capitol Ave and will allocate $78,995 in CDBG funds for supportive services. In December 2020, the City purchased the 40-unit Rodeway Inn to serve homeless individuals susceptible to the COVID-19 virus. The City used CDBG program income, local Measure E funds, federal Coronavirus Relief Funds and State of California Homekey Program funds to provide non-congregate interim housing for persons experiencing homelessness.

Target Date
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit
from the proposed activities
It is anticipated that the project will serve 60 homeless households in 2023/2024. 217
Annual Action Plan 33
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Location Description 817 W Capitol Ave, West Sacramento, CA 95691 is where activities will be undertaken Planned Activities The supportive services for the Homekey program will help program participants get stabilized and moved into permanent housing.

Project Name 2023 General Administration and Planning
Target Area
Goals Supported Provide Supportive Services for Homeless Persons Needs Addressed Housing Instability and Homelessness
Funding CDBG: $ 119,748
Description General administration and planning of the CDBG program and planning activities associated with CDBG eligible activities.

Target Date
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit
from the proposed activities
Location Description
Planned Activities Up to $119,748 will be used for program administration activities including reporting to HUD, conducting environmental review of CDBG funded projects, planning activities such as developing the Annual Action Plan, and affirmatively furthering fair housing by providing fair housing counseling services to residents of West Sacramento. The City is limited to no more than 20% of its annual allocation and program income for general program administration
218
Annual Action Plan 34
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 219
Annual Action Plan 35
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed The Washington and Broderick Lighting and Safety Improvement Project will also take place in Census Tract 101.01, which is a low-income censul tract in the City.

Minority populations are disbursed throughout the City and the Analysis of Impediments concludes that there are no Census Tracts that meet the HUD definition of a racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP). However, there are Census Tracts with relatively higher concentrations of minority residents, based on the 2019 ACS. Racial disbursement in Census Tract 101.01 is close to the average found throughout the City. However, the area has a significantly higher percentage of Hispanic residents at 51.4%, compared to the entire City at 30.1%.

Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
Washington and Broderick Neighborhoods 65
Table 4 - Geographic Distribution
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically For decades, the Washington neighborhood (Census Tract 101.01) has been a low-income area challenged with aging infrastructure, underutilized properties, derelict buildings, contaminated parcels (brownfields) and a lack of economic vitality. The City was awarded a HUD Community Challenge Planning Grant for Sustainable Community Development to develop strategies intended to enhance the quality of life for Washington residents by shifting development patterns towards compact, transit-served, mixed-use infill development to revitalize and stimulate private investment in the neighborhood. The Washington Realized plan includes an analysis of homeless issues, future housing affordability and employment needs based on planned infill development in the Washington neighborhood. The plan outlines infrastructure improvements needed to support this type of development and provides strategies to fulfill affordable housing needs, minimize overconcentration of poverty, strengthen housing security for vulnerable households, enhance employability of existing residents and provide a ready workforce for future retail and small business development. The planning process included many hours of public engagement with Washington residents and business owners. Meetings were designed to build participants’ knowledge and capacity to advocate for equitable and inclusive solutions to future growth.

The Washington neighborhood is poised for high density, infill development in the near future. The Washington plan identifies over $63 million in infrastructure improvements needed to fulfill the needs of future development. To mitigate the negative effects of gentrification and to position low-income families to benefit from economic renewal in the area, the Washington plan recommends producing an additional 100 units of affordable housing; providing educational, job training and entrepreneurship opportunities; and encouraging asset-building activities. CDBG funding will be a component of this strategy, although 220
Annual Action Plan 36
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
other funding sources are needed to complete the goals of the plan. For the strategy to be effective, the City must implement the plan immediately before the effects of development begin to affect vulnerable neighborhood residents.

Discussion
The Washington and Broderick neighborhoods fall within the 101.01 Census Tract, which is designated as a low-income Census Tract. The area is challenged with aging infrastructure, underutilized properties, derelict buildings, contaminated parcels (brownfields) and a lack of economic vitality. Since 2016, the City has allocated CDBG funding, and other local and state funds, to various activities within Census Tract 101.01 to improve the lack of and aging infrastructure. 221
Annual Action Plan 37
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Affordable Housing
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction
In California, the most significant barrier to affordable housing development is the cost of housing relative to household income. Bridging the gap between the two requires a considerable amount of subsidy. The City of West Sacramento has developed housing policies to encourage the development of affordable housing for lower-income residents. Despite the City’s policies, development of affordable housing is a lengthy and costly process. Multiple funding sources are usually must be “layered” for each project. Conflicting requirements between the various funding sources can result in costly delays and escalating construction costs. The cost of land, land use restrictions, development impact fees, environmental analysis and mitigation, federal and State prevailing wage also have an impact on the cost of development.

One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 60
Non-Homeless
Special-Needs
Total 60
Table 6 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance
The Production of New Units
Rehab of Existing Units
Acquisition of Existing Units
Total
Table 7 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type Discussion
The City continues to administer the Homekey program at the former Rodeway Inn. In December 2020, the City purchased the 40-unit Rodeway Inn to serve homeless individuals susceptible to the COVID-19 virus. The City used CDBG program income, CDBG CARES Act (CDBG-CV), local Measure E funds, federal Coronavirus Relief Funds and State of California Homekey Program funds to provide non-congregate interim housing for persons experiencing homelessness. The goal of the program is to get people stabilized and moved into permanent housing. It is anticipated that the project will serve 60 homeless households in 2023/2024.

The City has committed State of California HOME program income and local Housing Trust Fund money the development of 60 units of affordable housing at West Gateway Place Phase 2. The project is in the development phase but is not expected to be under construction in program year 2023/2024.
222
Annual Action Plan 38
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)
Introduction
Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Yolo County Housing has applied for the HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration program (RAD) to preserve affordable housing in the jurisdiction. As part of the application process, Yolo County Housing has received a Commitment to Enter into a Housing Assistance Payment contract from HUD. RAD, or a similar repositioning strategy as approved by HUD, will allow the housing authority to convert public housing into a more sustainable financial framework and enable the agency to address deferred maintenance needs of the properties. In addition, repositioning allows for the public housing projects to transition into mixed income developments where feasible.

Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership
Yolo County Housing administers a Family Self Sufficiency Program that enables HUD-assisted families to increase their earned income and reduce their dependency on welfare assistance and rental subsidies.

If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance
Not Applicable. HUD has designated the Yolo County Housing Authority as a high performing agency.

Discussion
223
Annual Action Plan 39
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction
The City of West Sacramento is an active member of the Yolo County Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC), the local Continuum of Care organization. The City works with HPAC member agencies to provide outreach, assessment, case management, supportive services, interim housing and permanent supportive housing for at-risk and chronically homeless individuals and families.

Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs
The City’s Homeless Coordinator is embedded in the Police Department and works closely with Yolo County and other service providers to address the needs of persons experiencing homelessness in West Sacramento. The Homeless Coordinator primarily works “in the field” and often makes first contact with unsheltered individuals and families. The Coordinator is tasked with intake assessments, referrals to needed services, case management, and assistance with gaining permanent housing situations. Homeless families with children are referred to Yolo County CalWORKs program to access the services and assistance they provide. Individuals without children do not qualify for CalWORKs and are the focus of the Homeless Coordinator’s case management services.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons The City of West Sacramento has taken a multi-modal approach to addressing the impact of homelessness. As noted above, the City’s Homeless Coordinator is the first point of contact for most persons experiencing homelessness. In addition, the City funds a portion of the Yolo County Homeless Coordinator position and pays towards overhead at the Fourth and Hope Homeless Shelter in Woodland (formerly known as the Yolo Wayfarer Center). Many of the shelter’s residents originate from West Sacramento. Shores of Hope (formerly known as Broderick Christian Center) operates 11 units of interim housing in West Sacramento for youth transitioning out of foster care or who have been victims of trafficking. The City purchased, rehabilitated and gave the units to Shores of Hope in the 1990s.

In partnership with Yolo County, the City purchased the 40-unit Rodeway Inn to serve homeless individuals susceptible to the COVID-19 virus in 2020. The City used CDBG program income, CDBG-CV and State of California Homekey funds to provide non-congregate interim housing for persons experiencing homelessness who are in high-risk categories.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were 224
Annual Action Plan 40
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
recently homeless from becoming homeless again
In addition to the City's Homeless Coordinator noted above, the Yolo Family Resource Center (FRC) assists individuals and families to access the support and resources needed to encourage health, stability and self-sufficiency. The FRC operates a HUD funded Rapid-Rehousing program to help at risk individuals and families avoid becoming homeless. Shores of Hope provides employment counseling, and job training to extremely low-income persons. Member agencies of HPAC (the Continuum of Care) work closely with institutions to minimize the incidence of discharge into a homeless situation.

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs.

In addition, a portion of 2023 CDBG funding was allocated towards fair housing services that included counseling and landlord/tenant dispute resolution services to provide a complementary approach towards achieving the goal of reducing the incidence of homelessness. Resolving issues between vulnerable households and their landlords before they escalate to the point of an eviction can help many to maintain housing security.

Discussion
225
Annual Action Plan 41
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)
Introduction:

In California, the most significant barrier to affordable housing development is the cost of housing relative to household income. Bridging the gap between the two requires a considerable amount of subsidy. The City of West Sacramento has developed housing policies to encourage the development of affordable housing. Despite the City’s policies, development of affordable housing is a lengthy and costly process. Multiple funding sources are usually must be “layered” for each project. Conflicting requirements between the various funding sources can result in costly delays and escalating construction costs. Land use restrictions, development impact fees, environmental analysis and mitigation, federal and State prevailing wage also have an impact on the cost of development.

Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment
The cost of land, development and construction is the most difficult barrier to the creation of affordable housing in West Sacramento. To address this barrier, the City created a Housing Trust fund that has provided financial assistance to 161 units of affordable housing since inception in 2014. Additional Housing Trust Fund money has been committed to the development of 60 units of affordable housing at the West Gateway Place Phase 2 project. City staff provide support to developers of affordable housing and assist with federal and State funding applications if needed.

In 2014, the City adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance that requires developers of multifamily projects to make 5% of units affordable to Very Low-Income households and 5% to Low-Income Households. For sale projects must make 10% of units available to Low-Income Households.

Inclusionary units are generally required to be built onsite and disbursed to avoid overconcentration. The ordinance allows developers to propose an alternative such as payment of inlieu fees to be placed in the City’s Housing Trust Fund.

The City’s zoning ordinance provides for a wide range of housing to meet the needs of households across a broad spectrum of income levels. The ordinance allows residential development in both residential and commercially zoned areas. Four residential zoning designations allow single family development by right, one allows it with a minor use permit, and one allows with a conditional use permit. Three residential zoning designations allow multifamily development by right. The Central Business District, Commercial, Mixed-Use and Waterfront zoning designations allow residential development. The City provides a “density bonus” which encourages the production of lowerincome and senior housing.

Discussion:

The City is currently in the process of updated the Housing Element to the General Plan. The Housing Element to the General Plan addresses housing needs, affordability, availability, condition of housing stock and constraints to housing development. The 2021 Housing Element Update focuses on the concept of fostering “complete communities” that link housing with access to public and private services, jobs and a variety of mobility choices. The Housing Element Update encourages community design supporting active lifestyles and social interaction. 226
Annual Action Plan 42
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)
Introduction:

One of the primary obstacles to meeting underserved needs of residents is the availability of funding. The City actively seeks additional funding opportunities and will continue to do so when funds are available. The City collaborates with private, non-profit and governmental partners to maximize benefits to needy and vulnerable residents.

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The most significant need in West Sacramento is housing affordable to the lowest income residents.

The City’s inclusionary housing ordinance requires developers of multifamily projects to make 5% of units affordable to Very Low-Income households and 5% to Low-Income Households. For sale projects must make 10% of units available to Low-Income Households. Inclusionary units are generally required to be built onsite and disbursed to avoid over-concentration. The ordinance allows developers to propose an alternative such as payment of in-lieu fees to be placed in the City’s Housing Trust Fund.

The City’s zoning ordinance provides for a wide range of housing to meet the needs of households across a broad spectrum of income levels. The ordinance allows residential development in both residential and commercially zoned areas. Four residential zoning designations allow single family development by right, one allows it with a minor use permit, and one allows with a conditional use permit. Three residential zoning designations allow multifamily development by right. The Central Business District, Commercial, Mixed-Use and Waterfront zoning designations allow residential development. The City provides a “density bonus” which encourages the production of lowerincome and senior housing.

Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City works closely with developers of affordable housing interested in creating new housing opportunities in West Sacramento. The City has obligated $1,400,000 of State of California HOME program income and $1,100,000 in local funds from the Housing Trust Fund for future development of affordable housing.

The City’s Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program provides assistance to Low- and Moderate-Income homeowners to maintain their homes.

Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
The City requires all construction assisted with CDBG or other federal housing funds to comply with HUD lead-based paint hazard reduction requirements. Over the years, the City has provided assistance to 227 lower-income homeowners through the Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program. Homes of an age that places them at-risk of lead-based pain contamination are provided testing and abatement assistance, when appropriate. At this time, the City does not have funding for the program, but anticipates securing a funding source and reinstating the program during the five-term term of this plan.

The City provides support and technical assistance to owners of affordable multifamily units seeking financing for rehabilitation of their properties. The City applies for funding on behalf of an affordable project or will provide local funds when available. Lead-based paint testing and abatement are funded, when appropriate.
227
Annual Action Plan 43
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families As an active member of the Yolo County Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC), the City supports non-profit, for-profit, governmental and faith-based organizations providing services to the neediest residents of the community. Each year, the City provides funding towards the salary of county staff assigned to administer HPAC and to homeless shelter at Fourth & Hope located in Woodland.

In 2019, the City participated with HPAC, Yolo County, and the cities of Davis, Woodland and Winters to develop the Yolo County Plan to Address Homelessness. The plan establishes a set of solutions to improve and expand the system of care across the county which focuses on strengthening the homeless crisis response system with an emphasis on developing prevention services; increasing affordable housing options for the most vulnerable; stabilizing and maintaining physical and behavioral health for those with the highest needs; and examining systems-level coordination and identifying opportunities for improved partnership.

The West Sacramento Homerun program provides access to high-quality learning for children of all income levels and financial assistance for post-secondary education and training. The Summer STEPS program has been integrated into the Homerun and provides opportunities for youth to develop valuable workplace skills. The goal of the Homerun program is to prepare youth to enter adulthood with the skills needed to obtain meaningful employment, start new businesses and raise thriving families in West Sacramento
Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The City of West Sacramento is a participating member of the Yolo County Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC). The HPAC provides leadership on homeless issues and acts as the Continuum of Care (CoC) for West Sacramento, Davis, Woodland, Winters and the unincorporated portions of Yolo County. HUD tasks the CoC to promote community-wide planning and strategic use of resources to address the many needs of homeless individuals and families. The HPAC is working towards a more structured governance model to ensure that homeless service agencies continue to receive HUD funding. The City will remain a voting member under the new CoC structure and will continue to be an active supporter of HPAC efforts.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
The City will continue to be an active participant in the Yolo County Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC) as it facilitates coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies serving lower-income and homeless individuals and families. The City's Homeless Coordinator acts as a liaison between the City's housing programs, the Police Department, Yolo County Department of Health and Human Services and other social service agencies. The Homeless Coordinator is co-located at the Police Department, just across the street from Yolo County offices, to expedite referrals to needed services and to coordinate service delivery.

Discussion:

The City of West Sacramento participated in the Sacramento Valley Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), a planning process for local governments and public housing agencies to take meaningful actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination. The City will provide CDBG funds to provide fair housing counseling and education as recommended in the study. 228
Annual Action Plan 44
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Program Specific Requirements
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction:

As a recipient of CDBG funds from HUD, the City of West Sacramento is required to present the following information regarding funds to be available during program year 2023/2024. Program income anticipated to be received by the end of program year 2023/2024 was allocated to projects in the City’s 2023/2024 Annual Action Plan. West Sacramento does not have any Section 108 loan guarantees, urban renewal settlements, funds returned to the CDBG line of credit with the U.S Treasury or float funded activities.
229
Annual Action Plan 45
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 230
Attachment 3
HUD Area Median Household Income for Yolo County
231
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
J
J
l
l
!
!
(
(
è
è
ê
ê
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J J
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
è
è
è
è
è è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
ê
ê
ê
ê
ê ê
ê
ê
ê
ê
ê
ê
ê
ê
ê
ê
J!(l
èê
J
J
l
l
!
!
(
(
è
è
ê
ê
J
J
J
J
l
l
l
l
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
è
è
è è
ê
ê
ê ê
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
ll
l l l
l
l l
l
l
llll
l
lll
l
ll
l
l
ll
l
ll
l
l
l
lll
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(((
(
(((
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
(
(
(
(((
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l l l
l
l
l
l
l
l
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
ll
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
l
l
!
!
(
l
(
l
!
!
(
(
l
l
!
!
(
(
ASt
GSt
ESt
8Th St
Reuter DrAndrewSt
Watercolor
Ln
ElkhornPlz
FremontBlvd
Waterfro
n
Pl
t
DSt
West St
BSt
Harriet Ln
WilliamSt
JamesSt
4Th St
7Th St
ElizabethSt
Beardsley Dr Casselman Dr
WellandWay
SharianSt
JoanSt
JulianDr HardyDr InglewoodDr GreenwoodAve FairwayDr ElderDr B14
A14
A13
C13 B13
C12 B12 A12
C11 B11
FSt
6Th St
DouglasSt
3RdSt
CumminsWay
FSt
CSt SacramentoAve
5Th St
West
Capitol
Ave
ISt
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
eD
pe
Wa
ter
Channel
SacramentoRiver
£¤50
§¨¦5
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
´
Traffic Signal/Streetlight - Health and Safety
Project Area
0 0.15 0.3 0.6Miles
\\ci.west-sacramento.ca.us\City Files\GIS\Projects\CapitalProjects\5803_WashingtonArea\5803_WashingtonArea.aprx, brianc, 2/3/2022 7:03 PM

CAPITAL PROJECTS

DEPARTMENT
1110 W. Capitol Ave.

West Sacramento, Ca
Phone: (916)617-4980
Fax: (916) 374-9895
This map has been compiled using a
combination of record maps, tax
assessor's maps, and as-builts and is
intended for information only and should
not be used for legal descriptions.

Streetlights
With signal,Rate,Luminaire
l!( No,, (2)
l!( No,,HPS (2)
l!( No, ,LED (2)
l!( No,<Null>,LED (11)
l!( No,LS2-A (CITY), (22)
l!( No,LS2-A (CITY),HPS (128)
l!( No,LS2-A (CITY),LED (30)
l!( No,LS2-C (CITY/PG&E),LED (9)
èê l!(J
Yes,,HPS (4)
èê l!(J
Yes,<Null>,HPS (2)
èê l!(J
Yes,LS2-A (CITY), (1)
èê l!(J
Yes,LS2-A (CITY),HPS (16)
èê l!(J
Yes,LS2-C (CITY/PG&E),HPS (2)
Project area
Attachment 4
232
Attachment 5
Project Location Map
Proposed Residential
Development
New Frontage Improve- • • • • • • •
Proposed
/Park
233

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 03, 2023 ITEM # 10
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF WEEDS
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Bryan Jonson, Fire Marshal
Fire Department
ATTACHMENT [ ] Yes [X] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the objections of any parcel owner with respect to being included in the weed abatement program. Property owners have the option of voluntarily clearing the lots themselves prior to May 12, 2023, to avoid the special assessment tax against the parcel(s).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing to consider objections to the proposed removal of weeds and direct staff to proceed with the 2023 weed abatement program.

BACKGROUND
On April 19, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 23-9, beginning the weed abatement process. On that date, the Council also set a Public Hearing for May 3, 2023, to hear objections from citizens regarding the weed abatement program. The City Council directed the Fire Department to provide written notice to all property owners identified in Resolution 23-9 by April 20, 2023. The purpose of this hearing is to consider objections from parcel owners with respect to being included in the weed abatement program.

ANALYSIS
In order to reduce the threat of vegetation fires in the coming months, the weed abatement program provides the structure to require property owners to mitigate nuisance properties; and for those who do not, provides us with the authority to abate as necessary. This public hearing is a necessary step in the process to eliminate the fire threat of nuisance vegetation.

The cost of weed abatement services performed by the City will be charged as a special assessment against the parcel property tax roll. Property owners have the option of voluntarily clearing the lots themselves prior to May 12, 2023, to avoid the assessment. Just over 1,000 properties were sent notices and sites are currently being voluntarily abated.

Environmental Considerations
This item is not a project that is subject to CEQA, because it is not an activity that may cause either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; CEQA Guidelines § 15060(c), § 15378(a).)
Commission Recommendation
Not Applicable
Strategic Plan Integration
This program assists the City in its efforts to reduce local climate vulnerability. By minimizing the fuel load in West Sacramento, this program will subsequently reduce the number of fires and smoke that pollute the atmosphere.

Alternatives
The public could be encouraged to object by way of written correspondence rather than being required to attend a public hearing.

Coordination and Review
The West Sacramento Fire Department is coordinating the weed abatement program. 234
Public Hearing to Consider Objections to the Proposed Removal of Weeds May 3, 2023

Budget/Cost Impact
None

ATTACHMENTS
None
235

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 3, 2023 ITEM # 11
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 23-18 AMENDED AND

RESTATED RESOLUTION TO CONFIRM PARTICIPATION IN THE STATEWIDE

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUTCURE PROGRAM (SCIP)
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Marc Rotteveel, Finance Analyst
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
This item includes a brief staff presentation regarding the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (“CSCDA”) and participation in the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (“SCIP”), which is sponsored by CSCDA, followed by City Council discussion, a public hearing to take public testimony on SCIP and bonds to be issued by CSCDA, and consideration of an Amended and Restated Resolution making certain findings and authorizing certain matters necessary for the City of West Sacramento (the “City”) to confirm its participation in SCIP. This report requests authorization to add an additional public financing tool for private developers looking at financing public infrastructure within the City.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully requests that the City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing;

2. Adopt the proposed Amended and Restated Resolution 23-18;

3. Approve the form of the Acquisition Agreement, whereby the City acquires public improvements financed through the SCIP Program; and

4. Authorize the City Manager, the Finance Director, or the Finance Manager or designee thereof, to execute all documents and take any and all actions necessary and appropriate to carry out the intent of this resolution.

BACKGROUND
CSCDA is a joint powers authority sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. SCIP was instituted by CSCDA in 2002 to allow owners of property in participating cities and counties to finance the development impact fees that would be payable by developers upon receiving development entitlements or building permits through pooled special assessment districts program. SCIP was expanded to include financing of public capital improvements directly in addition to fees and has now been further expanded to include community facilities districts (“CFDs”), as provided for in this Amended and Restated Resolution. A public hearing is required as part of the process to authorize SCIP and prior to adoption of Resolution 23-18.

ANALYSIS
The City joined SCIP in 2008, after the City Council approved resolution 08-37.. The 2008 Resolution only applied to financing the development impact fees and public capital improvements. Staff is now requesting City Council to consider modifications to its original SCIP Resolution to allow for the financing of fees and facilities through the formation of CFDs in addition to the current assessment district program. By adding CFD’s, developers can finance a broader range of City fees such as the police, fire, library, general city fee and the housing in-lieu fee.

It will also allow the developer more flexibility in adjusting tax rates by specific product type, assist in forming separate improvement areas when projects need to be phased, and provide for more facilities to be financed .

If a developer chooses to participate, and the City approves the application, the selected public capital improvements, facilities and/or development impact fees owed to the City will be financed by the issuance of taxexempt bonds by CSCDA. CSCDA will form the district and impose an assessment or special tax, as applicable, on the owner’s property to repay the portion of the bonds issued to finance the fees paid with respect to the property (no one developer within the SCIP pool is responsible for the payment related to any other project).

With respect to impact fees, the developer will either pay the impact fees at the time of permit issuance and will be reimbursed from the SCIP bond proceeds when the SCIP bonds are issued, or the fees will be funded directly from the proceeds of the SCIP bonds. In both cases the fees are subject to requisition by the City at any time to make authorized fee expenditures, and the City is never at risk of not receiving fees. If improvements or facilities 236
Resolution 23-18
May 3, 2023

are contemplated, the Amended and Restated Resolution includes a form of acquisition agreement which outlines how a developer will be reimbursed for improvements as they are certified complete by the City.

The benefits to the developer include:
 Only developers who choose to participate in the program will have assessments or special taxes imposed on their property.
 Instead of paying cash for public capital improvements and/or development impact fees, the developer receives low-cost, long-term tax-exempt financing of those fees, freeing up capital for other purposes.  The developer can choose to pay off the assessments or special taxes at any time.  For home buyers, paying for the costs of public infrastructure through an assessment or special tax is superior to having those costs "rolled" into the cost of the home. Although the tax bill is higher, the amount of the mortgage is smaller, making it easier to qualify. Moreover, because the assessment/special tax financing is at tax-exempt rates, it typically comes at lower cost than mortgage rates.
 Owners of smaller projects, both residential and commercial, can have access to tax-exempt financing of infrastructure. Before the inception of SCIP, only projects large enough to justify the formation of an assessment or community facilities district had access to tax-exempt financing. SCIP can finance projects as low as $500,000, which would not be economical on a stand-alone basis.

The benefits to the City include:
 As in conventional assessment district and CFD financing, the City is not liable to repay the bonds issued by CSCDA or the assessments or special taxes, as applicable, imposed on the participating properties.  CSCDA handles all district formation, district administration, bond issuance and bond administration functions. The City can provide tax-exempt financing to developers through SCIP while committing virtually no staff time to administer the program.
 Providing tax-exempt financing helps the city cushion the impact of rising public capital improvements costs and development impact fees on new development. Many developers rely on assessment district or CFD financing through SCIP in making the decision to purchase land thereby improving the City’s competitive advantage in attracting new development.
 The availability of financing will encourage developers to pull permits and pay fees in larger blocks, giving the City immediate access to revenues for public infrastructure, rather than receiving a trickle of revenues stretched out over time. As part of the entitlement negotiation process, the possibility of tax-exempt financing of fees can be used to encourage a developer to pay fees up front.  In some cases, the assessments or special taxes on successful projects can be refinanced through refunding bonds. Savings achieved through refinancing may be directed back to the City for use on public infrastructure, or lower property taxes subject to applicable federal tax limitations.

Environmental Considerations
Not applicable
Commission Recommendation
Not applicable
Strategic Plan Integration
Not applicable
Alternatives
As an alternative to the recommended action, the Council could not approve staff’s recommendation to add the Amended and Restated Resolution. Under this alternative, there would still be one option using this program previously authorized by City Council which is the Bond Opportunities for Land Development Program (the BOLD Program). However, this alternative is not recommended.

Coordination and Review
This staff report was coordinated with and reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution 23-18
237
RESOLUTION 23-18

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION 08-37 AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO JOIN THE STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT

APPLICATIONS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, CONDUCT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT

PROCEEDINGS AND LEVY ASSESSMENTS AND SPECIAL TAXES AND TO FORM

ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO; EMBODYING A JOINT COMMUNITY

FACILITIES AGREEMENT SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCINGS; APPROVING FORM OF ACQUISITION AGREEMENT FOR USE WHEN APPLICABLE; AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the “Authority”) is a joint exercise of powers authority, lawfully formed and operating within the State pursuant to an agreement (the “Joint Powers Agreement”) entered into as of June 1, 1988 under the authority of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of the California Government Code (the “JPA Law”), the members of which include numerous cities, counties and local agencies in the State of California, including the City of West Sacramento (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the Authority to undertake financing programs under any applicable provisions of State law to promote economic development, the stimulation of economic activity, and the increase of the tax base within the jurisdictional boundaries of its members (such members, the “Program Participants”); and WHEREAS, as one of the Programs under the Joint Powers Agreement, the Authority has established the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (“SCIP”) to allow the financing of certain public capital improvements to be constructed by or on behalf of property owners for acquisition by the City or another public agency (the “Improvements”) and improvements eligible for funding from certain development impact fees (the “Fees”) levied in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000 and following) and other authority providing for the levy of fees on new development to pay for public capital improvements (collectively, the “Fee Act”) through the levy of special assessments pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 10000 and following) (the “1913 Act”) and the issuance of improvement bonds (the “Local Obligations”) under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 8500 and following) (the “1915 Act”) upon the security of the unpaid special assessments; and WHEREAS, the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982,” being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 (beginning with Section 53311) of the Government Code of the State (the “Mello-Roos Act”) is an applicable provision of State law available to, among other things, finance public improvements necessary to meet increased demands placed upon local agencies as a result of development;
WHEREAS, the Authority also uses SCIP to allow the financing of Fees and Improvements through the levy of special taxes and the issuance of Local Obligations under the Mello-Roos Act upon the security of the special taxes; and WHEREAS, the City desires to allow the owners of property being developed within its jurisdiction (“Participating Developers”) to participate in SCIP and to allow the Authority to conduct 238
Resolution 23-18

proceedings and to form community facilities districts (“CFDs”) and to issue Local Obligations under the Mello-Roos Act, as well as to conduct assessment proceedings to form assessment districts (“Assessment Districts”) under the 1913 Act and to issue Local Obligations under the 1915 Act, to finance Fees levied on such properties and Improvements, provided that such Participating Developers voluntarily agree to participate and consent to the levy of such assessments or special taxes, as applicable; and
WHEREAS, from time to time when eligible property owners within the jurisdiction of the City elect to be Participating Developers, the Authority will conduct proceedings under the 1913 Act and the Mello-Roos Act and issue Local Obligations under the 1915 Act and the Mello-Roos Act to finance Fees payable by such property owners and Improvements and, at the conclusion of such proceedings, will levy assessments or special taxes, as applicable on such property within the territory of the City;
WHEREAS, both the Authority and the City are “local agencies” under the Mello-Roos Act; WHEREAS, the Mello-Roos Act permits two or more local agencies to enter into a joint community facilities agreement to exercise any power authorized by the Mello-Roos Act; WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into such an agreement with the Authority to authorize the Authority to form CFDs from time to time within the territorial limits of the City to Fees payable by such property owners and Improvements;
WHEREAS, the City has previously presented Resolution No. 08-37 of the City Council of the City of West Sacramento, authorizing the City to join the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program; authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to accept applications from property owners, conduct special assessment proceedings and levy assessments within the territory of the City of West Sacramento; approving a form of acquisition agreement; and authorizing related actions (the “Original Resolution”), and such Original Resolution was adopted on May 7, 2008;
WHEREAS, the City now wishes to amend and restate the Original Resolution; WHEREAS, there has been presented to this meeting a proposed form of Resolution of Intention to be adopted by the Authority in connection with assessment proceedings (the “ROI”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the territory within which assessments may be levied for SCIP (provided that each Participating Developer consents to such assessment) shall be coterminous with the City’s official boundaries of record at the time of adoption of such ROI (the “Proposed Boundaries”), and reference is hereby made to such boundaries for the plat or map required to be included in this Amended and Restated Resolution pursuant to Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, there has also been presented to this meeting a proposed form of Acquisition Agreement (the “Acquisition Agreement”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, to be approved as to form for use with respect to any Improvements to be constructed and installed by a Participating Developer and for which the Participating Developer requests acquisition financing as part of its SCIP application; and
WHEREAS, the City will not be responsible for the conduct of any proceedings; the levy or collection of assessments or special taxes or any required remedial action in the case of delinquencies in such assessment or special tax payments; or the issuance, sale or administration of the Local Obligations or any other bonds issued in connection with SCIP; and 239
Resolution 23-18

WHEREAS, the Authority may issue revenue bonds pursuant to the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (the “Marks-Roos Act”) to acquire Local Obligations and thereby provide the proceeds to finance the Fees and Improvements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 6586.5, notice was published at least five days prior to the adoption of this Amended and Restated Resolution at a public hearing, which was duly conducted by this City Council concerning the significant public benefits of SCIP and the financing of the Improvements and the public capital improvements to be paid for with the proceeds of the Fees.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento as follows:

Section 1. This Amended and Restated Resolution shall constitute full “local approval,” under Section 9 of the Joint Powers Agreement, and under the Authority’s Local Goals and Policies (defined below), for the Authority to undertake and conduct proceedings in accordance herewith and under the Mello Roos Act to form CFDs with boundaries that shall be coterminous with the City’s official boundaries of record at the time of such proceedings or any portion thereof (the “Proposed Boundaries”), and to authorize a special tax and to issue bonds with respect thereto; provided that the Participating Developers, who shall be the legal owners of such property at the time of formation of the CFD, execute a written consent to the levy of special tax in connection with SCIP by the Authority and execute a ballot in favor of the formation of such CFD and the Mello-Roos Act.

Section 2. The City hereby consents to the conduct of special assessment proceedings by the Authority in connection with SCIP pursuant to the 1913 Act and the issuance of Local Obligations under the 1915 Act on any property within the Proposed Boundaries; provided, that:
(1) Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to one or more Resolutions of Intention in substantially the form of the ROI; and
(2) The Participating Developers, who shall be the legal owners of such property at the time of the formation of the Assessment District, execute a written consent to the levy of assessments in connection with SCIP by the Authority and execute an assessment ballot in favor of such assessment in compliance with the requirements of Section 4 of Article XIIID of the State Constitution.

Section 3. The Joint Powers Agreement, together with the terms and provisions of this Amended and Restated Resolution, shall together constitute a separate joint community facilities agreement between the City and the Authority under the Mello-Roos Act for each CFD formed. As, without this Amended and Restated Resolution, the Authority has no power to finance City Fees and/or City Improvements (as such terms are defined herein) in proceedings under the Act to form the CFD, adoption by the Commission of the Authority of each Resolution of Intention to form a CFD under the Mello-Roos Act to finance City Fees and City Improvements shall constitute acceptance of the terms hereof by the Authority with respect to such CFD.

Section 4. This Amended and Restated Resolution and the agreement it embodies are determined to be beneficial to the residents/customers of the City and are in the best interests of the residents of the City, and of the future residents of the area within the proposed CFDs and Assessment Districts. The City hereby finds and declares that the issuance of revenue bonds by the Authority to purchase Local Obligations in connection with SCIP will provide significant public benefits, including without limitation, savings in effective interest rate, bond preparation, bond underwriting and bond issuance costs, and the more efficient delivery of local agency services to residential and commercial development within the City.

Section 5. The Authority has adopted Local Goals and Policies as required by Section 53312.7 of the Mello-Roos Act. The City approves the use of those Local Goals and Policies in connection with the formation of CFDs. The City hereby agrees that the Authority may act in lieu of the City under those Local Goals and Policies in forming and administering the CFDs. 240
Resolution 23-18

Section 6. The Authority has prepared and will update from time to time the “SCIP Manual of Procedures” (the “Manual”), and the City will handle Fee revenues and funds for Improvements for properties participating in SCIP in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Manual.

Section 7. Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act and this Amended and Restated Resolution, the Authority may conduct proceedings under the Mello-Roos Act to form the CFDs and to have such CFDs authorize the financing of any or all of the facilities and Fees set forth on Exhibit C, attached hereto. All of the facilities, whether to be financed directly or through Fees, shall be facilities that have an expected useful life of five years or longer and are facilities that the City or other local public agencies, as the case may be, are authorized by law to construct, own or operate, or to which they may contribute revenue. Exhibit C may be modified from time to time by written agreement between an authorized representative of the Authority and of the City. The facilities are referred to herein as the “Improvements,” and the Improvements to be owned by the City are referred to as the “City Improvements.” The Fees paid or to be paid to the City are referred to as the “City Fees.”
Section 8. For Fees paid or to be paid to another agency by any particular CFD (an “Other Local Agency”), the Authority will obtain the written consent of that Other Local Agency before issuing Local Obligations to fund such Fees, as required by the Mello-Roos Act. For the Improvements to be owned by an Other Local Agency, the Authority will separately identify them in its proceedings, and will enter into a joint community facilities agreement with such Other Local Agency prior to issuing Local Obligations to finance such Improvements, as required by the MelloRoos Act. Each joint community facilities agreement with each Other Local Agency will contain a provision that the Other Local Agency will provide indemnification to the City to the same extent that the City provides indemnification to the Other Local Agency under the terms of this Amended and Restated Resolution.

Section 9. At the time of formation of each CFD, the City will certify to the Commission of the Authority that all of the City Improvements including the improvements to be constructed or acquired with the proceeds of City Fees to be funded by such CFD are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the City as a result of development occurring or expected to occur within the proposed CFDs in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. Any appropriate officer or staff of the City is authorized to execute and deliver such certificate in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, with such changes as such signatory shall approve. Joint community facilities agreements with other local agencies will each contain a requirement that each Other Local Agency will make identical certification in connection with respect to the Improvements to be owned by, and Fees paid or to be paid to, such Other Local Agency equivalent to that made by the City in this paragraph.

Section 10. The Authority will apply the special tax collections initially as required by the documents under which any Local Obligations are issued; and thereafter, to the extent not provided in the Local Obligations documents, may pay its own reasonable administrative costs incurred in the administration of the CFDs. The Authority will remit any special tax revenues from any particular CFD remaining after the final retirement of all related Local Obligations to the City and to the other local agencies in the proportions specified in the Authority’s proceedings. The City will apply any such special tax revenues it receives for authorized City Improvements or City Fees and its own administrative costs only as permitted by the Mello-Roos Act. The joint community facilities agreements with each Other Local Agency must require the Other Local Agency to apply the special tax revenues they receive for their authorized Improvements and Fees under the CFDs and for their own related administrative costs only as permitted by the MelloRoos Act.

Section 11. The Authority will administer the CFDs, including employing and paying all consultants, annually levying the special tax and all aspects of paying and administering the Local Obligations, and complying with all State and Federal requirements appertaining to the proceedings, including the requirements of the United States Internal Revenue Code. The City will cooperate fully with the Authority in respect of the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and to the extent information is required of the City to enable the Authority to perform its disclosure 241
Resolution 23-18

and continuing disclosure obligations with respect to the Local Obligations and any revenue bonds, although the City will not participate in nor be considered to be a participant in the proceedings respecting the CFDs (other than as a party to the agreement embodied by this Amended and Restated Resolution) nor will the City be or be considered to be an issuer of the Local Obligations nor any revenue bonds. The Authority is required to obtain a provision equivalent to this paragraph in all joint community facilities agreements with each Other Local Agency.

Section 12. In the event the Authority completes issuance and sale of Local Obligations, and Local Obligation proceeds become available to finance the Improvements, the Authority shall establish and maintain a special fund for each development project (the “Acquisition and Construction Fund”). The portion of Local Obligation proceeds which is intended to be utilized to finance the Improvements and Fees shall be deposited in the Acquisition and Construction Fund. The Acquisition and Construction Fund will be available both for City Improvements and City Fees and for the Improvements and Fees pertaining to each Other Local Agency. Subaccounts shall be created as necessary.

Section 13. As respects the Authority and each Other Local Agency, the City agrees to fully administer, and to take full governmental responsibility for, the construction or acquisition of the City Improvements and for the administration and expenditure of the City Fees including but not limited to environmental review, approval of plans and specifications, bid requirements, performance and payment bond requirements, insurance requirements, contract and construction administration, staking, inspection, acquisition of necessary property interests in real or personal property, the holding back and administration of retention payments, punch list administration, and the Authority and each Other Local Agency shall have no responsibility in that regard. The City reserves the right, as respects each Participating Developer, to require the Participating Developer to contract with the City to assume any portion or all of this responsibility. The Authority is required to obtain provisions equivalent to this paragraph in the joint community facilities agreement with each Other Local Agency.

Section 14. The City agrees to indemnify and to hold the Authority, its other members, and its other members’ officers, agents and employees, and each Other Local Agency and their officers, agents and employees (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless from any and all claims, suits and damages (including costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees) arising out of the design, engineering, construction and installation of the City Improvements and the improvements to be financed or acquired with the City Fees. The City reserves the right, as respects each Participating Developer, to require the Participating Developer to assume by contract with the City any portion or all of this responsibility. The Authority is required to obtain a provision equivalent to this paragraph in all joint community facilities agreements with each Other Local Agency naming the City and its officers, agents and employees as Indemnified Parties with respect to each Other Local Agency’s respective Improvements and the improvements to be constructed or acquired with each Other Local Agency’s Fees.

Section 15. As respects the Authority and each Other Local Agency, the City agrees – once the City Improvements are constructed according to the approved plans and specifications, and the City and the Participating Developer have put in place their agreed arrangements for the funding of maintenance of the City Improvements – to accept ownership of the City Improvements, to take maintenance responsibility for the City Improvements, and to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties to the extent provided in the preceding paragraph from any and all claims, etc., arising out of the use and maintenance of the City Improvements. The City reserves the right, as respects the Participating Developer, to require the Participating Developer by contract with the City to assume any portion or all of this responsibility. The Authority is required to obtain a provision equivalent to this paragraph in all joint community facilities agreements with each Other Local Agency naming the City and its officers, agents and employees as Indemnified Parties.

Section 16. The City acknowledges the requirement of the Mello-Roos Act that if the City Improvements are not completed prior to the adoption by the Commission of the Authority of 242
Resolution 23-18

the Resolution of Formation of the CFD for each respective development project, the City Improvements must be constructed as if they had been constructed under the direction and supervision, or under the authority of, the City. The City acknowledges that this means all City Improvements must be constructed under contracts that require the payment of prevailing wages as required by Section 1720 and following of the Labor Code of the State of California. The Authority makes no representation that this requirement is the only applicable legal requirement in this regard. The City reserves the right, as respects the Participating Developer, to assign appropriate responsibility for compliance with this paragraph to the Participating Developer.

Section 17. The form of the Acquisition Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B is hereby approved, and the Mayor, the City Manager, the Finance Director, the Finance Manager or such officer’s designee (the “Authorized Officer”) is authorized to execute, and deliver to the Participating Developer, the Acquisition Agreement on behalf of the City in substantially that form, with such changes as shall be approved by the Authorized Officer after consultation with the City Attorney and the Authority’s bond counsel, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof.

Section 18. After completion of the City Improvements and appropriate arrangements for the maintenance of the City Improvements, or any discrete portion thereof as provided in Section 53313.51 of the Mello-Roos Act and in the Acquisition Agreement, to the satisfaction of the City, and in conjunction with the City’s acceptance thereof, acquisition of the City Improvements shall be undertaken as provided in the Acquisition Agreement.

Section 19. The City hereby consents to the formation of the CFDs in accordance with this Amended and Restated Resolution and consents to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Authority for the proceedings respecting the CFDs with the understanding that the Authority will hereafter take each and every step required for or suitable for consummation of the proceedings, the levy, collection and enforcement of the special tax, and the issuance, sale, delivery and administration of the Local Obligations, all at no cost to the City and without binding or obligating the City’s general fund or taxing authority.

Section 20. The terms of the Agreement embodied by this Amended and Restated Resolution may be amended by a writing duly authorized, executed and delivered by the City and the Authority, except that no amendment may be made after the issuance of the Local Obligations by the Authority that would be detrimental to the interests of the bondholders without complying with all of the bondholder consent provisions for the amendment of the bond resolutions, bond indentures or like instruments governing the issuance, delivery and administration of all outstanding Local Obligations.

Section 21. Except to the extent of the indemnifications extended to each Other Local Agency in the Agreement embodied by this Amended and Restated Resolution, and the City’s agreement to take responsibility for and ownership of the City Improvements, no person or entity, including the Participating Developer, shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary of this Amended and Restated Resolution, and nothing in this Amended and Restated Resolution (either express or implied) is intended to confer upon any person or entity other than the Authority and the City (and their respective successors and assigns) any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Amended and Restated Resolution.

Section 22. The City shall be identified as a third-party beneficiary of all joint community facilities agreements between the Authority and each Other Local Agency to the extent of the indemnification provisions and the provisions whereby each Other Local Agency agrees to take responsibility for and ownership of their Improvements.

Section 23. The appropriate officials and staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed to make SCIP applications available to all property owners who are subject to Fees for new development within the City and/or who are conditioned to install Improvements and to inform such owners of their option to participate in SCIP; provided, that the Authority shall be responsible for providing such applications and related materials at its own expense. The staff persons listed on the attached Exhibit E, together with any other staff persons chosen by the City Manager from 243
Resolution 23-18

time to time, are hereby designated as the contact persons for the Authority in connection with SCIP.

Section 24. The appropriate officials and staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver such closing certificates, requisitions, agreements and related documents, including but not limited to such documents as may be required by bond counsel in connection with the participation in SCIP of any districts, authorities or other third-party entities entitled to own Improvements and/or to levy and collect fees on new development to pay for public capital improvements within the jurisdiction of the City, as are reasonably required by the Authority in accordance with the Manual to implement SCIP and to evidence compliance with the requirements of federal and state law in connection with the issuance by the Authority of the Local Obligations and any other bonds for SCIP. To that end, and pursuant to Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2, the staff persons listed on Exhibit E, or other staff person acting in the same capacity for the City with respect to SCIP, are hereby authorized and designated to declare the official intent of the City with respect to the public capital improvements to be paid or reimbursed through participation in SCIP.

Section 25. This Amended and Restated Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The City Clerk of the City of West Sacramento is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this Amended and Restated Resolution to the Secretary of the Authority. This Amended and Restated Resolution shall remain in force with respect to any Assessment District and CFD formed until all Local Obligations have been retired and the authority to levy the special tax conferred by any CFD proceedings and to levy the assessment conferred by any assessment proceedings has ended or is otherwise terminated. The Original Resolution shall remain in force with respect to any Assessment District formed pursuant to its authority until all Local Obligations have been retired and the authority to levy the assessment conferred by any assessment proceedings carried out pursuant to the Original Resolution has ended or is otherwise terminated.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by this 3rd day of May, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
244
Resolution 23-18

A-8
4142-0643-2559.1

EXHIBIT A TO THE RESOLUTION

FORM OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION

FTO BE ADOPTED BY CSCDA
RESOLUTION NO. __SCIPRESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE

COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO FINANCE CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

FEES FOR PUBLIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROPOSED

STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. ___ ([NAME OF PROJECT]) [CITY OF _________], [COUNTY OF _________], APPROVING A PROPOSED BOUNDARY MAP, MAKING

CERTAIN DECLARATIONS, FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

CONCERNING RELATED MATTERS, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED

ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, under the authority of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the “1913 Act”), being Division 12 (commencing with Sections 10000 and following) of the California Streets and Highways Code (the “Code”), the Commission (the “Commission”) of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the “Authority”) intends to finance, through its Statewide Community Infrastructure Program, the payment of certain development impact fees for public improvements (the “Improvement Fees”) and/or to finance certain public capital improvements to be constructed by or on behalf of the property owner(s) and to be acquired by the [City/County] of [__________] or another local agency (the “Improvements”) as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, all of which are of benefit to the property within the proposed Statewide Community Infrastructure Program Assessment District No. ___ ([name of project]) [City of __________], [County of __________] (the “Assessment District”); WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the land specially benefited by the Improvements and/or the Improvement Fees is shown within the boundaries of the map entitled “Proposed Boundaries of California Statewide Communities Development Authority Statewide Community Infrastructure Program Assessment District No. ___ ([name of project]) [City of __________], [County of __________], State of California,” a copy of which map is on file with the Secretary and presented to this Commission meeting, and determines that the land within the exterior boundaries shown on the map shall be designated “Statewide Community Infrastructure Program Assessment District No. ___ ([name of project]) [City of __________], [County of __________], State of California”;
WHEREAS, the [City/County] of [__________] is a member of the Authority and has approved the adoption on its behalf of this Resolution of Intention and has consented to the levy of the assessments in the Assessment District;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows:

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Pursuant to Section 2961 of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (the “1931 Act”), being Division 4 (commencing with Section 2800) of the Code, the Commission hereby declares its intent to comply with the requirements of the 1931 Act by complying with Part 7.5 thereof.

Section 3. The Commission has designated a registered, professional engineer as Engineer of Work for this project, and hereby directs said firm to prepare the report containing the matters required by 245
Resolution 23-18

A-9
4142-0643-2559.1
Sections 2961(b) and 10204 of the Code, as supplemented by Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution.

Section 4. The proposed boundary map of the Assessment District is hereby approved and adopted. Pursuant to Section 3111 of the Code, the Secretary of the Authority is directed to file a copy of the map in the office of the County Recorder of the [County of __________] within fifteen (15) days of the adoption of this resolution.

Section 5. The Commission determines that the cost of financing the Improvements and/or the payment of the Improvement Fees shall be specially assessed against the lots, pieces or parcels of land within the Assessment District benefiting from the financing of the Improvements and/or the payment of the Improvement Fees. The Commission intends to levy a special assessment upon such lots, pieces or parcels in accordance with the special benefit to be received by each such lot, piece or parcel of land, respectively, from the financing of the Improvements and/or the payment of the Improvement Fees.

Section 6. The Commission intends, pursuant to subparagraph (f) of Section 10204 of the Code, to provide for an annual assessment upon each of the parcels of land in the proposed Assessment District to pay various costs and expenses incurred from time to time by the Authority and not otherwise reimbursed to the Authority which result from the administration and collection of assessment installments or from the administration or registration of the improvement bonds and the various funds and accounts pertaining thereto.

Section 7. Bonds representing unpaid assessments, and bearing interest at a rate not to exceed twelve percent (12%) per annum, will be issued in the manner provided by the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 of the Code), and the last installment of the bonds shall mature not to exceed twentynine (29) years from the second day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date.

Section 8. The procedure for the collection of assessments and advance retirement of bonds under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 shall be as provided in Part 11.1 thereof.

Section 9. Neither the Authority nor any member agency thereof will obligate itself to advance available funds from its or their own funds or otherwise to cure any deficiency which may occur in the bond redemption fund. A determination not to obligate itself shall not prevent the Authority or any such member agency from, in its sole discretion, so advancing funds.

Section 10. The amount of any surplus remaining in the improvement fund after acquisition of the Improvements and/or payment of Improvement Fees and all other claims shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Section 10427.1 of the Code.

Section 11. To the extent any Improvement Fees are paid to the Authority in cash with respect to property within the proposed Assessment District prior to the date of issuance of the bonds, the amounts so paid shall be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds to the property owner or developer that made the payment.
246
Resolution 23-18

A-10
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority this ___ day of ______, 20__.

I, the undersigned, an Authorized Signatory of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Commission of the Authority at a duly called meeting of the Commission of the Authority held in accordance with law on _____ __ , 20__.

By
Authorized Signatory
California Statewide Communities
Development Authority
247
Resolution 23-18

4142-0643-2559.1

EXHIBIT A TO THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION

DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The payment of development impact fees levied within the Assessment District and/or public capital improvements to be acquired and owned by the [City/County] of [__________] or another local agency upon or for the benefit of parcels within the Assessment District, for the project known as [Project Name], which are authorized to be financed pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and as to which the owners of the applicable parcels within the Assessment District have applied for participation in SCIP, as more particularly described below.

PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS*
*Capital improvements includes funding for incidental costs associated with the capital improvements, including but not limited to, contingency, design, engineering, and construction management [End of Form of Resolution of Intention]
248
Resolution 23-18

4142-0643-2559.1 B-12

EXHIBIT B TO THE RESOLUTION

FORM OF ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
_____________________

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

ACQUISITION AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
AND
[DEVELOPER]
Dated as of _______, 20__
249
Resolution 23-18

B-13
4142-0643-2559.1

ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
Recitals
A. The parties to this Acquisition Agreement (the “Agreement”) are the CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO, (the “Local Agency”), and [DEVELOPER], a [indicate type of legal entity] (the “Developer”).

B. The effective date of this Agreement is ________, 20__.

C. The Developer has applied for the financing of, among other things, certain public capital improvements to be owned by the Local Agency (collectively, the “Acquisition Improvements”) through the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the “Authority”) and its Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (“SCIP”). [For CFDS:][The Acquisition Improvements are to be owned and operated by the Local Agency, and the financing is to be accomplished through a community facilities district which will be administered by the Authority under and pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 – California Government Code Sections 53311 and following (the “Act”). On [__________], 20[_], the Local Agency entered into a Joint Community Facilities Agreement authorizing the Authority to form a community facilities district (the “District”) within the territorial limits of the Local Agency to finance, among other things, the Acquisition Improvements. On [__________], 20[_], the Authority formed the District and, on the same date, a landowner election was conducted in which all of the votes were cast unanimously in favor of conferring the District authority on the Authority Commission.] [For Assessment Districts:][The Acquisition Improvements are to be owned and operated by the Local Agency, and the financing is to be accomplished through an assessment district (the “District”) which will be administered by the Authority under and pursuant to Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 10000 and following) (the “1913 Act”) and the issuance of improvement bonds (the “Local Obligations”) under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 8500 and following) (the “1915 Act” and, together with the “1913 Act” the “Act”).] D. The administration, payment and reimbursement of the capital facilities fees is agreed to be governed by the provisions of the SCIP Manual of Procedures as it may be amended from time to time. The administration, payment and reimbursement of the Acquisition Improvements shall be as provided herein.

E. Under SCIP, the Authority intends to levy [assessments] [special taxes] and issue bonds, in one or more series, to fund, among other things, all or a portion of the costs of the Acquisition Improvements. The portion of the proceeds of the [special taxes and] bonds allocable to the cost of the Acquisition Improvements, together with interest earned thereon, is referred to herein as the “Available Amount”.

F. The Authority will provide financing for the acquisition by the Local Agency of the Acquisition Improvements and the payment of the Acquisition Price (as defined herein) of the Acquisition Improvements from the Available Amount. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a description of the Acquisition Improvements, which includes authorized discrete and usable portions, if any, of the public capital improvements, pursuant to Section 53313.51 of the Act, to be acquired from the Developer.

G. The parties anticipate that, upon completion of the Acquisition Improvements and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Local Agency will acquire such completed Acquisition Improvements with the Available Amount.

H. Any and all monetary obligations of the Local Agency arising out of this Agreement are the special and limited obligations of the Local Agency payable only from the Available Amount, and no other funds whatsoever of the Local Agency shall be obligated therefor. 250
Resolution 23-18

B-14
4142-0643-2559.1
I. Attached to this Agreement are Exhibit A (Acquisition Improvements and the Eligible Portions thereof), Exhibit B (Form of Requisition), and Exhibit C (Bidding, Contracting and Construction Requirements for Acquisition Improvements), all of which are incorporated into this Agreement for all purposes.

In consideration of Recitals A through I, inclusive, and the mutual covenants, undertakings and obligations set forth below, the Local Agency and the Developer agree as stated below.

Agreement

ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS; DISTRICT FORMATION AND

FINANCING PLAN
Section 1.01. Definitions. As used herein, the following capitalized terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them below:
“Acceptable Title” means free and clear of all monetary liens, encumbrances, assessments, whether any such item is recorded or unrecorded, and taxes, except those items which are reasonably determined by the Local Agency Engineer not to interfere with the intended use and therefore are not required to be cleared from the title. “Acquisition and Construction Fund” means the “[Local Agency] Acquisition and Construction Fund” established by the Authority pursuant to Section 1.03 hereof for the purpose of paying the Acquisition Price of the Acquisition Improvements and which fund may be held as a subaccount within a fund established under the Authority Trust Agreement and may be commingled with acquisition and construction fund monies available for other public capital improvements. “Acquisition Improvement” shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the recitals and are further described in Exhibit A.
“Acquisition Price” means the total amount eligible to be paid to the Developer upon acquisition of an Acquisition Improvement as provided in Section 2.03 not to exceed the Actual Cost of the Acquisition Improvement.
“Act” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Recital C.
“Actual Cost” means the total cost of an Acquisition Improvement, as documented by the Developer to the satisfaction of the Local Agency and as certified by the Local Agency Engineer in an Actual Cost Certificate including, without limitation, (a) the Developer’s cost of constructing such Acquisition Improvement including grading, labor, material and equipment costs, (b) the Developer’s cost of designing and engineering the Acquisition Improvement, preparing the plans and specifications and bid documents for such Acquisition Improvement, and the costs of inspection, materials testing and construction staking for such Acquisition Improvement, (c) the Developer’s cost of any performance, payment and maintenance bonds and insurance, including title insurance, required hereby for such Acquisition Improvement, (d) the Developer’s cost of any real property or interest therein that is either necessary for the construction of such Acquisition Improvement (e.g., temporary construction easements, haul roads, etc.), or is required to be conveyed with such Acquisition Improvement in order to convey Acceptable Title thereto to the Local Agency or its designee, (e) the Developer’s cost of environmental evaluation or mitigation required for such Acquisition Improvement, (f) the amount of any fees actually paid by the Developer to governmental agencies in order to obtain permits, licenses or other necessary governmental approvals and reviews for such Acquisition Improvement, (g) the Developer’s cost for construction and project management, administration and supervision services for such 251
Resolution 23-18

B-15
4142-0643-2559.1
Acquisition Improvement, (h) the Developer’s cost for professional services related to such Acquisition Improvement, including engineering, accounting, legal, financial, appraisal and similar professional services, and (i) the costs of construction financing incurred by the Developer with respect to such Acquisition Improvement.
“Actual Cost Certificate” means a certificate prepared by the Developer detailing the Actual Cost of an Acquisition Improvement, or an Eligible Portion thereof, to be acquired hereunder, as may be revised by the Local Agency Engineer pursuant to Section 2.03. “Agreement” means this Acquisition Agreement, dated as of [_______________], 20[_]. “Authority” means the California Statewide Communities Development Authority. “Authority Trust Agreement” means a Trust Agreement entered into by the Authority and an Authority Trustee in connection with the issuance of bonds. “Authority Trustee” means the financial institution identified as trustee in an Authority Trust Agreement.
“Available Amount” shall have the meaning assigned to the term in Recital E. “Bonds” means bonds or other indebtedness issued by the Authority as tax-exempt or taxable bonds or other indebtedness, in one or more series, that is to be repaid by the District. “Code” means the Streets and Highways Code or the Government Code of the State of California, as applicable.
“Developer” means [Developer], its successors and assigns. “Disbursement Request Form” means a requisition for payment of funds from the Acquisition and Construction Fund for an Acquisition Improvement, or an Eligible Portion thereof in substantially the form contained in Exhibit B hereto.
“District” shall have the meaning assigned to the term in Recital C. “Eligible Portion” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 2.03 below. “Installment Payment” means an amount equal to ninety percent (90%) of the Actual Cost of an Eligible Portion.
“Local Agency” means the City of West Sacramento.
“Local Agency Engineer” means the Engineer of the Local Agency or his/her designee who will be responsible for administering the acquisition of the Acquisition Improvements hereunder. “Project” means the Developer’s development of the property in the District, including the design and construction of the Acquisition Improvements and the other public and private improvements to be constructed by the Developer within the District. [“Special Taxes” means annual special taxes, and prepayments thereof, authorized by the District to be levied by the Commission of the Authority.]
“Title Documents” means, for each Acquisition Improvement acquired hereunder, a grant deed or similar instrument necessary to transfer title to any real property or interests therein (including easements), or an irrevocable offer of dedication of such real property with interests therein necessary to the operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement by the Local Agency of the Acquisition Improvement (including, if necessary, easements for ingress and egress) and a bill of sale or similar instrument evidencing transfer of title to the Acquisition Improvement (other than said real property interests) to the Local Agency, where applicable.

Section 1.02. Participation in SCIP. [For CFDs:][The Local Agency has entered into a Joint Community Facilities Agreement with the Authority for the purpose of accepting applications from time to time of developers within the Local Agency’s jurisdictional boundaries.] 252
Resolution 23-18

B-16
4142-0643-2559.1
Developer has applied for financing through SCIP of the Acquisition Improvements, and such application has been approved by the Local Agency. Developer and Local Agency agree that until and unless such financing is completed by the Authority and the Available Amount is deposited in the Acquisition Account (as defined in Section 1.03 below), neither the Developer nor the Local Agency shall have any obligations under this agreement. Developer agrees to cooperate with the Local Agency and the Authority in the completion of SCIP financing for the Acquisition Improvements.

Section 1.03. Deposit and Use of Available Amount.
(a) Upon completion of the SCIP financing, the Available Amount will be deposited by the Authority in the Acquisition Account.
(b) The Authority will cause the SCIP Trustee to establish and maintain an account (the “Acquisition Account”) for the purpose of holding all funds for the Acquisition Improvements. All earnings on amounts in the Acquisition and Construction Fund shall remain in the Acquisition and Construction Fund for use as provided herein and pursuant to the Authority Trust Agreement. Money in the Acquisition and Construction Fund shall be available to respond to delivery of a Disbursement Request Form and to be paid to the Developer or its designee to pay the Acquisition Price of the Acquisition Improvements, as specified in Article II hereof. Upon completion of all of the Acquisition Improvements and the payment of all costs thereof, any remaining funds in the Acquisition and Construction Fund (less any amount determined by the Local Agency as necessary to reserve for claims against the account) (i) shall be applied to pay the costs of any additional Acquisition Improvements eligible for acquisition with respect to the Project as approved by the Authority and, to the extent not so used, (ii) shall be applied by the Authority [to call Bonds or to reduce Special Taxes as the Authority shall determine][as provided in Section 10427.1 of the Code to pay a portion of the assessments levied on the Project property in the District].

Section 1.04. No Local Agency Liability; Local Agency Discretion; No Effect on Other Agreements. In no event shall any actual or alleged act by the Local Agency or any actual or alleged omission or failure to act by the Local Agency with respect to SCIP subject the Local Agency to monetary liability therefor. Further, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as affecting the Developer’s or the Local Agency’s duty to perform their respective obligations under any other agreements, public improvement standards, land use regulations or subdivision requirements related to the Project, which obligations are and shall remain independent of the Developer’s and the Local Agency’s rights and obligations under this Agreement.

ARTICLE II

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION OF ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS Section 2.01. Letting and Administering Design Contracts. The parties presently anticipate that the Developer has awarded and administered or will award and administer engineering design contracts for the Acquisition Improvements to be acquired from Developer.

All eligible expenditures of the Developer for design engineering and related costs in connection 253
Resolution 23-18

B-17
4142-0643-2559.1
with the Acquisition Improvements (whether as an advance to the Local Agency or directly to the design consultant) shall be reimbursed at the time of acquisition of such Acquisition Improvements. The Developer shall be entitled to reimbursement for any design costs of the Acquisition Improvements only out of the Acquisition Price as provided in Section 2.03 and shall not be entitled to any payment for design costs independent of or prior to the acquisition of Acquisition Improvements.

Section 2.02. Letting and Administration of Construction Contracts; Indemnification. State law requires that all Acquisition Improvements not completed prior to the formation of the District shall be constructed as if they were constructed under the direction and supervision, or under the authority, of the [Local Agency]. In order to assure compliance with those provisions, except for any contracts entered into prior to the date hereof, Developer agrees to comply with the requirements set forth in Exhibit C hereto with respect to the bidding and contracting for the construction of the Acquisition Improvements. The Developer agrees that all the contracts shall call for payment of prevailing wages as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. The Developer’s indemnification obligation set forth in Section 3.01 of this Agreement shall also apply to any alleged failure to comply with the requirements of this Section, and/or applicable State laws regarding public contracting and prevailing wages.

Section 2.03. Sale of Acquisition Improvements. The Developer agrees to sell to the [Local Agency] each Acquisition Improvement to be constructed by Developer (including any rights-of-way or other easements necessary for the Acquisition Improvements, to the extent not already publicly owned), when the Acquisition Improvement is has been constructed and is complete to the satisfaction of the Local Agency for an amount not to exceed the lesser of (i) the Available Amount or (ii) the Actual Cost of the Acquisition Improvement. Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, contains a list of the Acquisition Improvements. Portions of an Acquisition Improvement eligible for Installment Payments prior to completion of the entire Acquisition Improvement are described as eligible, discrete and usable portions in Exhibit A (each, an “Eligible Portion”). At the time of completion of each Acquisition Improvement, or Eligible Portion thereof, the Developer shall deliver to the Local Agency Engineer a written request for acquisition, accompanied by an Actual Cost Certificate, and by executed Title Documents for the transfer of the Acquisition Improvement where necessary. In the event that the Local Agency Engineer finds that the supporting paperwork submitted by the Developer fails to demonstrate the required relationship between the subject Actual Cost and eligible work, the Local Agency Engineer shall advise the Developer that the determination of the Actual Cost (or the ineligible portion thereof) has been disallowed and shall request further documentation from the Developer.

If the further documentation is still not adequate, the Local Agency Engineer may revise the Actual Cost Certificate to delete any disallowed items and the determination shall be final and conclusive.

Certain soft costs for the Acquisition Improvements, such as civil engineering, may have been incurred pursuant to single contracts that include work relating also to the private portions of the Project. In those instances, the total costs under such contracts will be allocated to each Acquisition Improvement as approved by the Local Agency Engineer. Where a specific contract has been awarded for design or engineering work relating solely to an Acquisition Improvement, one hundred percent (100%) of the costs under the contract will be allocated to that Acquisition Improvement. Amounts allocated to an Acquisition Improvement will be further allocated among the Eligible Portions of that Acquisition Improvement, if any, in the same proportion as the amount to be reimbursed for hard costs for each Eligible Portion bears to the amount to be reimbursed for 254
Resolution 23-18

B-18
4142-0643-2559.1
hard costs for the entire Acquisition Improvement. Costs will be allocated to each Acquisition Improvement as approved by the Local Agency Engineer. The costs of certain environmental mitigation required to mitigate impacts of the public and private portions of the Project will be allocated to each Acquisition Improvement as approved by the Local Agency Engineer.

In the event that the Actual Cost is in excess of the Available Amount, the Local Agency shall withdraw the Available Amount from the Acquisition Account and transfer said amount to the Developer. In the event that the Actual Cost is less than the Available Amount, the Local Agency shall withdraw an amount from the Acquisition Account equal to the Actual Cost, and shall transfer said amount to the Developer. Any amounts then remaining in the Acquisition Account shall be applied as provided in Section 1.03.

In no event shall the Local Agency be required to pay the Developer more than the amount on deposit in the Acquisition Account at the time such payment is requested.

Section 2.04. Conditions Precedent to Payment of Acquisition Price. Payment to the Developer or its designee of the Acquisition Price for an Acquisition Improvement from the Acquisition and Construction Fund shall in every case be conditioned first upon the determination of the Local Agency Engineer, pursuant to Section 2.03, that the Acquisition Improvement satisfies all Local Agency regulations and ordinances and is otherwise complete and ready for acceptance by the Local Agency, and shall be further conditioned upon satisfaction of the following additional conditions precedent:
(a) The Developer shall have provided the Local Agency with lien releases or other similar documentation satisfactory to the Local Agency Engineer as evidence that none of the property (including any rights-of-way or other easements necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Acquisition Improvement, to the extent not already publicly owned) comprising the Acquisition Improvement, and the property which is subject to the [assessments/Special Taxes] of the District, is not subject to any prospective mechanics lien claim respecting the Acquisition Improvements.
(b) All due and payable property taxes, and installments of [assessments/Special Taxes] shall be current on property owned by the Developer or under option to the Developer that is subject to the lien of the District. (c) The Developer shall certify that it is not in default with respect to any loan secured by any interest in the Project.
(d) The Developer shall have provided the Local Agency with Title Documents needed to provide the Local Agency with title to the site, right-of-way, or easement upon which the subject Acquisition Improvements are situated. All such Title Documents shall be in a form acceptable to the Local Agency (or applicable governmental agency) and shall convey Acceptable Title. The Developer shall provide a policy of title insurance as of the date of transfer in a form acceptable to the Local Agency Engineer insuring the Local Agency as to the interests acquired in connection with the acquisition of any interest for which such a policy of title insurance is not required by another agreement between the Local Agency and the Developer. Each title insurance policy required hereunder shall be in the amount equal to or greater than the Acquisition Price.

Section 2.05. SCIP Requisition. Upon a determination by the Local Agency Engineer to pay the Acquisition Price of the Acquisition Improvements pursuant to Section 2.04, 255
Resolution 23-18

B-19
4142-0643-2559.1
the Local Agency Engineer shall cause a SCIP Requisition to be submitted to the Program Administrator. The Program Administrator will review the SCIP Requisition and forward it with instructions to the SCIP Trustee and the SCIP Trustee shall make payment directly to the Developer of such amount pursuant to the SCIP Trust Agreement. The Local Agency and the Developer acknowledge and agree that the SCIP Trustee shall make payment strictly in accordance with the SCIP Requisition and shall not be required to determine whether or not the Acquisition Improvements have been completed or what the Actual Costs may be with respect to such Acquisition Improvements. The SCIP Trustee shall be entitled to rely on the SCIP Requisition on its face without any further duty of investigation.

ARTICLE III

MISCELLANEOUS
Section 3.01. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The Developer hereby assumes the defense of, and indemnifies and saves harmless the Local Agency, the Authority, and each of its respective officers, directors, employees and agents, from and against all actions, damages, claims, losses or expenses of every type and description to which they may be subjected or put, by reason of, or resulting from or alleged to have resulted from the acts or omissions of the Developer or its agents and employees in the performance of this Agreement, or arising out of any contract for the design, engineering and construction of the Acquisition Improvements or arising out of any alleged misstatements of fact or alleged omission of a material fact made by the Developer, its officers, directors, employees or agents to the Authority's underwriter, financial advisor, appraiser, district engineer or bond counsel or regarding the Developer, its proposed developments, its property ownership and its contractual arrangements contained in the official statement relating to the SCIP financing (provided that the Developer shall have been furnished a copy of such official statement and shall not have objected thereto); and provided, further, that nothing in this Section 3.01 shall limit in any manner the Local Agency’s rights against any of the Developer’s architects, engineers, contractors or other consultants. Except as set forth in this Section 3.01, no provision of this Agreement shall in any way limit the extent of the responsibility of the Developer for payment of damages resulting from the operations of the Developer, its agents and employees. Nothing in this Section 3.01 shall be understood or construed to mean that the Developer agrees to indemnify the Local Agency, the Authority or any of its respective officers, directors, employees or agents, for any negligent or wrongful acts or omissions to act of the Local Agency, Authority its officers, employees, agents or any consultants or contractors.

Section 3.02. Audit. The Local Agency shall have the right, during normal business hours and upon the giving of ten days’ written notice to the Developer, to review all books and records of the Developer pertaining to costs and expenses incurred by the Developer (for which the Developer seeks reimbursement) in constructing the Acquisition Improvements.

Section 3.03. Cooperation. The Local Agency and the Developer agree to cooperate with respect to the completion of the SCIP financing for the Acquisition Improvements.

The Local Agency and the Developer agree to meet in good faith to resolve any differences on future matters which are not specifically covered by this Agreement. 256
Resolution 23-18

B-20
4142-0643-2559.1
Section 3.04. General Standard of Reasonableness. Any provision of this Agreement which requires the consent, approval or acceptance of either party hereto or any of their respective employees, officers or agents shall be deemed to require that such consent, approval or acceptance not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, unless such provision expressly incorporates a different standard. The foregoing provision shall not apply to provisions in the Agreement which provide for decisions to be in the sole discretion of the party making the decision.

Section 3.05. Third Party Beneficiaries. The Authority and its officers, employees, agents or any consultants or contractors are expressly deemed third party beneficiaries of this Agreement with respect to the provisions of Section 3.01. It is expressly agreed that, except for the Authority with respect to the provisions of Section 3.01, there are no third party beneficiaries of this Agreement, including without limitation any owners of bonds, any of the Local Agency’s or the Developer’s contractors for the Acquisition Improvements and any of the Local Agency’s, the Authority's or the Developer’s agents and employees.

Section 3.06. Conflict with Other Agreements. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as releasing the Developer or the Local Agency from any condition of development or requirement imposed by any other agreement between the Local Agency and the Developer, and, in the event of a conflicting provision, such other agreement shall prevail unless such conflicting provision is specifically waived or modified in writing by the Local Agency and the Developer.

Section 3.07. Notices. All invoices for payment, reports, other communication and notices relating to this Agreement shall be mailed to:

If to the Local Agency:

City of West Sacramento
[Address to come]
If to the Developer:
[Developer]
[Address to come]
Either party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party.

Section 3.08. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably possible.

Section 3.09. Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

Section 3.10. Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party’s right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement.

Section 3.11. Singular and Plural; Gender. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural, and terms in the masculine gender shall include the feminine. 257
Resolution 23-18

B-21
4142-0643-2559.1
Section 3.12. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original.

Section 3.13. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors-in-interest of the parties hereto. The Developer may not assign its rights or obligations hereunder, except to successors-in-interest to the property within the District, without the prior written consent of the Local Agency.

Section 3.14. Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the parties that the Local Agency would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof, other than for the payment to the Developer of any (i) moneys owing to the Developer hereunder, or (ii) moneys paid by the Developer pursuant to the provisions hereof which are misappropriated or improperly obtained, withheld or applied by the Local Agency.

In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that the Local Agency shall not be liable in damages to the Developer, or to any assignee or transferee of the Developer other than for the payments to the Developer specified in the preceding paragraph. Subject to the foregoing, the Developer covenants not to sue for or claim any damages for any alleged breach of, or dispute which arises out of, this Agreement.
[The remainder of this page intentionally left blank]
258
Resolution 23-18

B-22
4142-0643-2559.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written above.

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
By: ______________________________________
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
By: ________________________________
[DEVELOPER],
a [indicate type of legal entity]
By: __________________________
(Signature)
__________________________
(Print Name)
259
Resolution 23-18

4142-0643-2559.1 B-23
Exhibit A to the Acquisition Agreement

DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS AND BUDGETED AMOUNTS [To be completed based on Final Engineer’s Report]
Funding includes amounts for incidental costs associated with the capital improvements, including, but not limited to, contingency, design, engineering, and construction management.

ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL AMOUNT*
[_] ............................................................................................................. $[_] [_] ............................................................................................................. $[_] *
Estimated. Acquisition Price will be determined based on Actual Cost as further described in this Acquisition Agreement.
260
Resolution 23-18

4142-0643-2559.1 B-24
Exhibit B to the Acquisition Agreement

FORM OF SCIP REQUISITION
To: BLX Group LLC
SCIP Program Administrator
777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3200
Los Angeles, California 90017
Attention: Vo Nguyen
Fax: 213-612-2499
Re: Statewide Community Infrastructure Program
The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO hereby requests a withdrawal from the [DEVELOPER] ACQUISITION ACCOUNT, as follows:

Request Date: [Insert Date of Request]
Name of Developer: [Developer]
Withdrawal Amount: [Insert Acquisition Price]
Acquisition Improvements: [Insert Description of Acquisition Improvement(s) from Ex. A] Payment Instructions: [Insert Wire Instructions or Payment Address for Developer] The undersigned hereby certifies as follows:

1. The Withdrawal is being made in accordance with a permitted use of such monies pursuant to the Acquisition Agreement, and the Withdrawal is not being made for the purpose of reinvestment.

2. None of the items for which payment is requested have been reimbursed previously from other sources of funds.

3. If the Withdrawal Amount is greater than the funds held in the Acquisition Account, the SCIP Program Administrator is authorized to amend the amount requested to be equal to the amount of such funds.

4. To the extent the Withdrawal is being made prior to the date bonds have been issued on behalf of SCIP, this withdrawal form serves as the declaration of official intent of the CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO, pursuant to Treasury Regulations 1.150-2, to reimburse with respect expenditures made from the Acquisition Account listed above in the amount listed above.

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
By:

Title:
261
Resolution 23-18

4142-0643-2559.1 B-25

EXHIBIT C TO THE RESOLUTION

ELIGIBLE FACILITIES AND FEES
Eligible facilities and fees that may be financed by a CFD formed by CSCDA through SCIP include all improvements and fees authorized under the Mello-Roos Act, including but not limited to the following:

Transportation Improvements
Eligible roadway improvements include, but are not limited to: acquisition of land and easements; roadway design; project management; bridge crossings and culverts; clearing, grubbing, and demolition; grading, soil import/export, paving (including slurry seal), and decorative/enhanced pavement concrete and/or pavers; joint trenches, underground utilities and undergrounding of existing utilities; dry utilities and appurtenances; curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike trails (including onsite and off-site), enhanced fencing, and access ramps; street lights, signalization, and traffic signal control systems; bus turnouts; signs and striping; erosion control; median and parkway landscaping and irrigation; entry monumentation; bus shelters, bus and transit improvements including transfer stations and regional public transit improvements; masonry walls; traffic control and agency fees; and other improvements related thereto. Eligible improvements for the roads listed herein also include any and all necessary underground potable and recycled water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage system improvements.

Water System Improvements
Authorized facilities include any and all water facilities designed to meet the needs of development within the CFD. These facilities include, but may not be limited to: water storage, treatment and distribution facilities including waterlines and appurtenances, gate valves, pressure reducing stations, flow meters, fire hydrants, and other improvements related thereto such as site clearing, grading and paving; curbs and gutters; booster pump stations & power; stand-by generators; site lighting, drainage, sanitary sewer, and water service; landscaping and irrigation; access gates, and fencing; and striping and signage.

Recycled Water System Improvements
Authorized facilities include any and all recycled water system facilities designed to meet the needs of development within the CFD. These facilities include, but may not be limited to: treatment and distribution facilities including pipelines and appurtenances, gate valves, flow meters, booster pump pressurization system, and other improvements related thereto - such as site clearing, grading and paving; curbs and gutters; booster pump stations; stand-by generators; site lighting, drainage, sanitary sewer, and water service; landscaping and irrigation; access gates, and fencing; and striping and signage.

Drainage System Improvements
Authorized facilities include any and all drainage and storm drain improvements designed to meet the needs of development within the CFD. These facilities include, but may not be limited to:
excavation and grading, pipelines and appurtenances, outfalls and water quality measures, detention/retention basins, drainage pretreatment facilities, drainage ways/channels, pump stations, landscaping and irrigation; access roads, gates, and fencing; and striping and signage and other improvements related thereto.

Wastewater System Improvements
Authorized facilities include any and all wastewater facilities designed to meet the needs of development within the CFD. These facilities include, but may not be limited to, pipelines and all 262
Resolution 23-18

4142-0643-2559.1 B-26
appurtenances thereto; manholes; tie-in to existing main lines; force mains; lift stations; upgrades to existing lift stations; odor-control facilities; and permitting related thereto; and related sewer system improvements.

Park, Parkway and Open Space Improvements
Authorized facilities include any and all improvements to parks, parkways and open space required for development within the CFD. These facilities include, but may not be limited to: grading, turf, shrubs and trees, landscaping irrigation, site lighting, drainage, sanitary sewer and water service, pedestrian and bicycle trails, protective fencing (including soundwalls), pedestrian/bicycle bridges, storm drain crossings, wetland mitigation, hawk mitigation for authorized facilities herein, access gates and fencing and related open space improvements. Authorized facilities include acquisition of any and all parkland as well as open space/bike trail/public access easements required for development within the CFD.

School and Educational Facilities
Authorized facilities include classroom renovation, updates to school safety and security systems, technology improvements, energy efficiency improvements, school modernization and retrofitting, and new classroom and school construction as required for development within the CFD.

Development Impact Fees
Authorized facilities include the direct funding of any of the above referenced facility types for which the Local Agency collects a development impact fee.

Other Incidental Expenses and Bond Issuance Costs
In addition to the above facilities, other incidental expenses as authorized by the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, including, but not limited to, the cost of planning and designing the facilities (including the cost of environmental evaluation, remediation and mitigation); engineering and surveying; construction staking; utility relocation and demolition costs incidental to the construction of the public facilities; costs of project/construction management; costs (including the costs of legal services) associated with the formation of the CFD; issuance of bonds (if any); determination of the amount of taxes; collection of taxes; payment of taxes; costs of calculating and providing reimbursements from one-time special tax payments; or costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the CFD; and any other expenses incidental to the formation and implementation of the CFD and to the construction, completion, inspection and acquisition of the authorized facilities. 263
Resolution 23-18

4142-0643-2559.1 B-27

EXHIBIT D TO THE RESOLUTION

FORM OF INCREASED DEMANDS CERTIFICATE
To: California Statewide Communities Development Authority Re: Statewide Community Infrastructure Program – Community Facilities District for [Project]
The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO (the “Local Agency”) hereby certifies that the public capital improvements and development impact fees identified below are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the Local Agency as a result of development within the proposed community facilities district for the [Project]:
[List improvements/fees here]

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
By:

Title:
264
Resolution 23-18

4142-0643-2559.1 C-28

EXHIBIT E TO THE RESOLUTION

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO CONTACTS FOR SCIP PROGRAM
Primary Contact
Name: Ted Williams
Title: Finance Manager
Mailing Address: 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, CA 95691 Delivery Address (if different):

E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 916-617-4835
Fax: 916-373-9006
Secondary Contact
Name: Roberta Raper
Title: Finance Director
Mailing Address:1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, CA 95691 Delivery Address (if different):

E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 916-617-4509
Fax: 916-373-9006
[Add additional contacts as needed]
265
Resolution 23-18

OHS West:260226565.2

CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
I, the undersigned, the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of West Sacramento, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 23-18 was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of West Sacramento duly and regularly held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 3rd day of May, 2023, of which meeting all of the members of said City Council had due notice and at which a majority thereof were present.

An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at Council Chambers 1110 West Capitol Ave., West Sacramento, CA, 95691, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief description of said resolution appeared on said agenda.

Notice of public was published in [name of newspaper] at least 5 days prior to the hearing.

I have carefully compared the foregoing with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes.

Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now in full force and effect.

Dated: _______________, 2023
_________________________________
Clerk of the City of West Sacramento
By: ______________________________ Seal
266