Yuba City City Council
March 3, 2026

The City has adopted a Reasonable Accommodations Policy that provides a procedure for receiving and resolving requests for accommodation to participate in this meeting. Please visit yubacity.net ADA & Accessibility Resources page. If you need assistance in order to attend the City Council meeting, or if you require auxiliary aids or services, e.g., hearing aids or signing services to make a presentation to the City Council, the City is happy to help. Accommodations should be requested as early as possible as additional time may be required in order to provide the requested accommodation; 72 hours in advance is suggested. Please contact City offices at (530) 822-4817 or (TTY: 530-822-4732), so such aids or services can be arranged. Requests may also be made by email at [email protected] or [email protected] or mail City Clerk, 1201 Civic Center Blvd, Yuba City, CA 95993.

AGENDA
MARCH 3, 2026

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL

CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF YUBA CITY
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS/VIRTUAL
MAYOR ● Marc Boomgaarden
VICE-MAYOR ● Michael Pasquale
COUNCILMEMBER ● Toni Cole
COUNCILMEMBER ● Wade Kirchner
COUNCILMEMBER ● Dave Shaw
CITY MANAGER ● Robert Bendorf
CITY ATTORNEY ● Shannon L. Chaffin
1201 Civic Center Blvd
Yuba City CA 95993
Wheelchair Accessible

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL

CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF YUBA CITY
MARCH 3, 2026
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS/VIRTUAL
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Yuba City’s website at www.yubacity.net, subject to staff’s availability to post the documents before the meeting.

The Council Chambers will be open for public attendance and participation. The meeting will also be live streamed for public viewing, but not participation, at the following link:
https://yubacity-net.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_PtgKm2WbRpSP5WoAbZbSMQ. Emailed comments sent to [email protected] at least 24 hours before the meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting. Please identify the Agenda item(s) addressed by the comments.

Regular Meeting
Call to Order
Roll Call
__ Mayor Boomgaarden
__ Vice-Mayor Pasquale
__ Councilmember Cole
__ Councilmember Kirchner
__ Councilmember Shaw
Invocation/Inspiration
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Agenda Modifications
Presentations

1. Yuba City Economic Visioning - Vaughan Davies, Eastman Perkins

2. Major Pavement Repair Project Strategy - Josh Wolffe, Public Works Director Public Communication

3. Appearance of Interested Citizens
You are welcome and encouraged to participate in this meeting. Public comment is taken on action items appearing on the Consent Calendar or Business Items on the Agenda when they are called. Public comment on any other items within the scope of the City’s jurisdiction, including items not listed on the Agenda will be considered at this time. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. Members of the public submitting written requests at least 24 hours prior to the meeting will be allotted five minutes to comment per speaker. Repetitive comments may be limited, and large groups are encouraged to select representatives to express the opinions of the group.

Consent Calendar
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time that Council votes on the motion unless members of the City Council request specific items to be discussed or removed from the Consent Calendar for individual action.

4. Minutes of the February 17, 2026, Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council
Recommendation: Approve the Minutes of the February 17, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council

5. Department of Water Resources Urban Drought Relief - Turf Replacement Project (24-02) Contract Award
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution to:

A. Reject Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC's bid as nonresponsive due to failure to submit the required Public Contract Code § 10285.1 certification
B. Award a construction contract to Superb Engineering, Inc. of Banning, CA in the amount of their total bid of
$1,611,379.76 for the Base Bid Schedule and Alternate
Bid Schedule and authorize the City Manager to execute
the contract on behalf of the City, subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney
C. Find that CEQA was previously assessed for the Project, a categorical exemption (Class 4, SCH #2026010121)
was adopted, approval of this contract is within the scope of the previously approved Project, and no further
environmental review is required under CEQA
D. Award a Professional Services Agreement to The Solis Group of Pasadena, CA, for Labor Compliance Services
in the amount of $13,600.00, subject to material terms, with the finding that is in the best interest of the City E. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Design
Consulting Construction Management (DCCM) of Auburn,
CA for Construction Management and Inspection in the
amount of $193,765.00, subject to material terms, with

the finding that is in the best interest of the City

6. Supplemental Budget Appropriation for Upgrades for Existing CCTV Vehicle Recommendation:

A. Approve a capital acquisition for upgrades for the existing Cues CCTV vehicle to the Summit System for vehicle 08-
33, CCTV truck
B. Adopt a Resolution awarding the purchase to WECO
Industries of Vacaville, California, in the amount of
$162,950.29, with the finding that it is in the best interest of the City
C. Authorize the Finance Director to make a capital
acquisition budget allocation in the amount of
$162,950.29 from Account No. 6610-69415 (Vehicle
Replacement Fund - Heavy Equipment) wastewater funds

7. Reallocate Electrician Authorized Positions
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution taking the following actions effective March 7, 2026:

A. Increase the allocation of the Electrical/Instrumentation Supervisor in Budget Unit 3150 – Public Works Electrical Maintenance from .10 FTE to 1.0 FTE (a net increase of
.9 FTE), with a corresponding .9 FTE reduction in Utilities B. Increase the total allocation of Electrical Technician I/II/III positions in Budget Unit 3150 – Public Works Electrical Maintenance from 1.1 FTE to 2.0 FTE (a net increase of
.9 FTE), with a corresponding .9 FTE reduction in Utilities.

The remaining 1.0 FTE Electrical Technician I/II/III in Utilities shall be allocated as .5 FTE in Budget Unit 7120 – Water Treatment and .5 FTE in Budget Unit 8120 –
Wastewater Treatment
C. Authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental appropriation to 3150-61210, Public Works Salaries, in
the amount of $64,042

8. Community Sponsorship - YCHS Baseball
Recommendation: Affirm the City Manager's independent action to approve a project change request from the Yuba City High School Baseball Boosters for the City's previous sponsorship award in the amount of $1,000.00
Business Items

9. Recreation Program Fee Updates
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving updated rates for recreation program fees

10. Introduction to the Utilities Rate Studies
Recommendation: Direct staff to finalize the Water and Wastewater Rate Studies for

adoption and initiation of the Proposition 218 process

11. Consideration of the Road Development Impact Fee Update Recommendation: Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City, adding Chapter 12 (Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees) to Title 8, Chapter 12 of the City of Yuba City Municipal Code to establish roadway development impact fees for new development
Future Agenda Items

12. Future Agenda Items
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda

13. City Manager's Report

14. City Council Reports
Adjournment

Yuba City
Economic Visioning
Presentation by:

Vaughan Davies
Architect and Urban Designer
Perkins Eastman

Major Pavement Repair
Project Strategy
Presentation by: Josh Wolffe
Public Works Director

CITY OF YUBA CITY

Public Communication
Members of the public may address the City Council on items of interest that are within the City’s jurisdiction. Individuals addressing general comments are encouraged to limit their statements.

Procedure
You are welcome and encouraged to participate in this meeting. Complete a Speaker Card located in the lobby and give to the Clerk, public comment is taken on action items appearing on the Consent Calendar or Business Items on the Agenda when they are called. Public comment on any other items within the scope of the City’s jurisdiction, including items not listed on the Agenda, will be considered at this time.

When a matter is announced, wait to be recognized by the Mayor to provide your comments to the Council. Comments should begin by providing your name and place of residence. A three minute limit is requested when addressing Council.

Request for additional time to address Council
Members of the public submitting written requests at least 24 hours prior to the meeting will be allotted 5 minutes to comment per speaker. Repetitive comments may be limited, and large groups are encouraged to select representatives to express the opinions of the group.

Procedure
When requesting to comment, please indicate your name and the topic and mail to:

City of Yuba City
Attn: City Clerk
1201 Civic Center Blvd
Yuba City CA 95993
Or email to:

Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk
[email protected]

Agenda Item 4

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 3, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Administration Department
Presentation By: Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk
Summary
Subject: Minutes of the February 17, 2026, Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council
Recommendation: Approve the Minutes of the February 17, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council
Fiscal Impact: None
Attachments:

1. 02-17-2026 Regular Meeting Minutes (DRAFT)
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Ciara Wakefield
City Clerk
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

MINUTES (DRAFT)

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY

TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF YUBA CITY
FEBRUARY 17, 2026
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS/VIRTUAL
Regular Meeting
Call to Order
The Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Boomgaarden at 6:01 PM Roll Call:

Present: Mayor Boomgaarden and Councilmembers Kirchner, Shaw, and Pasquale (Remote)

Absent: Councilmember Cole
Invocation/Inspiration
Pastor Stephen Baumgartner Legacy Baptist Church
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Councilmember Kirchner
City Attorney's Report on Closed Session Items
None – No Closed Session
Agenda Modifications
No changes made
Public Communication

1. Appearance of Interested Citizens
No public comment
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Shaw moved and Councilmember Kirchner seconded the motion to approve Consent Calendar items 2-15:

2. Minutes of the February 3, 2026, Special Meeting of the City Council and Minutes of the February 3, 2026, Regular Meeting of the City Council

Approve the Minutes of the February 3, 2026, Regular Meeting and Special Meeting of the City Council

3. Dispatch AT&T Annual Maintenance—Supplemental Appropriation Adopt Resolution 26-016 to authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental appropriation of $47,732.15 from account 100-4420 to account 2170-62701

4. Annual Community Facilities District Report Pursuant to Government Code Section 53411
Note and file

5. 2026 Appointments to the City of Yuba City Senior Commission Approve the Recommendations for Re-Appointment of Three (3) Members to the Senior Commission

6. 2026 Wastewater Collections Improvement Project - Contract Award Adopt Resolution 26-017 to:

A. Award the construction contract to North Star Construction and Engineering, Inc. of Yuba City, CA in the amount of their total bid of $723,480 and authorize the City manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney
B. Finds that CEQA was previously assessed for the Project, a categorical exemption (Class 1) was adopted, approval of this contract is within the scope of the previously approved Project, and no further environmental review is required under CEQA
C. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Inferrera Construction Management Group, LLC. Of Shingle Springs, CA for Inspection Services in the amount of $87,150 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, Subject to material terms, subject to review and approvals as to legal form by the City Attorney, and with the finding that it is in the best interest of the City

7. Yuba City Planning Commissioner Appointment to the Sutter County Planning Commission
Appoint District 3 Yuba City Planning Commissioner Scott Blankenship to the Sutter County Planning Commission

8. Disclosure of Sales or Transactions Use Tax Records by HdL Companies to authorized City Officials
Adopt Resolution 26-018 Authorizing Certain City Officials Access to HdL Companies Sales and Use Tax Data

9. 442 B Street Environmental Assessment - Professional Service Agreement Amendment No. 1

Adopt Joint Resolution 26-019 authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the existing contract with EKI Environment & Water (EKI) for the 442 B Street Environmental Assessment, with the finding that it is in the best interest of the Successor Agency and the City

10. Permanent Local Housing Allocation Grant - 2021 Allocation Subrecipient Agreements
A. Adopt Resolution 26-020 to approve two (2) subrecipient agreements, and one (1) amendment for the City’s 2021 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and;
B. Authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental appropriation of $270,298.58 to account 6048-65305 for program expenditures

11. WWTF Outfall Replacement Project - SRF Loan Reimbursement Resolution Adopt updated Resolution 26-021 stating the City’s intent to comply with all conditions of the State Water Resources Control Board’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program Reimbursement Resolution requirements for the WWTF Effluent Outfall Diffuser Relocation Project

12. City Water Service Connection for 1360 Richland Road (APN # 20-054-013) Adopt Resolution 26-022 authorizing the City Manager to execute an extraterritorial service agreement with the property owner of 1360 Richland Road, Timothy Denney and Lori Denney, Trustees of the Denney Family Trust, under declaration of trust executed June 20, 2018, for connection to City water service following approval as to legal form by the City Attorney

13. California Municipal Finance Authority Check Budget Adjustment Authorize the Finance Director to make a budget adjustment of $16,250 to Account 100-44115 to receive funds from the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the work that the Planning division completed on the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA)

14. Development Services Department Recruitment Request – Code Enforcement Officer I/II
Authorize the Human Resources Department to conduct an open recruitment for a full-time permanent Code Enforcement Officer I/II to fill a recent vacancy in the Development Services Department

15. Presentation of Investment Report – Quarter Ended December 31, 2025 Note & File Quarterly Investment Report
The motion was passed with 4 votes [Cole Absent]

Business Items

16. Yuba-Sutter Economic Development District 2025 CEDS Annual Performance Report, Appendix 1 Public Works Projects, and the 2026 Annual Update of the 2025-2030 CEDS Document
Councilmember Shaw moved and Councilmember Kirchner seconded the motion to:

Adopt Resolution 26-023 approving the Yuba-Sutter Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) 2025 Annual Performance Report, updated Appendix I Public Works Projects, and 2026 Annual Update to the 2025-2030 CEDS document and authorize its submittal to the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration
The motion was passed with 4 votes [Cole Absent]

17. Community Sponsorship Request - Shri Guru Ravidass Temple (Hayne Avenue Parade)
Councilmember Kirchner moved and Councilmember Shaw seconded the motion to:

Consider a Community Sponsorship request; and if approved, Adopt Resolution 26-024 approving an $1,800.00 monetary sponsorship for the Shir Guru Ravidass Temple to support the 5th Annual Hayne Avenue Parade The motion was passed with 4 votes [Cole Absent]

18. Adoption of Yuba City's Strategic Plan
Roll Call Vote:

Cole: Absent
Kirchner: Yes
Shaw: Yes
Pasquale (Remote): Yes
Boomgaarden: Yes

Councilmember Kirchner moved and Councilmember Shaw seconded the motion to:

Approve the City's Strategic Plan - Vision 2026-2029
The motion was passed with 4 votes [Cole Absent]
Future Agenda Items

19. Future Agenda Items
No suggestions were made
Reports and Communications

20. City Manager's Report

21. City Council Reports
- Councilmember Kirchner
- Councilmember Shaw
- Vice-Mayor Pasquale
- Mayor Boomgaarden
Adjournment
Mayor Boomgaarden adjourned the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 6:59 PM ________________________________________
Marc Boomgaarden, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk

Agenda Item 5

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 3, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works Department
Presentation By: Joshua Wolffe, Public Works Director
Summary
Subject: Department of Water Resources Urban Drought Relief - Turf Replacement Project (24-02) Contract Award
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution to:

A. Reject Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC's bid as non-responsive due to failure to submit the required Public Contract Code § 10285.1 certification B. Find that the failure to submit signed copies of Addenda Nos. 1 through 4 constitutes a minor and immaterial irregularity that does not affect price, scope, or the bidder’s obligation to perform the work as modified by the addenda, and waive such irregularity
C. Award a construction contract to Superb Engineering, Inc. of Banning, CA in the amount of their total bid of $1,611,379.76 for the Base Bid Schedule and Alternate Bid Schedule and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney
D. Find that CEQA was previously assessed for the Project, a categorical exemption (Class 4, SCH #2026010121) was adopted, approval of this contract is within the scope of the previously approved Project, and no further environmental review is required under CEQA
E. Award a Professional Services Agreement to The Solis Group of Pasadena, CA, for Labor Compliance Services in the amount of $13,600.00, subject to material terms, with the finding that is in the best interest of the City
F. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Design Consulting Construction Management (DCCM) of Auburn, CA for Construction Management and Inspection in the amount of $193,765.00, subject to material terms, with the finding that is in the best interest of the City Fiscal Impact: $2,004,053.43 - Total Project Cost - Account No. 951330 (DWR Urban Drought Relief)
$1,611,379.76 - Contract Award Amount
$161,137.98 - Contingency (10%)
$193,765.00 - Construction Management (10%)
$24,170.70 - City Administration (1.5%)
$13,600.00 - Labor Compliance (1%)

Purpose:

To remove approximately 154,000 square feet of turf from ten City-owned properties located within City limits and replace it with drought tolerant plants and water-wise irrigation controls for increased water conservation.

Background:

Recurring and anticipated droughts across California have required California water suppliers to prioritize conservation and long-term water use efficiency. Statewide initiatives under the "Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life," emphasize reductions in outdoor water use, particularly for "non-functional" turf on commercial, industrial, and public properties.

To support and reduce the financial burden of these efforts, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has created grant programs for local agencies.

In June 2023, the City was awarded a total of $3.415 million as follows:
• $2,750,000 - City-Owned Property Turf Replacement Project (This staff report) • $575,000 - Commercial Property Turf Replacement Rebate Program • $90,000 - Grant Administration
• $30,000 - City Staff time
The City was granted a waiver of the 25 percent local match requirement based upon the City's designation as a Disadvantaged Community.

Non-functional turf will be replaced with drought-tolerant plants and walkways of decomposed granite or other permeable hardscapes. The Project will not include turf used for softball fields and other community activities. The following City-owned sites have been selected for strategic turf replacement. • City Hall
• Water Treatment Plant
• Wastewater Treatment Facility
• Holly Tree Park
• Kingwood Park
• Greenwood Park
• Stabler/Butte Vista Roundabout
• Town Center Roundabout
• Bogue Road/Singh Way
• Fire Station 1
Analysis:

Construction Contract:

The DWR Urban Drought Relief - Turf Replacement Project was advertised for bids beginning January 21, 2026. Plans and specifications were posted on publicpurchase.com and provided to local builder/contractor exchanges. On February 11, 2026, 6 bids were received and opened by the City Clerk. A list of the bids received, and the Engineer's Estimate are shown below.

Company: Total Bid (Base Bid and Bid Alternate Schedules):

Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC $1,235,624.04
Superb Engineering, Inc $1,611,379.76
Marina Landscape Inc. $1,665,517.10
Verdantas, Inc $1,827,845.53
Teyes Landscaping $1,916,000.00
Northstar $2,585,939.05
Engineer's Estimate $2,125,000.00
Apparent Low Bidder Rejection
Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC submitted the apparent low bid in the amount of $1,235,624.04.

Upon review of the bid documents at the time of bid opening, staff determined that Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC failed to complete and submit the required Public Contract Code § 10285.1 statement included in the Proposal Documents.

Public Contract Code § 10285.1 requires bidders to certify, under penalty of perjury, that they are not ineligible to be awarded a public works contract pursuant to statutory prohibitions. The Proposal Forms expressly required completion of this declaration as a condition of responsiveness. The statement is a mandatory, material bid requirement and is not optional.

Under California public contracting law, a bid is non-responsive if it fails to comply with a material requirement of the bidding documents. Required statutory certifications are material because they establish the bidder’s legal eligibility to perform public work. The City does not have discretion to waive or permit correction of a material omission after bid opening. Allowing a bidder to supply a required statutory declaration after bids are opened would provide the bidder with the opportunity to cure the defect after exposure of competitors’ bid amounts, which would undermine the integrity of the competitive bidding process and compromise the fairness of the bidding process.

Because the Public Contract Code § 10285.1 declaration was not completed and submitted with the bid, Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC’s bid is non-responsive and must be rejected in accordance with the Proposal Documents and applicable provisions of the Public Contract Code.

In addition, the Project is funded through the California Department of Water Resources Urban Community Drought Relief Grant Program. Strict compliance with statutory bidding requirements is necessary to protect the City’s eligibility for reimbursement under the grant terms. Acceptance of a nonresponsive bid could jeopardize grant funding, result in audit findings, or expose the City to repayment obligations. Rejecting non-responsive bids ensures compliance with applicable laws and protects the City’s financial interests.

The second low bidder, Superb Engineering, Inc., submitted a complete bid package including the required Public Contract Code § 10285.1 certification. Staff has reviewed the bid and determined that Superb Engineering, Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Accordingly, staff recommends rejecting the bid submitted by Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC as non-responsive and awarding the construction contract to Superb Engineering, Inc., the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Bid Irregularity
Subsequent to publication of the agenda, the City received an objection from Marina Landscape, Inc., on February 26, 2026, asserting that certain bidders did not attach separate signed copies of Addenda

Nos. 1 through 4 to their bid proposals and requesting that the City delay award.

Staff has reviewed all bid packages in response to the objection. While certain bidders did not attach separate signed addendum signature sheets, those bidders — including Superb Engineering, Inc. (apparent second low bidder) — expressly acknowledged receipt of Addenda Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the space provided within the Bid Proposal form and executed the proposal under signature and date. The bid pricing submitted by Superb Engineering reflects the revised quantities incorporated through Addenda Nos. 3 and 4.

The addenda state that failure to acknowledge receipt “may result in rejection of bid,” which provides the City discretion in determining materiality. Staff has determined that the omission of separate signed addendum sheets, where the addenda were acknowledged on the executed proposal form and incorporated into the bid pricing, constitutes a minor irregularity that does not affect bid amount, provide competitive advantage, or result in a material deviation from the bidding requirements.

Accordingly, staff recommends waiving this minor irregularity and proceeding with award as highlighted herein.

The Resolution has been updated to include specific findings reflecting this determination in order to maintain a clear administrative record.

Construction Management and Inspection:

The DWR Urban Drought Relief – Turf Replacement Project includes removal and replacement of approximately 154,000 square feet of non-functional turf across ten City-owned sites, including City Hall, treatment facilities, parks, roundabouts, and Fire Station 1. The project involves drought-tolerant landscaping, irrigation system upgrades, soil preparation, and related site improvements. The $1,611,379.76 construction contract is fully funded through the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Urban Community Drought Relief Grant Program.

Due to the multi-site nature of the work and active City facilities involved, dedicated construction management and inspection services are required to oversee contractor performance, verify quantities, ensure compliance with contract documents and prevailing wage requirements, coordinate with City operations, and maintain documentation necessary for DWR reimbursement.

Staff recommends awarding construction management and inspection services to DCCM (formerly Coastland Civil Engineering). Coastland previously provided these services and established familiarity with City standards and procedures through its contract on the Didar S. Bains Park project, resulting in inclusion on the City's annual sole source procurement list. Following its acquisition, DCCM retained key personnel and continues to provide these services with the same expertise and institutional knowledge.

DCCM’s experience with municipal public works projects and grant-funded construction will help ensure contract compliance, proper documentation, and protection of the City’s eligibility for DWR reimbursement. Based on its qualifications and continuity of staff, staff recommends awarding a Professional Services Agreement to DCCM in the amount of $193,765.00, which includes a contingency of 10% to account for potential overtime required during critical construction activities, with a finding that it is in the best interest of the City.

Labor Compliance:

Staff recommends contracting with The Solis Group to provide labor compliance services for the Project in accordance with California Labor Code requirements and DWR Urban Community Drought Relief Grant Program funding terms. Labor compliance services include monitoring certified payroll submittals, verifying prevailing wage compliance, and maintaining required documentation to support grant reimbursement and regulatory compliance.

The Solis Group has extensive experience providing labor compliance services for municipal public works projects and is familiar with State and grant-specific requirements. Utilizing The Solis Group helps ensure compliance with applicable labor laws, protects the City’s eligibility for grant reimbursement, and reduces the risk of audit findings or financial liability.

Staff recommends approving a Professional Services Agreement with The Solis Group in the amount of $13,600, which includes a 2-month contingency to account for potential delays during construction, to provide these services during construction.

Fiscal Impact:

The estimated total project cost is approximately $2,004,053.43, which consists of the following components:

Construction Contract $ 1,611,379.76
Construction Change Order Contingency (10%) $ 161,137.98 Construction Management (10%) $ 193,765.00
City Administration (1.5%) $ 24,170.70
Labor Compliance (1%) $ 13,600.00

Total Project Cost $ 2,004,053.43
The Project will be 100% funded through DWR Urban Community Drought Relief Grant Program encumbered through CIP Account No. 1330 (Urban Community Drought Relief). This account currently has a balance of $2,594,000.00
Alternatives:

1. Reject the bids and delay the project.

2. Delaying the project may result in loss of funding
Recommendations:

Adopt a Resolution to:

A. Reject Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC's bid as non-responsive due to failure to submit the required Public Contract Code § 10285.1 certification.

B. Find that the failure to submit signed copies of Addenda Nos. 1 through 4 constitutes a minor and immaterial irregularity that does not affect price, scope, or the bidder’s obligation to perform the work as modified by the addenda, and waive such irregularity.

C. Award a construction contract to Superb Engineering, Inc. of Banning, CA in the amount of their total bid of $1,611,379.76 for the Base Bid Schedule and Alternate Bid Schedule and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney.

D. Find that CEQA was previously assessed for the Project, a categorical exemption (Class 4, SCH #2026010121) was adopted, approval of this contract is within the scope of the previously approved Project, and no further environmental review is required under CEQA.

E. Award a Professional Services Agreement to The Solis Group of Pasadena, CA, for Labor Compliance Services in the amount of $13,600.00, subject to material terms, with the finding that is in the best interest of the City
F. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Design Consulting Construction Management (DCCM) of Auburn, CA for Construction Management and Inspection in the amount of $193,765.00, subject to material terms, with the finding that is in the best interest of the City.

Attachments:

1. Resolution DWR Urban Drought Relief - Turf Replacement Project (24-02)

2. Resolution - Exhibit A - (Draft) Agreement for the Construction of the DWR Urban Drought Relief - Turf Replacement Project

3. Resolution - Exhibit B (Draft) Professional Services Agreement for DCCM

4. Resolution - Exhibit C - (Draft) Professional Services Agreement for The Solis Group

5. Resolution - Exhibit D - Attachments
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Bailey Goldby
Assistant Engineer
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY REJECTING JENSEN LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR LLC’S BID AS NONRESPONSIVE, WAIVING AN IRREGULARITY IN THE BID AND AWARDING A

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO SUPERB ENGINEERING INC IN THE
AMOUNT OF THEIR TOTAL BID OF $1,611,379.76, AWARDING A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION TO DESIGN CONSULTING
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (DCCM) IN THE AMOUNT OF $193,765.00,

AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LABOR

COMPLIANCE SERVICES TO THE SOLIS GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,600.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID

CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, SUBJECT TO

REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS TO LEGAL FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE DWR URBAN DROUGHT RELIEF – TURF REPLACEMENT
PROJECT CONTRACT NO. 24-02
WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City (City) advertised for bids for construction of the DWR Urban Drought Relief – Turf Replacement Project (24-02) (Project).

WHEREAS, in response to the advertisement, the City received six (6) bids for the Project. Below are the Base Bid and Alternate Bid Schedule amounts:

Marina Landscape Inc. $1,666,137.10
North Star Construction and Engineering $2,585,939.05
Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC $1,235,624.04
Superb Engineering Inc. $1,611,379.76
Teyes Landscaping $1,916,000.00
Verdantas Inc. $1,828,964.10
WHEREAS, the City Public Works Department has reviewed the six (6) Base Bid and Alternate Bid Schedule amounts, and the City Public Works Department is recommending award of the Base Bid and Alternate Bid Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the City publicly advertised for bids for the DWR Urban Drought Relief – Turf Replacement Project in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Public Contract Code and the Contract Documents; and
WHEREAS, Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC submitted the apparent low bid for the total Base Bid and Alternate Bid Schedule; and
WHEREAS, all bidders were required to submit a completed Public Contract Code § 10285.1 certification with their bid proposal; and

WHEREAS, Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC failed to submit the required Public Contract Code § 10285.1 certification with its bid, and such certification is a material requirement of the bidding documents; and
WHEREAS, failure to submit the required certification renders the bid non-responsive, and the City is not permitted to waive or accept correction of a material omission after bid opening; WHEREAS, the second low bidder, Superb Engineering Inc., provided a completed Public Contract Code § 10285.1 statement, thereby meeting the Proposal Document requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Public Works Department has reviewed the remaining five (5) total Base Bid and Alternate Bid Schedules, and having examined Superb Engineering Inc., and its bid response, found it to be the lowest qualified responsive and responsible bidder for the total Base Bid and Alternate Bid Schedules; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2026, the City received a written objection from Marina Landscape, Inc. asserting that Superb Engineering, Inc. failed to submit signed copies of Addenda Nos. 1 through 4 and requesting that the City refrain from awarding the contract; and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the bid submitted by Superb Engineering, Inc. and confirmed that signed copies of Addenda Nos. 1 through 4 were not included with the bid documents; and WHEREAS, the City has evaluated this omission and determined that the failure to submit signed copies of Addenda Nos. 1 through 4 constitutes a minor, inconsequential, and immaterial irregularity in the bid, as the bid otherwise acknowledges and incorporates the addenda and the omission does not affect price, scope, or the bidder’s obligation to perform in accordance with the addenda; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable law and the City’s bidding documents, the City reserves the right to waive minor irregularities and informalities in bids; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City to waive this immaterial irregularity and proceed with award of the contract to Superb Engineering, Inc. as the apparent low bidder;
WHEREAS, the City desires to award the total Base Bid and Alternate Bid Schedule to Superb Engineering Inc. and enter into an agreement with Superb Engineering Inc. to construct the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to obtain professional construction inspection services to ensure that the Project is constructed in accordance with the funding requirements, approved plans, specifications, and applicable standards; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to award a contract for construction management and inspection services to DCCM of Auburn, CA in the amount of $193,765.00 to ensure construction that is in compliance with the funding requirements and project specifications; and WHEREAS, the City desires to award a contract for labor compliance services to The Solis Group of Pasadena, CA in the amount of $13,600.00 to ensure compliance with the funding requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved and ordered by the City Council of Yuba City as follows:

1. The City Council finds that all the facts set forth in the recitals above are true and current and incorporated herein.

2. The City Council finds that CEQA was previously assessed for the project, a categorical exemption (Class 4, SCH #2026010121) was adopted, approval of this contract is within the scope of the previously approved project, and no further environmental review is required under CEQA.

3. The City Council finds that based on the findings set forth above, the bid submitted by Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC is hereby rejected as non-responsive for failure to provide a completed Public Contract Code § 10285.1 certification as required by the proposal documents, and that such omission constitutes a material deviation that cannot be waived.

4. The City Council does hereby accept the other five (5) total Base Bid and Alternate Bid Schedules received as noted above, and finds that Superb Engineering Inc. is the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder.

5. The City Council hereby finds the failure to submit signed copies of Addenda Nos. 1 through 4 constitutes a minor and immaterial irregularity in the bid that does not affect price, scope, or the bidder’s obligation to perform in accordance with the addenda, waives such irregularity, and awards the construction contract to Superb Engineering Inc. in their total amount bid of $1,611,379.76 for the DWR Urban Drought Relief – Turf Replacement Project. Said contract agreement shall substantially comply with the terms and conditions presented in the draft agreement attached to this Resolution, shall be subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney, and the City Manager shall be authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City of Yuba City.

6. The City Council awards a professional services agreement for construction management and inspection services to DCCM in the amount of $193,765.00, with a finding that it is in the best interest of the City.

7. The City Council awards a professional services agreement for labor compliance services to The Solis Group of Pasadena, CA in the amount of $13,600.00, with a finding that it is in the best interest of the City

8. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of March 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Marc Boomgaarden, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY:

Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Attachment(s):

A. Exhibit A – (Draft) Agreement for the Construction of the DWR Urban Drought Relief – Turf Replacement Project
B. Exhibit B – (Draft) Professional Services Agreement for DCCM C. Exhibit C – (Draft) Professional Services Agreement for The Solis Group

EXHIBIT “A”

CITY OF YUBA CITY DWR URBAN DROUGHT RELIEFT – TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT CONTRACT CONTRACT NO. 24-02
Page C-1 of C-5

CONTRACT (DRAFT)

FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
DWR URBAN DROUGHT RELIEF – TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CONTRACT NO. 24-02
THIS AGREEMENT, made and concluded this ____ day of _________________ 20___, between the City of Yuba City, party of the first part, and ________________, Contractor, party of the second part.

ARTICLE I. – WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned to be made and performed by the said party of the first part under the conditions expressed in the two bonds bearing even date with these presents and hereunto annexed, the said party of the second part agrees with the said party of the first part, at his own proper cost and expense, to do all the work and furnish all the materials, except such as are mentioned in the specifications to be furnished by said party of the first part, necessary to construct and complete in a good, workmanlike and substantial manner and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, construction on various roads, all in accordance with the Special Provisions hereto annexed and also in accordance with the Standard Specifications of the State of California Department of Transportation dated 2023, the Standard Plans dated 2023, the “Labor Surcharge” and “Equipment Rental Rates” in effect on the date the work is accomplished, and the “General Prevailing Wage Rates” of the State of California Department of Transportation, which said Special Provisions, Standard Plans, Standard Specifications are hereby specially referred to and by such reference made a part hereof.

The Special Provisions for the work to be done are dated Error! Reference source not found. and are entitled:

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

PROPOSAL

AND CONTRACT
FOR
DWR URBAN DROUGHT RELIEF – TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CONTRACT NO. 24-02
The Project plans for the work to be done are dated January 7, 2026 and are entitled:

YUBA CITY TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Both of which are hereby made part of this contract.

CITY OF YUBA CITY DWR URBAN DROUGHT RELIEFT – TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT CONTRACT CONTRACT NO. 24-02
Page C-2 of C-5
ARTICLE II. – The said Contractor agrees to receive and accept the following prices as full compensation for furnishing all materials and for doing all the work contemplated and embraced in this Agreement; also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work aforesaid, or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until its acceptance by the City of Yuba City and for all risks of every description connected with the work; also for all expenses incurred by or in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of work and for well and faithfully completing the work, and the whole thereof, in the manner and according to the plans and specifications and the requirements of the Engineer under them, to wit.

ARTICLE III. – The said party of the first part hereby promises and agrees with the said Contractor to employ, and does hereby employ, the said Contractor to provide the materials and to do the work according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the prices hereinafter set forth, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, in the manner and upon the conditions above set forth; and the said parties for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained.

ARTICLE IV. – By my signature hereunder, as Contractor, I certify that I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.

ARTICLE V. – It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid or proposal of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith.

ARTICLE VI. – The City of Yuba City hereby employs Contractor to provide material and to do the work according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to for the following prices to be paid at the time, in the manner and upon the conditions hereinafter set forth.

ARTICLE VII. – The improvement contemplated in the performance of this contract is an improvement over which the City of Yuba City shall exercise general supervision.

ARTICLE VIII. – The statement of prevailing wages appearing in the General Prevailing Wage Rates is hereby specifically referred to and by this reference is made a part of this contract. It is further expressly agreed, by and between the terms of this instrument and the bid or proposal of said Contractor, that this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith.

CITY OF YUBA CITY DWR URBAN DROUGHT RELIEFT – TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT CONTRACT CONTRACT NO. 24-02
Page C-3 of C-5
Approved as to legal form:

City Attorney
City of Yuba City

CITY OF YUBA CITY

Robert Bendorf
City Manager

Date

CONTRACTOR

Company Name
Company Address
Phone Number
Signature
Name (Printed)
Title
Date

CITY OF YUBA CITY DWR URBAN DROUGHT RELIEFT – TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT CONTRACT CONTRACT NO. 24-02
Page C-4 of C-5

BID ITEM LIST
Base Bid Schedule
Bid
Item Item Description Quantity Unit
Unit
Price
Total Price
1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS
2 Signage 1 LS
3 Temporary Fencing 1 LS
4 Tree Protection 1 LS
5 Earthwork Import (Fill Materials) 140 CY
6 Excavation and Grading (Retaining Walls) 27 CY
7 Erosion and Sediment Control 3.76 AC
8 Retaining Walls 344 SF
9 Wall Drainage 3,500 LF
10 Decomposed Granite 9,986 SF
11 Concrete Curb 6,274 LF
12 Lawn Removal 157,000 SF
13 Existing Irrigation Adjustments 157,000 SF
14 New Controller (Pro-C) 1 EA
15 New Controller (Node) 8 EA
16 New Drip Irrigation 151,643 SF
17 New Spray Irrigation 16,857 SF
18 Backflow Preventer (City STD Detail W10) 1 EA
19 Soil Amendments and Finish Grade 157,000 SF
20 Sod Patch 1 LS
21 1-Gallon Shrubs 2,713 EA
22 5-Gallon Shrubs 1,193 EA
23 15-Gallon Trees 16 EA
24 24” Box Trees 2 EA
25 3” Bark 1,402 CY
26 3” Rock Mulch 45 CY
27 Weed Fabric 5,500 SF
28 120 Day Maintenance Period 1 LS
Total Base Bid:

CITY OF YUBA CITY DWR URBAN DROUGHT RELIEFT – TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT CONTRACT CONTRACT NO. 24-02
Page C-5 of C-5
Add-Alternate Bid Schedule – Additional Sites 9 and 10
Bid
Item Item Description Quantity Unit
Unit Price Total
Price
1A Construction Area Signs 1 LS
2A Temporary Fencing 1 LS
3A Tree Protection 1 LS
4A Lawn Removal 4,000 SF
5A Backflow Preventer 1 EA
6A New Drip Irrigation 4,000 SF
7A Soil Amendments and Finish Grade 4,000 SF
8A 1-Gallon Shrubs 208 EA
9A 5-Gallon Shrubs 18 EA
10A 3” Bark 37 CY
Total Add-Alternate Bid Schedule:

Total Contract Amount:

EXHIBIT “B”

(DRAFT)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

PROJECT TITLE
This Agreement is made and entered into as of , 2026, by and between the City of Yuba City, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Design Consulting Construction Management (“Consultant”).

RECITALS
A. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and B. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein; and
C. City desires to retain Consultant to render professional services as set forth in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall furnish the following services in a professional manner.

See Attached Scope of Services
(Exhibit A)

2. Time of Performance. The services of Consultant are to commence upon execution of this Agreement and shall continue until all authorized work is completed and approved by the City. Finalization shall be completed at the direction of the City of Yuba City.

3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In no event shall Consultant’s compensation exceed One Hundred Ninety-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Five dollars ($193,765.00) without additional written authorization from the City. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to the City at the time of payment.

4. Method of Payment. Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant’s invoices shall include a brief description of the services performed, the date the services were

performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, and a description of any reimbursable expenses. City shall pay Consultant not later than 30 days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. When payments made by the City equal 90% of the maximum fee provided for in this Agreement, no further payments shall be made until the final work under this Agreement has been accepted by City.

5. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from City.

6. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the City immediately for cause or by either party without cause upon fifteen days written notice of termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed up to the effective date of termination. Such compensation is subject to the conditions of Section 4 of this agreement.

7. Ownership of Documents. All plans, studies, documents and other writings prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors in the course of implementing this Agreement, except working notes and internal documents, shall become the property of the City upon payment to Consultant for such work, and the City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant’s expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to City upon request.

8. Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a nonexclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regards to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at City’s sole risk.

Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents & Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of City, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the services under this Agreement. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the services under this Agreement. Nothing furnished to Consultant, which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City’s name or insignia, photographs relating to project for which Consultant’s services are rendered, or any publicity pertaining to the Consultant’s services under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of City.

9. Consultant’s Books and Records:

a. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant to this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrated performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this Agreement.
c. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Administrator, City Attorney, City Auditor or a designated representative of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to the City for inspection at City Hall when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records shall be available at Consultant’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this Agreement.
d. Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Consultant’s business, City may, by written request by any of the above named officers, require that custody of the records be given to the City and that the records and documents be maintained in City Hall. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant’s representatives, or Consultant’s successorin-interest.

10. Independent Contractor. It is understood that Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and shall not act as an agent or employee of the City.

Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights.

Consultant is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because Consultant:
a. Will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to his/her rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel independent of the control and direction of the City or of any City official, other than normal agreement monitoring; and
b. Possesses no authority with respect to any City decision beyond rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. (FPPC Reg. 18700(B)(2).)

11. Interest of Consultant. Consultant (including principals, associates and professional employees) covenants and represents that it does not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this Agreement or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder.

Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties hereunder no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this Agreement.

12. Professional Ability of Consultant. City has relied upon the professional training and ability of Consultant to perform the services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Consultant shall therefore provide properly skilled professional and technical personnel to perform all services under this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant’s field of expertise.

13.Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall use the standard of care in its profession to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations.

14. Licenses. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature, which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant

represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Yuba City business license.

15. Indemnity. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability, direct or indirect (including any and all costs, including attorney fees and expenses in connection therein), arising out of the performance of this Agreement in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Consultant, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by the Consultant or anyone for whose acts the Consultant may be liable, or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers.

16. Insurance Requirements. Consultant, at Consultant’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the contract, necessary insurance policies as described in Exhibit B.

17. Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and either served personally or sent prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below.

Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.

If to City Joshua Wolffe
Director of Public Works
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd
Yuba City, CA 95993
(530) 822-4626
If to Consultant: Travis Williams
President, N California
DCCM
11641 Blocker Dr. Suite 170
Auburn, CA, 95603

18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of Agreement between the City and Consultant. All prior written and

oral communications, including correspondence, drafts, memoranda, and representations, are superseded in total by this Agreement.

19. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

20. Assignment and Subcontracting. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of the City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under the Agreement without the written authorization of the City. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of the City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise is required by law.

21. Waiver. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this Agreement.

22. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

23. Controlling Law Venue. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of Sutter.

24. Litigation Expenses and Attorneys’ Fees. If either party to this Agreement commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

25. Mediation. The parties agree to make a good faith attempt to resolve any disputes arising out of this Agreement through mediation prior to commencing litigation. The parties shall mutually agree upon the mediator and shall divide the costs of mediation equally. If the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator, the dispute shall be submitted to JAMS/ENDISPUTE (“JAMS”) or its successor in interest. JAMS shall provide the parties with the names of five qualified mediators. Each party shall have the option to strike two of the five

mediators selected by JAMS and thereafter the mediator remaining shall hear the dispute. If the dispute remains unresolved after mediation, either party may commence litigation.

26. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

27. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement.

Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

28. Prohibited Interest. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising there from.

29. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of City’s Affirmative Action Plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above.

CITY OF YUBA CITY: CONSULTANT:

By:_____________________________ By:_________________________ Joshua Wolffe Travis Williams
Director of Public Works President, N California, DCCM
Attachments: Exhibit A – Scope of Services
Exhibit B – Insurance Requirements

Exhibit A
Scope of Services

11641 Blocker Drive, Suite 170, Auburn, California 95603 | 530.888.9929 | DCCM.com February 18, 2026 Via: E-Mail
Nick Menezes
Deputy Public Works Director - Engineering
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd
Yuba City, CA 95993
Re: Scope of Service and Project Budget for Providing Construction Management and Inspection Services for DWR Urban Drought Relief – Turf Replacement Project, Contract No. 24-02 Dear Nick Menezes:

In response to your request, please accept this letter proposal for providing construction management services for the subject project.

Project Understanding
The Turf Replacement Project, Contract No. 24-02, will replace approximately 157,000 square feet of non-functional turf with drought tolerant plants and water-wise irrigation at ten City-owned sites throughout the City. This project will install approximately 4,150 trees and shrubs, 172,500 square feet of new irrigation, over 6,200 linear feet of concrete curb, and over 300 square feet of retaining wall. The project duration is anticipated to be complete within 75 working days.

SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 1 – CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
Coastland | DCCM’s overall approach to performing Construction Management focuses on teaming with City staff to produce a high-quality, cost-effective project. Our Construction Manager will keep the City informed regarding costs, changes, public relations, and construction progress. We will coordinate closely with the City and the property owners for the entire project duration. From the onset of the project, we will establish the lines of communication and decision-making roles with all project stakeholders. Based on our understanding of the project our scope of services is as follows:

Pre-Construction Meeting
Immediately following the Notice to Proceed, our Construction Manager will schedule and administer the pre-construction meeting. During this meeting we will establish lines of communication and decision-making roles with all project stakeholders. We will also discuss safety requirements, responsibilities of the project team members, working hours, quality control procedures, submittal requirements, project schedule, change order and potential claim procedures, and safety procedures.

Nick Menezes
February 18, 2026

11641 Blocker Drive, Suite 170, Auburn, California 95603 | 530.888.9929 | DCCM.com Coastland | DCCM will be responsible for generating pre-construction meeting invitations including the meeting agenda. Agenda items include lines of communication, public relations, safety, submittals, change procedures, payments, progress schedules, contract time, requests for information, and other applicable items. Coastland will prepare and distribute meeting minutes to all parties.

Following the pre-construction meeting, Coastland | DCCM will continue to work with the City team, consultants and the project’s design team to ensure that all project issues are addressed promptly and that the City’s best interests are considered at all times.

Pre-Construction Site Visit and Documentation
Coastland | DCCM will work with the City’s Inspector to take pre-construction digital photos of the construction site with special attention given to sensitive areas including any City facilities and private residences adjacent to the project. Documenting the site prior to construction will help mitigate possible disputes between the City, contractor and property owners within or adjacent to the project limits. These photos will be logged and filed with the project files.

Project Start-Up
Coastland | DCCM will assemble project files in accordance with the City’s standard format.

Coastland | DCCM utilizes a centralized system for document control to create, store, organize, track, and link all project information. Our digital recordkeeping will ensure the constant flow of documentation to a form that quickly and easily identifies trends and critical issues, which helps to keep the project moving while documenting the work.

Supplemental Daily Field Inspections and Documentation
A critical aspect of our services is maintaining close communication with City staff to ensure scheduling goals are met. To help maintain close communication, Coastland’s inspector will be accessible to the City at all times at the project site and through the use of email and cellular phones. Coastland’s on-site inspector will examine all construction activities to ensure that the contract work adheres to the contract documents, City standards and the established schedule.

We will ensure records are maintained and documentation is provided for the work in the form of daily reports, weekly summary of construction activities, deficiency lists, and progress photographs of construction activities. Daily reports will describe the contractor’s level of effort, specific work being done, started, or finished, and relevant points raised by the contractor that may require consideration and response. We will also document proposed change orders and claims, important conversations, safety issues or accidents, extra work in progress, materials testing performed, information for “as-built” drawings, quantities for progress payments, environmental concerns and hazardous materials.

Coastland | DCCM will provide a digital photo logbook of construction activities, progress, and areas of concern or interest. The photo log will be compiled on compact discs and will identify the location and date of each photo. The log will be maintained through the duration of the project to assure continuity from one week to the next and will be submitted to the City at the close of the project.

Nick Menezes
February 18, 2026

11641 Blocker Drive, Suite 170, Auburn, California 95603 | 530.888.9929 | DCCM.com Coastland | DCCM will continually review the specifications and plans to ensure the work is of good quality and meets the requirements of the contract documents. Coastland will immediately report any deviation from the approved contract documents.

Progress Meetings
Coastland |DCCM will conduct weekly coordination and progress meetings to focus on completed and upcoming work, any construction delays, schedule updates, proposed changes, change orders, contractor’s questions, public relations, safety and other concerns that are identified by a project team member. We will work to foster honest, open communication at these weekly meetings, which will help in the timely resolution of any disputes and/or potential claims.

Status Reports and Documentation
 Reports
Complete and accurate record keeping will be an essential component of this project. We will ensure project documents and certified payroll are complete and that correct sub-contractors are used. We will keep the City informed and document all construction issues with the following:
 Weekly Statement of Working Days
 Progress Meeting Minutes
 Field Directive Log
 Change order tracking
 Regular phone calls and e-mails
 Submittal Management
Coastland | DCCM will coordinate all submittals and monitor the status of the submittals to assure the contractor provides timely response. At the pre-construction conference, we will provide the contractor with a log of all required submittals and due dates. Submittals will be stamped, logged and distributed to the designer for complete review and approval. Submittals will be filed numerically, and approved copies will be distributed to the City, project members, and the contractor.
 Requests for Information (RFI)
Coastland | DCCM will receive and log all Requests for Information (RFI’s) from the contractor and forward the RFI to the designer. Coastland | DCCM will track the status of all RFI’s by generating a weekly RFI log that lists the “Ball-in-court” status, description, and if an RFI results in a potential change order.
 Change Order Management
In the event that a change order is required, Coastland | DCCM will negotiate the changes with the contractor and prepare documentation. All changes will be approved by the contractor, Coastland | DCCM and the City prior to starting work on the change. With the City’s approval, Coastland | DCCM can negotiate with the contractor to produce the best construction method for the change at the lowest cost. If a change order requires input from the design engineer, our Construction Manager will coordinate with them to ensure it is reviewed. A Change Order Log will

Nick Menezes
February 18, 2026

11641 Blocker Drive, Suite 170, Auburn, California 95603 | 530.888.9929 | DCCM.com be created that will show Change Order number, description, status, approved date, start and completion dates and cost.

Project Closeout
Coastland | DCCM will verify completion of punch list items, issue notice of completion, prepare recommendations for final acceptance of the project, review as-builts for accuracy and completeness, prepare and recommend final payment, and transmit all construction documentation to the City. At the completion of the project, we will provide the City with the following:
 All contract files and records (hard & electronic files)  Annotated journal of photos and CD of digital photos
 As-built project schedule
Optional Tasks
If requested by the City, conflict resolution and claim management can be added under an amendment on a Time and Materials basis.

Schedule
The anticipated schedule for construction is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Anticipated Schedule
Milestone Date
Bids Received February 2026
Notice to Proceed March 2026
Construction complete July 2026
Estimated cost
Role Name Hourly
Rate
Hours Total
Construction Manager Andrew Kellen $205 200 $41,000
Construction Inspector Nick Bair $195 640 $124,800
Vehicle $15 690 $10,350
Total Anticipated Costs $176,150
The amount quoted is assuming that all the work for this project will fall under the scope of work as described above. There are no anticipated overtime hours included in the estimate above. If additional work is necessary that falls outside of this scope of work, we can either re-negotiate a new scope of work or provide these services on a time and materials basis per our schedule of hourly rates.

Nick Menezes
February 18, 2026

11641 Blocker Drive, Suite 170, Auburn, California 95603 | 530.888.9929 | DCCM.com We appreciate the opportunity the City of Yuba City has provided us with this project and these services. Please let us know if you have any questions. We look forward to working with the City to complete this important project.

Regards,
Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc.

Travis Williams, PE
President, N California
[email protected]

Exhibit B
Professional Services Agreement
Insurance Requirements
I. Workers’ Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance for his/her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California and Employers Liability Insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and/or disease. In addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California and Employers Liability Insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and/or disease. for all of the subcontractor’s employees. Any notice of cancellation or non-renewal of all Workers’ Compensation policies must be received by the City at least thirty (30) days prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by Consultant for City. This provision shall not apply if Consultant has no employees performing work under this Agreement. If the Consultant has no employees for the purposes of this Agreement, Consultant shall sign the “Certificate of Exemption from Workers’ Compensation Insurance” which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

II. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If a commercial general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit.

III. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for owned, hired and non-owned vehicles, in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence.

IV. Professional Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions liability insurance for protection against claims alleging negligent acts, errors or omissions which may arise from Consultant’s operations under this Agreement, whether such operations are by the Consultant or by its employees, subcontractors, or sub-consultants. The amount of this insurance shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) on a claims-made annual aggregate basis, or a combined single-limit per occurrence basis.

V. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and shall be endorsed with the following specific language or equivalent:

A. The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. Conforms to ISO CG 2009 and CG 2037 10 01. Both are required.

B. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by the City, including any selfinsured retention the City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it.

C. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.

D. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or agents.

E. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.

F. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage except after thirty (30) days written notice has been received by the City.

VI. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the City’s option, Consultant shall demonstrate financial capability for payment of such deductibles or self-insured retention’s.

VII. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City, as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with the City on or before commencement of performance of this agreement. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with the City at all times during the term of this Agreement.

EXHIBIT “C”

(DRAFT)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

PROJECT TITLE
This Agreement is made and entered into as of , 2026, by and between the City of Yuba City, a municipal corporation (“City”) and The Solis Group (“Consultant”).

RECITALS
A. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and B. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein; and
C. City desires to retain Consultant to render professional services as set forth in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall furnish the following services in a professional manner.

See Attached Scope of Services
(Exhibit A)

2. Time of Performance. The services of Consultant are to commence upon execution of this Agreement and shall continue until all authorized work is completed and approved by the City. Finalization shall be completed at the direction of the City of Yuba City.

3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In no event shall Consultant’s compensation exceed Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($13,600.00) without additional written authorization from the City.

Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to the City at the time of payment.

4. Method of Payment. Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant’s invoices shall include a brief description of the services performed, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, and a description of any

reimbursable expenses. City shall pay Consultant not later than 30 days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. When payments made by the City equal 90% of the maximum fee provided for in this Agreement, no further payments shall be made until the final work under this Agreement has been accepted by City.

5. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from City.

6. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the City immediately for cause or by either party without cause upon fifteen days written notice of termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed up to the effective date of termination. Such compensation is subject to the conditions of Section 4 of this agreement.

7. Ownership of Documents. All plans, studies, documents and other writings prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors in the course of implementing this Agreement, except working notes and internal documents, shall become the property of the City upon payment to Consultant for such work, and the City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant’s expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to City upon request.

8. Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a nonexclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regards to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at City’s sole risk.

Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written

information, and other Documents & Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of City, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the services under this Agreement. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the services under this Agreement. Nothing furnished to Consultant, which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City’s name or insignia, photographs relating to project for which Consultant’s services are rendered, or any publicity pertaining to the Consultant’s services under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of City.

9. Consultant’s Books and Records:

a. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant to this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrated performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this Agreement.
c. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Administrator, City Attorney, City Auditor or a designated representative of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to the City for inspection at City Hall when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records shall be available at Consultant’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this Agreement.
d. Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Consultant’s business, City may, by written request by any of the above named officers, require that custody of the records be given to the City and that the records and documents be maintained in City Hall. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant’s representatives, or Consultant’s successorin-interest.

10. Independent Contractor. It is understood that Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and shall not act as an agent or employee of the City.

Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights.

Consultant is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because Consultant:
a. Will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to his/her rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel independent of the control and direction of the City or of any City official, other than normal agreement monitoring; and
b. Possesses no authority with respect to any City decision beyond rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. (FPPC Reg. 18700(B)(2).)

11. Interest of Consultant. Consultant (including principals, associates and professional employees) covenants and represents that it does not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this Agreement or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder.

Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties hereunder no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this Agreement.

12. Professional Ability of Consultant. City has relied upon the professional training and ability of Consultant to perform the services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Consultant shall therefore provide properly skilled professional and technical personnel to perform all services under this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant’s field of expertise.

13.Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall use the standard of care in its profession to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations.

14. Licenses. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature, which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and

expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Yuba City business license.

15. Indemnity. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability, direct or indirect (including any and all costs, including attorney fees and expenses in connection therein), arising out of the performance of this Agreement in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Consultant, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by the Consultant or anyone for whose acts the Consultant may be liable, or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers.

16. Insurance Requirements. Consultant, at Consultant’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the contract, necessary insurance policies as described in Exhibit B.

17. Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and either served personally or sent prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below.

Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.

If to City Joshua Wolffe
Director of Public Works
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd
Yuba City, CA 95993
(530) 822-4626
If to Consultant: Mike Komsky
Chief Financial Officer
The Solis Group
3452 E. Foothill Blvd, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91107
(626) 685-6989

18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of Agreement between the City and Consultant. All prior written and oral communications, including correspondence, drafts, memoranda, and representations, are superseded in total by this Agreement.

19. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

20. Assignment and Subcontracting. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of the City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under the Agreement without the written authorization of the City. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of the City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise is required by law.

21. Waiver. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this Agreement.

22. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

23. Controlling Law Venue. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of Sutter.

24. Litigation Expenses and Attorneys’ Fees. If either party to this Agreement commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

25. Mediation. The parties agree to make a good faith attempt to resolve any disputes arising out of this Agreement through mediation prior to commencing litigation. The parties shall mutually agree upon the mediator and shall divide the costs of mediation equally. If the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator, the dispute shall be submitted to JAMS/ENDISPUTE (“JAMS”) or its successor in interest. JAMS shall provide the parties with the names of five qualified mediators. Each party shall have the option to strike two of the five mediators selected by JAMS and thereafter the mediator remaining shall hear the dispute. If the dispute remains unresolved after mediation, either party may commence litigation.

26. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

27. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement.

Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

28. Prohibited Interest. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising there from.

29. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of City’s Affirmative Action Plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above.

CITY OF YUBA CITY: CONSULTANT:

By:_____________________________ By:_________________________

Joshua Wolffe Mike Komsky
Director of Public Works Chief Financial Officer, The Solis Group Attachments: Exhibit A – Scope of Services
Exhibit B – Insurance Requirements

Exhibit A
Scope of Services

Pasadena / Dallas / Oakland / San Diego
Headquarters
3452 E Foothill Blvd / Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91107 USA
P 626 685 6989
F 626 685 6985
thesolisgroup.com
January 23, 2026
Bailey Fletcher, Assistant Civil Engineer
City of Yuba City, Public Works Department
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993
Re: Proposal for Labor Compliance Services for the
DWR Urban Drought Relief - Turf Replacement Project
Dear Bailey Fletcher:

The Solís Group (TSG) is pleased to submit this cost proposal to provide labor compliance services required for the above referenced project. Our fixed-fee cost proposal based on information provided by the City is summarized below.

Project Description Construction
Value
Estimated Duration
(including closeout)
Monthly
Fee
Life of Project
Cost Estimate
DWR Urban
Drought Relief -
Turf Replacement
$ 2,125,000 6 Months $ 1,700 $ 10,200
TOTAL COST $ 10,200
If actual construction (including punch list) and closeout extends beyond the planned duration, we will examine the need for additional budget.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City. If you have any questions regarding this cost proposal, please contact the undersigned. Please send Notice-to-Proceed to Sabrina Cristi, Accounting Assistant, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Gonzalo Armijos
Vice President of Business Development

Exhibit B
Professional Services Agreement
Insurance Requirements
I. Workers’ Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance for his/her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California and Employers Liability Insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and/or disease. In addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California and Employers Liability Insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and/or disease. for all of the subcontractor’s employees. Any notice of cancellation or non-renewal of all Workers’ Compensation policies must be received by the City at least thirty (30) days prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by Consultant for City. This provision shall not apply if Consultant has no employees performing work under this Agreement. If the Consultant has no employees for the purposes of this Agreement, Consultant shall sign the “Certificate of Exemption from Workers’ Compensation Insurance” which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

II. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If a commercial general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit.

III. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for owned, hired and non-owned vehicles, in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence.

IV. Professional Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions liability insurance for protection against claims alleging negligent acts, errors or omissions which may arise from Consultant’s operations under this Agreement, whether such operations are by the Consultant or by its employees, subcontractors, or sub-consultants. The amount of this insurance shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) on a claims-made annual aggregate basis, or a combined single-limit per occurrence basis.

V. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and shall be endorsed with the following specific language or equivalent:

A. The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. Conforms to ISO CG 2009 and CG 2037 10 01. Both are required.

B. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by the City, including any selfinsured retention the City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it.

C. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.

D. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or agents.

E. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.

F. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage except after thirty (30) days written notice has been received by the City.

VI. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the City’s option, Consultant shall demonstrate financial capability for payment of such deductibles or self-insured retention’s.

VII. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City, as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with the City on or before commencement of performance of this agreement. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with the City at all times during the term of this Agreement.

ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF YUBA CITY

CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT

PROJECT LOCATION MAP
SCALE: 1" = 3,250'

TURF REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS

1. STABLER / BUTTE VISTA ROUNDABOUT

2. WATER TREATMENT PLANT

3. GREENWOOD PARK

4. KINGWOOD PARK

5. CITY HALL

6. PERCY / PLUMAS ROUNDABOUT

7. HOLLY TREE PARK

8. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

9. BOGUE ROAD/ SINGH WAY

10. FIRE STATION 1
Feet
0 3250 6500
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

Agenda Item 6

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 3, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Utilities Department
Presentation By: Phil Marler, Utilities Director
Summary
Subject: Supplemental Budget Appropriation for Upgrades for Existing CCTV Vehicle Recommendation:

A. Approve a capital acquisition for upgrades for the existing Cues CCTV vehicle to the Summit System for vehicle 08-33, CCTV truck B. Adopt a Resolution awarding the purchase to WECO Industries of Vacaville, California, in the amount of $162,950.29, with the finding that it is in the best interest of the City
C. Authorize the Finance Director to make a capital acquisition budget allocation in the amount of $162,950.29 from Account No. 6610-69415 (Vehicle Replacement Fund - Heavy Equipment) wastewater funds Fiscal Impact: $162,950.29 Vehicle Replacement Fund Account 6610-69415 Purpose:

To authorize upgrades to the Utilities Department’s CCTV inspection vehicle to maintain regulatory compliance, protect public health and infrastructure assets, improve operational efficiency, and enhance employee safety for the daily operations.

Background:

The Utilities Department currently has one Cues CCTV vehicle that services Yuba City’s 225 miles of sewer mains. The Wastewater Collection Division utilizes this equipment daily to video-inspect sewer lines, for a total of about one hundred miles a year with a requirement to video the entire collection system within a three-year rotation. The division is also frequently called upon to utilize the CCTV vehicle to assist with storm drain issues and other non-routine sewer problems. It is a critical piece of equipment for the division’s operations.

Council awarded the purchase of the CCTV vehicle to WECO Industries of Vacaville, CA, the regional authorized dealer of CUES-brand equipment and parts, on January 15, 2008 following Formal Bid 08-

04. The vehicle, equipment, and set-up cost a total of $181,714.28; today, a total replacement vehicle would cost approximately $350,000.00. The chassis of the truck is in great condition, but the current operating system and computer equipment are now obsolete, experiencing operational issues, and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. In addition to the operating system, the vehicle has a decaying video cable reel and broken video cables due to the harsh working environment and needs

safety upgrades.

Routine CCTV inspection is a core component of the City’s preventative maintenance and asset management program. Regular inspection allows staff to identify structural deficiencies, root intrusion, inflow and infiltration, grease buildup, and potential failure points before they result in sewer spills or emergency repairs. Without a functioning CCTV unit, the Division’s ability to proactively manage the system is significantly reduced.

Analysis:

A retrofit to the current equipment is the industry standard for this type of equipment, to maximize the lifespan and investment of the vehicle, as the vehicle has a much longer lifespan than the computer technology. Typically, an upgrade of the operating system and equipment as recommended may increase the lifespan of the vehicle by five or six years. Division staff have evaluated options for upgrades for the CCTV vehicle available from the CUES brand and has identified this retrofit as the best option for department operations (Exhibit 1A for specifications). Only a CUES-brand system, as supplied by authorized dealer WECO Industries, can be utilized for this retrofit. Competitive bids would not be possible for an upgrade of this nature.

Fiscal Impact:

The total cost of the operating system upgrade, safety upgrades, and equipment repairs is $162,950.29. This represents only a fraction of the cost of a full vehicle replacement while addressing all outstanding operational and safety concerns. By proceeding with the upgrade prior to finalization of the FY 2026/27 budget and related capital acquisition requests, the City will realize a cost savings of approximately $30,000.

The Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF) has accumulated $125,016 in wastewater funding designated for CCTV equipment and software upgrades originally acquired in January 2018. In addition, $344,498 has been accumulated within the VRF toward the eventual full replacement of Unit 08-33.

Staff recommends utilizing the available VRF funding because this upgrade will extend the useful life of Unit 08-33. This recommendation allows additional time to accumulate the full funding amount necessary for a future complete vehicle replacement while maintaining regulatory compliance and operational reliability in the interim.

Alternatives:

1. Direct staff to begin the bid process to purchase a new CCTV vehicle

2. Direct staff to plan for a capital acquisition request for the FY 26/27 budget Recommendation:

A. Approve a capital acquisition for upgrades for the existing Cues CCTV vehicle to the Summit System for vehicle 08-33, CCTV truck.

B. Adopt a Resolution awarding the purchase to WECO Industries of Vacaville, California, in the amount of $162,950.29, with the finding that it is in the best interest of the City.

C. Authorize the Finance Director to make a capital acquisition budget allocation in the amount of $162,950.29 from Account No. 6610-69415 (Vehicle Replacement Fund - Heavy Equipment) wastewater funds.

Attachments:

1. Resolution - CCTV Truck Upgrades Weco Industries

2. Exhibit 1A - Weco Quote #021026
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Mylaina McMurray
Administrative Analyst I
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY AUTHORIZING

THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO MAKE THE PURCHASE

OF UPGRADES TO THE EXISTING CUES CCTV INSPECTION VEHICLE TO WECO INDUSTRIES OF VACAVILLE, CALIFORNIA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,950.29 WHEREAS, the Utilities Department operates one CUES Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) inspection vehicle utilized by the Utilities Department’s Wastewater Collection Division to inspect approximately 225 miles of sewer mains within the City of Yuba City; and the CCTV vehicle is critical to maintaining regulatory compliance, protecting public health and infrastructure assets, and supporting preventative maintenance operations; and
WHEREAS, the CCTV vehicle was originally purchased in 2008 following Formal Bid 08- 04 at a total cost of $181,714.28; and while the vehicle chassis remains in good operational condition, the current operating system and computer equipment are obsolete, no longer supported by the manufacturer, and experiencing operational issues; and the existing video cable reel and associated components are deteriorating due to the harsh working environment and require safety and functional upgrades; and WHEREAS, a full replacement of a comparable CCTV inspection vehicle is estimated to cost approximately $350,000; and retrofitting the existing vehicle with updated equipment will extend the operational life of the asset by approximately five to six years at a significantly lower cost than full replacement; and the existing system is proprietary CUES equipment and the proposed Summit System upgrade must integrate directly with the current CUES platform; and
WHEREAS, WECO Industries of Vacaville, California, is the sole authorized regional dealer and service provider for CUES-brand equipment; and due to the proprietary nature of the equipment and compatibility requirements, competitive bidding is not feasible and the City Council finds that awarding this purchase to WECO Industries is in the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the upgrade, including operating system replacement, safety upgrades, and equipment repairs, is $162,950.29 and is funded through the Vehicle Replacement Fund Account 6610-69415.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Yuba City that the Finance Director is authorized to adopt a resolution for the purchase of the upgrades to the existing CUES CCTV vehicle, which is incorporated herein and attached hereto as Exhibit 1A:

A. Approve a capital acquisition for upgrades to vehicle 08-33, CCTV truck and B. Adopt a resolution awarding to WECO Industries of Vacaville, California, in the amount of $162,950.29; and

C. Authorizes the Finance Director to make a supplemental appropriation and related transfers to execute all necessary documents to complete the purchase.

The foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of March 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Marc Boomgaarden, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNCIL FOR YUBA CITY:

Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibits:

A. Weco Equipment Quote # 021026

Exhibit 1A

4971 Allison Pkwy Suite A
Vacaville, CA 95688
Phone: (800) 677-6661
Fax: (707) 446-7933
Customer Quote # 021026
Contact Eddie Ramirez Date 02/10/26
Company City of Yuba City Expiration 03/31/26
Address 1185 Market Street Rep Zack Graves
Terms NET-30
City Yuba City State CA Zip 95991 Delivery TBD
Phone FOB TBD
Item QTY U/M Part No. Unit Price
1 1 EA ----------- HD UPGRADE TO EXISTING CUES TRUCK $151,935.00 INCLUDES 2" SELF-LEVELING CAMERA W/SONDE (FOR MPLUS)
AS PER SPECIFICATIONS DATED 02/10/26
PRICING REFLECTS TRADE IN DISCOUNT FOR (2) OZIII'S:
- 30% DISCOUNT ON EACH (2) NEW OZ4-HD's: $11,608.50
TOTAL DISCOUNT APPLIED: - $23,217.00
Subtotal
Sales Tax 7.25%
Freight
Grand Total
Description
- Thank you -

EQUIPMENT
QUOTE
$162,950.29
(NO FREIGHT)
$11,015.29
$151,935.00
$151,935.00
Total Selected
$151,935.00


Specifications For : Yuba, City of (DEALER)
____________________________________________________________________________ 2 *2nd camera for spare* OZ4 HD DIGITAL P&T ZOOM CAMERA WITH BUILT-IN SONDE 1 OZ4 RETRO WITH GNET, KIT00004
1 RACK MOUNT COMPUTER, 1U, DIGITAL EXTENDER CHASSIS (DEC), PROGRAMMED 1 RACK MOUNT ROUTER, 1U, DREAM MACHINE PRO, UBIQUITI, CONFIGURED 1 SMART RELAY ASSEMBLY
1 NO TRAINING REQUESTED
1 COMPONENT DELIVERY
1 OZ3s AND LIFT ADAPTER TUBE KIT FOR WHEELED TRANSPORTER 1 The dealer will install on the customer truck. WS504873 - They have MPEG4 module already. 1 PIPE RANGER WHEELED CAMERA TRANSPORTER
1 Two (2) Speed Transmission to Maximize Torque in Large Diameter Pipe with:
1 Manual Shifter on Camera Carrier
1 Forward, Free Wheel, and Power Reverse
1 Set of Six (6) Driven Rubber Wheels to Inspect 8" Pipe 1 All Six (6) Wheel Drive Transporter Assembly to Include:
1 Motor & Enclosed Drive Train
1 Tip Up Rear Connector
1 ELECTRIC CAMERA LIFT
1 BRASS STEERABLE COMPACT PIPE RANGER, WHEELED
1 Steerable Unit Designed to Turn 360 Degrees Within Its Own Radius 1 Set of Driven Rubber Wheels to Inspect 6" Pipe
1 Two (2) Speed Transmission to Maximize Torque in Large Diameter Pipe with:
1 Manual Shifter on Camera Carrier
1 Unit Shall Have Forward, Free Wheel, and Power Reverse Capabilities 1 All Six (6) Wheel Drive Transporter Assembly to Include:
1 Motor & Enclosed Drive Train
1 Tip Up Rear Connector
4 KNOBBY TIRE ASSEMBLY FOR PIPE RANGER


1 * THE CUSTOMER IS USING WITH M PLUS THEY ALREADY OWN * SELF-LEVELING COLOR CAMERA

WITH BUILT-IN SONDE, NTSC
1 1 1/2" Stainless Steel Camera head designed for 2" to 12" Pipe 1 512 Hz integral sonde
1 12 high intensity LED's

Agenda Item 7

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 3, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Human Resources Department
Presentation By: Gina Rowland, Human Resources Director Summary
Subject: Reallocate Electrician Authorized Positions
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution taking the following actions effective March 7, 2026:

A. Increase the allocation of the Electrical/Instrumentation Supervisor in Budget Unit 3150 – Public Works Electrical Maintenance from .10 FTE to

1.0 FTE (a net increase of .9 FTE), with a corresponding .9 FTE reduction in Utilities
B. Increase the total allocation of Electrical Technician I/II/III positions in Budget Unit 3150 – Public Works Electrical Maintenance from 1.1 FTE to

2.0 FTE (a net increase of .9 FTE), with a corresponding .9 FTE reduction in Utilities. The remaining 1.0 FTE Electrical Technician I/II/III in Utilities shall be allocated as .5 FTE in Budget Unit 7120 – Water Treatment and .5 FTE in Budget Unit 8120 – Wastewater Treatment C. Authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental appropriation to 3150-61210, Public Works Salaries, in the amount of $64,042 Fiscal Impact: Estimated increase to salaries and benefits in the amount of $64,042 to Budget Unit 3150 – Public Works Electrical Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2025-26. There is no General Fund impact as Public Works Electrical Maintenance is fully funded through other funding sources including, but not limited to, Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance Districts and Road Funds
Estimated savings to salaries and benefits in the amount of $20,890 to Budget Unit 7120 – Water Treatment for Fiscal Year 2025-26
Estimated savings to salaries and benefits in the amount of $43,152 to Budget Unit 8120 – Wastewater Treatment for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Purpose:

To reallocate existing electrician staff to form dedicated Electrical divisions with the Public Works Department and the Utilities Department to ensure better planning of work, better staff coverage and more focused maintenance efforts within both departments.

Background:

In July 2025, the Public Works and Development Services Department was split into three separate departments: the Development Services Department, the Public Works Department, and the Utilities Department. Leadership for the newly formed departments has continued to evaluate staffing levels and the organizational structure needed for the effective and efficient delivery of services. One area identified for improvement to better meet the needs of both the Public Works and the Utilities departments is the structure of the Electrical Division.

The City currently employes three full-time Electricians, one full-time Instrumentation Technician and one full-time Electrical Supervisor. Of these employees, one full-time Electrician and a small fraction of the supervisor’s time is allocated to the Public Works Department to support the installation, troubleshooting, maintenance, repair, and replacement of all City streetlights, traffic signals and related devices; inspecting and repairing streets, parks, and sports lighting and underground wiring; installing, troubleshooting, maintaining, repairing, and supporting the electrical infrastructure of the City’s facilities, including emergency generators; and installing, maintaining, and repairing specialized and underground wiring. Electricians assigned to Public Works also coordinate the installation and deployment of public safety cameras.

The two remaining full-time Electricians, one full-time Instrumentation Technician, and the remaining time of the supervisor is spent divided between the Water Treatment and Wastewater Treatment facilities. At those facilities, the employees install, repair, maintain, test, troubleshoot, and assist in the design of electrical, electronic, and associated power circuits, power generating equipment, switchgear, and emergency systems; maintain and repair water and wastewater treatment plant facilities’ instrumentation and control systems; and inspect and calibrate equipment.

Presently, the allocation of electrician staff is not meeting the needs of the Public Works Department which has a higher volume of work.

Analysis:

The recommended action will serve to create two separate Electrical divisions: a Public Works Electrical division, and a Utilities Electrical division. The Public Works Electrical division will be staffed with two full-time Electrician I/II/III positions and one full-time Electrical Supervisor. The Utilities Electrical division will be staffed with one full-time Electrician I/II/III and one full-time Instrumentation Technician I/II/III. The unit will be supervised by the Water Treatment Plant Maintenance Supervisor.

With no increase to the number of Electrician positions, this recommended change will provide a clearer and more direct management structure while also providing better planning of work, better staff coverage and more focused maintenance efforts within both departments.

Fiscal Impact:

The estimated increased cost to salaries and benefits to reallocate 1.8 FTE Electrician positions to the Public Works Electrical division is $64,042 for the remainder of this fiscal year. It is recommended that the City Council approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $64,042 to 3150-61210, Public Works Salaries, to cover the cost of this increase. There is no General Fund impact resulting from this recommended action as Public Works Electrical Maintenance is fully funded through other funding sources including, but not limited to, Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance Districts and Road Funds.

The full year cost of the positions for salaries and benefits in Budget Unit 3150 – Public Works Electrical Maintenance is estimated to be $374,000. This is an increase of approximately $238,000 per year over current costs. This amount will be included in the Public Works budget for FY2026/27.

The reduction in allocated positions to Water Treatment - Budget Unit 7120 and Wastewater Treatment - Budget Unit 8120 will result in salary savings of approximately $20,890 and $43,152, respectively, for the remainder of this fiscal year. The full year savings resulting from these changes will be approximately $126,589 in each department.

Alternatives:

Do not approve the recommended actions.

Attachments:

1. Resolution - Reallocate Electrician Positions
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Gina Rowland
Human Resources Director
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

4897-7191-4897.1 011024.002
ATTACHMENT 1

4897-7191-4897.1 011024.002
RESOLUTION NO. _______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

AMENDING THE AUTHORIZED POSITIONS IN THE PUBLIC WORKS AND

UTILITIES DEPARTMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF

FINANCE TO MAKE THE NECESSARY SALARY APPROPRIATION AND

BUDGET MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES WHEREAS, the Public Works and Development Services Department was split into three separate departments in July 2025: the Development Services Department, the Public Works Department, and the Utilities Department; and
WHEREAS, leadership for the newly formed departments has continued to evaluate staffing levels and the organizational structure needed for the effective and efficient delivery of services; and
WHEREAS, one area identified for improvement to better meet the needs of both the Public Works and the Utilities departments is the structure of the Electrical Division; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has a high volume/demand for electrical work and the present allocation of Electrician staff to the department is not meeting its needs; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that reallocating existing Electrician positions between the Public Works and Utilities Departments will provide a clearer and more direct management structure while also providing better planning of work, better staff coverage and more focused maintenance efforts within both departments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I.
a. Amend the Authorized Positions to reallocate Electrical/Instrumentation Supervisor in the following budget units:

FTE Budget Unit
Add .9 3150, Electrical Maintenance
Delete .35 7120, Water Treatment Plant
Delete .55 8120, Wastewater Treatment Plant
a. Amend the Authorized Positions to reallocate Electrician I/II/III in the following budget units:

FTE Budget Unit
Add .9 3150, Electrical Maintenance
Delete .2 7120, Water Treatment Plant
Delete .7 8120, Wastewater Treatment Plant

4897-7191-4897.1 011024.002
SECTION II.

The Director of Finance is hereby authorized to make a supplemental appropriation to Budget Unit 3150-61210, Public Works Salaries, in the amount of $64,042.

SECTION III.

The changes set forth herein shall be effective March 7, 2026. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized to make the necessary budget modifications to implement the provisions of this resolution.

The foregoing Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City was duly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of March 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
________________________
Marc Boomgaarden, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk
__________________________
Ian B. Sangster
Kronick, Special Counsel

Agenda Item 8

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 3, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Administration Department
Presentation By: Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk
Summary
Subject: Community Sponsorship - YCHS Baseball
Recommendation: Affirm the City Manager's independent action to approve a project change request from the Yuba City High School Baseball Boosters for the City's previous sponsorship award in the amount of $1,000.00
Fiscal Impact: No additional funds required. Utilize previously awarded community sponsorship in the amount of $1,000.00 for a new project
Purpose:

City sponsorships reflect support of specific programs or events by an organization. The intent is that the public will receive some intrinsic cultural, economic, educational, or entertainment value from the program or event.

Background:

The Yuba City High School Sports Boosters is a volunteer-driven, parent-led nonprofit group dedicated to enhancing the athletic experience for all student-athletes. The Baseball Boosters provide vital financial support through fundraising, donations, and community partnerships. From purchasing equipment and uniforms, to funding major facility upgrades and repairs, they ensure the YCHS baseball program has the resources to compete and thrive. By engaging the community and fostering school spirit, the Boosters help sustain YCHS athletics for future generations.

On October 7, 2025, City Council approved a sponsorship request in the amount of $1,000.00 for the Yuba City High School Baseball Boosters. The sponsorship request was specifically for a bleacher improvement project, which can no longer move forward. This month, the Boosters met with the City Manager to request that the City's previous sponsorship amount be utilized for a field improvement project instead. Their project change request was approved.

Analysis:

In order to align with Community Sponsorship policy and procedures, the City Manager's change approval needs to be formally affirmed by the City Council.

Fiscal Impact:

No additional funds required. Utilize previously awarded community sponsorship in the amount of $1,000.00 for a new project.

Recommendation:

Affirm the City Manager's independent action to approve a project change request from the Yuba City High School Baseball Boosters for the City's previous sponsorship award in the amount of $1,000.00.

Attachments:

None
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Ciara Wakefield
City Clerk
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

Agenda Item 9

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 3, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Community Services Department
Presentation By: Ann Gillen, Community Services Director Summary
Subject: Recreation Program Fee Updates
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving updated rates for recreation program fees Fiscal Impact: The proposed fee adjustments are designed to modestly increase revenue to maintain the program operations while balancing affordability and access.

Based on current enrollment trends, staff estimates additional annual revenue of approximately:
• Option 1 (50% adjustment): $347,118 in FY26/27
• Option 2 (Phased 50% adjustment over two years): $173,559 in FY26/27 and an additional $173,559 in FY27/28
Purpose:

To adjust recreation program fees to increase revenue and improve cost recovery for Aquatics, Youth and Senior recreation programs.

Background:

The Parks and Recreation Department provides essential services, including aquatics programs, youth sports and enrichment activities, and senior wellness programming. These programs promote public health, youth development, and social connections for older adults.

Operating costs have risen significantly, while recreation fees have changed very little.

Since the last time rates were adjusted, operating costs have risen substantially due to:
• Increased part-time wages
• Higher utility expenses
• Rising costs for supplies and equipment

• Increased maintenance expenditures
Current cost recovery levels have declined, resulting in increased General Fund subsidy.

Analysis:

An increase in recreation fees helps cover rising costs that have built up over several years without meaningful fee changes. Recreation programs—especially aquatics—cost more to run because they require a lot of staff and high utility use, which have both become more expensive over time. Without corrective action, the structural gap between expenditures and revenues will continue to widen.

Staff prepared an assessment to determine the amount of the proposed fees. Under either Option 1 or Option 2, the proposed fees are well below actual costs of providing the services. This is generally reflective of costs for services. Current expenditures for recreation programs are $1,879,285 while revenues are $700,475. This leaves a shortfall of $1,178,810. A 50% fee increase will reduce the shortfall by $347,118. There will still be a gap of $831,692. See Exhibit A for additional details.

Option 1: 50% Increase in FY 2026/27
• Immediate implementation across Aquatics, Youth, and Senior programs. • Immediate improvement to cost recovery ratios.
• Reduces General Fund subsidy beginning in FY 2026/27.

Option 2: 50% Increase Over Two Years
• 25% increase effective FY 2026/27.
• An additional 25% increase effective FY 2027/28.
• Gradual revenue growth over two fiscal years.
• Slower improvement in cost recovery but reduces immediate financial impact on participants.

Fiscal Impact:

The proposed fee adjustments are designed to modestly increase revenue while maintaining affordability and access
Increased fees will be effective July 1, 2026, except for programs that fall within Fiscal Years 2025/26 and 2026/27. Increased fees will be effective April 1, 2026, for programs taking place in summer 2026 Based on current enrollment trends, staff estimates additional annual revenue of approximately:

Option 1: $347,118 in FY26/27
Option 2: $173,559 in FY26/27 and $173,559 in FY27/28

Alternatives:
• Approve lower option
• Direct staff to calculate the fully loaded costs to the City and to return to the City Council for approval of an adjustment over 50%.
• Do not take any action and retain the current fees without adjustment.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution approving fee adjustments to increase revenue and improve cost recovery for Aquatics, Youth, and Senior recreation programs in an amount designated by the City Council not to exceed 50%.

Attachments:

1. Option 1

2. Option 2

3. Short Fall Chart

4. Resolution
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Ann Gillen
Community Services Director
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

OPTION 1
(50% Increase)

Current
Fee
FY26/27
4/1/26

RECREATION PROGRAMS
Summer Camp - daily no field trip 55 83
Summer Camp - daily w/field trip 75 113
Summer Camp - weekly 215 323
Summer Camp - all summer 1,700 2,550
Winter Basketball 90 135
MM Basketball 75 113
MM Soccer 80 120
Pickleball Tournaments 40 60
Adult Spring Softball 525 788
Adult Summer Softball 525 788
Adult Fall Softball 525 788

AQUATICS
Public Swim 8 12
Swim Lessons - Group 70 105
Swim Lessons - Private 120 180
Swim Lessons - Parent & Me 40 60
Lap Swim - Drop in 6 9
Jr Lifeguard Clinic 75 113
Party Room Rental - 25 guest 250 375
Party Room Rental - 50 guest 400 600
Party Patio Rental - 50 guest 350 525
Individual Season Pass - April 125 188
Individual Season Pass - May 150 225
Individual Season Pass - June 175 263
Family & Friends Season Pass - April 325 488
Family & Friends Season Pass - May 375 563
Family & Friends Season Pass - June 425 638
Additional Member - April 65 98
Additional Member - May 75 113
Additional Member - June 90 135

SENIORS
Fitness After 50 (price per class-monthly) 3 5
Fitness After 50 (price per class-drop in) 4 6
Yoga (price per class-monthly) 5 8
Yoga (price per class-drop in) 6 9
Yoga Balance (price per class-monthly) 3 5
Yoga Balance (price per class-drop in) 4 6
*Activity Card - Quarterly 9 12
*Activity Card - Annually 36 47
Pottery (per class-monthly) 9 14
Pottery (per class-drop in) 10 15
Ceramics (price per class-monthly) 5 8
Ceramics (price per class-drop in) 6 9

RESERVATIONS & RENTALS
Park Reservations - per table 20 30
Park Reservation Add on - Electricity 20 30
Softball Field Rentals - Tournaments (cost per field) 125 188 Softball Field Rentals - Practice (cost per field) 25 38 Softball Field Rentals - Lights (cost per hour) 15 23
Softball Field Rentals - Field prep regular 40 60
Softball Field Rentals - Field prep special 70 105
*Senior Softball Field Rental 2,600 3,380
GAP - Competitive (monthly fee) 2,650 3,975
GAP - Full Facility Rental 1,800 2,700
Senior Center Rentals (per hour) 75 113
* Senior Activity Cards & Senior Softball Field Rental will only increase a total of 30%

ATTACHMENT 2

OPTION 2
(2 year tiered increase)
(25% increase per year)

Current
Fee
FY26/27
4/1/26
FY27/28
4/1/27

RECREATION PROGRAMS
Summer Camp - daily no field trip 55 69 83
Summer Camp - daily w/field trip 75 94 113
Summer Camp - weekly 215 269 323
Summer Camp - all summer 1,700 2,125 2,550
Winter Basketball 90 113 135
MM Basketball 75 94 113
MM Soccer 80 100 120
Pickleball Tournaments 40 50 60
Adult Spring Softball 525 656 788
Adult Summer Softball 525 656 788
Adult Fall Softball 525 656 788

AQUATICS
Public Swim 8 10 12
Swim Lessons - Group 70 88 105
Swim Lessons - Private 120 150 180
Swim Lessons - Parent & Me 40 50 60
Lap Swim - Drop in 6 8 9
Jr Lifeguard Clinic 75 94 113
Party Room Rental - 25 guest 250 313 375
Party Room Rental - 50 guest 400 500 600
Party Patio Rental - 50 guest 350 438 525
Individual Season Pass - April 125 156 188
Individual Season Pass - May 150 188 225
Individual Season Pass - June 175 219 263
Family & Friends Season Pass - April 325 406 488
Family & Friends Season Pass - May 375 469 563
Family & Friends Season Pass - June 425 531 638
Additional Member - April 65 81 98
Additional Member - May 75 94 113
Additional Member - June 90 113 135

SENIORS
Fitness After 50 (price per class-monthly) 3 4 5
Fitness After 50 (price per class-drop in) 4 5 6
Yoga (price per class-monthly) 5 6 8
Yoga (price per class-drop in) 6 8 9
Yoga Balance (price per class-monthly) 3 4 5
Yoga Balance (price per class-drop in) 4 5 6
*Activity Card - Quarterly 9 10 12
*Activity Card - Annually 36 41 47
Pottery (per class-monthly) 9 11 14
Pottery (per class-drop in) 10 13 15
Ceramics (price per class-monthly) 5 6 8
Ceramics (price per class-drop in) 6 8 9

RESERVATIONS & RENTALS
Park Reservations - per table 20 25 30
Park Reservation Add on - Electricity 20 25 30
Softball Field Rentals - Tournaments (cost per field) 125 156 188 Softball Field Rentals - Practice (cost per field) 25 31 38 Softball Field Rentals - Lights (cost per hour) 15 19 23 Softball Field Rentals - Field prep regular 40 50 60
Softball Field Rentals - Field prep special 70 88 105
*Senior Softball Field Rental 2,600 2,990 3,380
GAP - Competitive (monthly fee) 2,650 3,313 3,975
GAP - Full Facility Rental 1,800 2,250 2,700
Senior Center Rentals (per hour) 75 94 113
* Senior Activity Cards & Senior Softball Field Rental will only increase a total of 30%

Exhibit A

Program Expenditures Revenue Short Fall
Short Fall
after fee increase

RECREATION PROGRAMS
Supervisor Salaries & Wages 273,175
Supplies & Services 41,208
Program Expenditures 187,676
Debt Service 3,945
TOTAL 506,004 298,719 -207,285

SENIORS
Supervisor Salaries & Wages 173,740
Supplies & Services 98,594
Program Expenditures 25,605
Debt Service 3,456
TOTAL 301,395 44,351 -257,044

AQUATICS
Supervisor Salaries & Wages 175,796
Supplies & Services 289,247
Program Expenditures 186,801
Debt Service 420,042
TOTAL 1,071,886 357,405 -714,481
RECREATION TOTAL 1,879,285 700,475 -1,178,810 -831,692

01248.0001 2098799.1
ATTACHMENT 3

01248.0001 2098799.1
RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY ADOPTING UPDATED RATES FOR

RECREATION PROGRAM FEES
WHEREAS, recreation programs provided by the City of Yuba City promote community health, wellness, youth development, and quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the costs associated with delivering recreation programs, including staffing, supplies, facility maintenance, utilities, insurance, and equipment, have increased significantly; and WHEREAS, current program fees no longer sufficiently offset operational costs and maintaining existing fee levels would require increased subsidy from the general fund; and WHEREAS, adjusting program fees will help ensure the financial sustainability of recreation services while maintaining program quality; and
WHEREAS, the adjustment of these rates is not a “project” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, as the rates are a funding mechanism or fiscal activity for existing operations and will not result in a potentially significant impact on the environment over the existing baseline; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to approve updated rates to help ensure the ongoing operations of City recreational programs.

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

1. The recitals are incorporated as if set forth in full herein.

2. The City Council finds that the current fees are insufficient to support the actual costs of each of the fee programs. Updates to the fee amounts have a direct nexus to these costs and the services being provided, and the updated fees are proportional (or below) the cost of the services being provided for each fee category. The City Council hereby adopts the rates attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

3. That staff are authorized to update all fee schedules, registration systems, promotional materials, and related documents to reflect the approved increase.

4. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the governing body of the City of Yuba City this 3rd day of March 2026.

AYES:

01248.0001 2098799.1
NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________________
Marc Boomgaarden, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY:
_______________________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

Agenda Item 10

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 3, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Utilities Department
Presentation By: Phil Marler, Utilities Director
Summary
Subject: Introduction to the Utilities Rate Studies
Recommendation: Direct staff to finalize the Water and Wastewater Rate Studies for adoption and initiation of the Proposition 218 process
Fiscal Impact: Informative Item Only – Water and wastewater revenue changes proposed in the rate studies require a Proposition 218 process
Purpose:

To introduce the results of the water and wastewater rate studies, which recommend changes to the utilities service rates and fees and indicate the need for a Proposition 218 process.

Background:

The City’s utilities service rates and fees are intended to fully recuperate costs to deliver water and wastewater services and the operations and infrastructure of their associated systems via self-funded enterprise funds. In order to develop and propose rate maximums for a five-year projection, local agencies are required to provide a documentary record as evidence of the fiscal requirements per California statute. A rate study which evaluates the operational and infrastructural needs of water and wastewater systems and the share of rates and fees by customer classes fulfills this need for the Proposition 218 rate approval process.

The City Council awarded a contract for both water and wastewater rate studies to Black & Veatch Management Company, LLC of Los Angeles, CA (Black & Veatch) on February 7, 2023. Black & Veatch has completed the rate studies, including a financial plan, which recommend rate adjustments for the five-year projected period to fund critical capital infrastructure improvements and operating costs, as detailed in the Analysis below. Each study document will need to be adopted by City Council in order to recognize its conclusions and initiate the actions necessary to implement its recommendations.

If the rate study is eventually adopted, the study will serve to set a maximum limit on the amount that can be charged. Even if adopted, the City Council still retains authority to adopt reduced rates as appropriate to address lower than expected actual costs, etc.

Analysis:

Black & Veatch, in collaboration with key staff in the Utilities and Public Works Departments, has projected the operating, debt service, cash reserve, and capital improvement funding needs for the next five years and prepared recommended rate schedules to ensure the necessary revenue stream for each utility. The results of these rate models were then evaluated by both staff and a third-party consultant to confirm accuracy and feasibility. The water and wastewater rate studies are now ready for adoption and initiation of a Proposition 218 process to implement the recommendations.

The recommended water service rates for the next five years for a typical single-family household are included below in Figure A. The full recommended rate schedule for all customer classes is included in the financial plan, which is calculated by the appropriate cost share for each customer class based on their meter size and impacts on the water system (Attachment 1).

Figure A
Current Rate Year 1
Nov. 1, 2026
Year 2
Nov. 1, 2027
Year 3
Nov. 1, 2028
Year 4
Nov. 1, 2029
Year 5
Nov. 1, 2030
Water
1" Meter $42.59 $50.67 $57.76 $60.65 $63.68 $65.59
Change $8.08 $7.09 $2.89 $3.03 $1.91
The recommended wastewater service rates for the next five years for a typical single-family household are included below in Figure B. The full recommended rate schedule for all customer classes is included in the financial plan, which is calculated by the appropriate cost share for each customer class based on their wastewater volume and strength contribution to the system (Attachment 2).

Figure B
Current Rate Year 1
Nov. 1, 2026
Year 2
Nov. 1, 2027
Year 3
Nov. 1, 2028
Year 4
Nov. 1, 2029
Year 5
Nov. 1, 2030
Wastewater
Single
Family
$65.23 $67.56 $78.03 $83.49 $89.34 $93.36
Change $2.33 $10.47 $5.46 $5.85 $4.02
Black & Veatch projected the revenue requirements and developed the proposed rate schedules to address the following factors:
• The City’s water and wastewater utilities are “enterprise fund” utilities. In California, enterprisefund utilities must be self-supporting. In other words, the cost of providing service must be funded by those receiving services (via rates) and costs cannot be shifted to other users who do not receive the services.
• The City’s current water and wastewater rate revenue does not cover the costs of operating and maintaining each utility. Underfunded maintenance and capital projects could lead to system failures, service disruptions, and large fines for violating state water quality, treatment, and disposal regulations.
• Water and wastewater utility rates were last projected via rate study and adjusted in 2016. Since

that time:
o Inflation has increased approximately 45% (based upon changes in Western Region CPI).
o State and federal water quality regulations and permit requirements have become stricter and compliance more costly.
o Costs for equipment, treatment chemicals, and labor and construction (for critical projects) have all increased significantly.
o City water and wastewater infrastructure is aging, and in some cases failing, and must be repaired or replaced.
• Since customer costs for water and wastewater service do not cover the City’s cost of providing those services, the City has had to defer routine maintenance, required facility repairs, and necessary capital projects.
• If continued, underfunding of the utilities could lead to system failures, service disruptions, and large financial penalties from state regulators for violating water quality regulations and NPDES permit requirements.

In order to move forward with the conclusions and recommendations of the utilities rate studies, Council will need to officially adopt the Water and Wastewater Rate Studies and elect to initiate a Proposition 218 ballot process via Council Resolution. Upon direction from the Council at this time, staff will coordinate with Black & Veatch to finalize the draft of the rate studies and bring forward the item for Council action.

Fiscal Impact:

This item is informative only and does not result in direct fiscal impact. Adoption of each rate study and a successful Proposition 218 process will be required in order to secure the rate adjustments and necessary cashflow recommended in the rate study models.

Alternatives:

1. Direct staff to modify one or both of the draft rate studies with different direction for rate changes and/or planned capital improvements prior to adoption.

2. Direct staff to delay adoption and the subsequent Proposition 218 process and keep water and wastewater service rates at the current levels.

Recommendation:

Direct staff to finalize the Water and Wastewater Rate Studies for adoption and initiation of the Proposition 218 process.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Excerpts from the Draft Water Rate Study 2025-2026

2. Attachment 2 - Excerpts from the Draft Wastewater Rate Study 2025-2026 Prepared By: Submitted By:

Scarlett O. Harris
Utilities Administrative Manager
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

Excerpts from the Draft Water Rate Study 2025-2026
Proposed Rate Schedule
Table 1-1 Proposed Five-Year Water Rate Schedule
Current
Rate
Year 1
Nov 1, 2026
Year 2
Nov 1, 2027
Year 3
Nov 1, 2028
Year 4
Nov 1, 2029
Year 5
Nov 1, 2030
Base Rate
1” & less $42.59 $50.67 $57.76 $60.65 $63.68 $65.59

1.5” $85.18 $93.56 $106.65 $111.99 $117.59 $121.11
2” $170.39 $179.34 $204.45 $214.67 $225.41 $232.17
3” $681.53 $694.06 $791.23 $830.79 $872.33 $898.50
4” $1,363.08 $1,380.34 $1,573.59 $1,652.27 $1,734.89 $1,786.93 6” $2,555.74 $2,581.34 $2,942.72 $3,089.86 $3,244.35 $3,341.68 8” $5,963.42 $6,012.76 $6,854.54 $7,197.27 $7,557.14 $7,783.85 Commodity
Charges
All ($/HCF) $2.14 $2.36 $2.68 $2.82 $2.96 $3.05
Table 1-1 summarizes the Water Utility’s recommended five-year rate schedules for water services. Rates are effective November 1st for all fiscal years. The rates developed in this study focused on FY 2027 through 2031.

Financial Plan
Figure 1-1 Water Utility Financial Plan
 Operation and Maintenance Expenses: The Water Utility anticipates O&M expenses to increase from $13.9M in FY 2025 to $16.5M in FY 2030. Water production and purchases account for a portion of this increase, averaging 25% of O&M expenses.
 Debt Service Payments: The Water Utility has existing debt service related to Series 2013 and 2017 Revenue Bonds plus, debt service on several State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans. It is expected that the Water Utility will require additional SRF loans in FY 2028 and FY 2029. Total debt service payments increase from $3.5M in FY 2025 to $4.2M in FY 2030.
 Capital Improvement Projects: The Water Utility plans to execute an average of $8.0M annually in capital projects from fiscal year FY 2025 to FY 2030.
 Reserves: The Water Utility plans to continue funding the operating fund reserve, maintain an adequate balance in its Water Cash CIP fund and maintain adequate debt service coverage. ● The operating fund reserve is to help cover fluctuations in day-to-day expenses. The scheduled target is 90 days of O&M expenses.
● The City targets to maintain enough funds to cover a portion of upcoming annual capital expenditures, smooth out the amount of capital infusion needed each year, and help mitigate unexpected capital costs. The scheduled target is 50% of the average five-year annual CIP.

Figure 3-1 Status Quo Water Utility Financial Plan
To fully understand the current condition of the Water Utility, it is important to examine the cash flow projections under the status quo scenario. As shown in Figure 3-1, the status quo conditions would project that the Water Utility would operate from an annual deficit position, thus requiring the use of reserves to keep operating. In this scenario, the Water Utility would not impose any revenue increases over the Study period and continue to incur O&M expenses, make debt service payments, pay for the execution of the planned CIP, and transfer to reserves.

ATTACHMENT 2

Excerpts from the Draft Wastewater Rate Study 2025-2026 Proposed Rate Schedule
Table 1-1 Proposed Five-Year Wastewater Rate Schedule
Current
Rate
Year 1
Nov 1, 2026
Year 2
Nov 1, 2027
Year 3
Nov 1, 2028
Year 4
Nov 1, 2029
Year 5
Nov 1, 2030
Residential
Single
Family*
$65.23 $67.56 $78.03 $83.49 $89.34 $93.36
Multi Family $52.20 $54.05 $62.42 $66.79 $71.47 $74.69
Commercial
Base Rate $65.23 -
$88.89
$67.56 $78.03 $83.49 $89.34 $93.36
C1 ($/HCF) $2.57 $3.90 $4.50 $4.82 $5.15 $5.39
C2 ($/HCF) $2.57 $4.42 $5.11 $5.47 $5.85 $6.11
C3 ($/HCF) $2.57 $7.07 $8.17 $8.74 $9.35 $9.77
Schools
($/ADA) $29.96 $31.39 $36.26 $38.80 $41.51 $43.38
Industrial**
Volume
($/MG)
$3,763.63 $7,778.51 $8,984.18 $9,613.07 $10,285.99 $10,748.86 TSS ($/lbs) $0.290 $0.423 $0.488 $0.523 $0.559 $0.584
BOD ($/lbs) $0.385 $0.433 $0.501 $0.536 $0.573 $0.599
*Includes Stonegate customers
**Industrial service rates now include capital and debt cost share rather than as separate monthly charges Table 1-1 summarizes the Wastewater Utility’s recommended five-year rate schedules for wastewater services. Rates are effective November 1st for all fiscal years. The rates developed in this study focused on FY 2027 through 2031.

Staff recommends keeping Septage Hauler service fees at the current rate of $0.10/gal and $40.00 minimum, as set by Council on December 20, 2022, rather than incorporate this service into the proposed 2026 rate schedule. This will allow staff to gather sufficient data to develop appropriate fees utilizing the Septage Station to be constructed in Fiscal Year 26/27 and subsequent program cost analysis.

Financial Plan
Figure 1-1 Wastewater Utility Financial Plan
 Operation and Maintenance Expenses: The Wastewater Utility anticipates O&M expenses to increase from $16.1M in FY 2026 to $19.0M in FY 2031. Wastewater costs include collection, treatment of wastewater flow, regulatory compliance, administration, and laboratory functions.  Debt Service Payments: The Wastewater Utility has existing debt service related to Series 2017 and 2018 Revenue Bonds, 2017 Certificates of Participation Bonds plus debt on several State Revolving Loan (SRF) loans, as well as other minor commercial bank debt. It is projected that the Wastewater Utility will require both a Revenue Bond and SRF Loan in FY 2028. Total debt service payments increase from $3.4M in FY 2026 to $6.9M in 2031.
 Capital Improvement Projects: The Wastewater Utility plans to execute an average of $7.9M annually in capital projects from FY 2026 to FY 2031.
 Reserves: The Wastewater Utility plans to continue funding the operating fund reserve, maintain an adequate balance in its Wastewater Cash CIP fund, and maintain adequate debt service coverage. ● The operating fund reserve is to help cover fluctuations in day-to-day expenses. The scheduled target is 90 days of O&M expenses.
● The capital fund reserve is to help maintain enough funds to cover a portion of upcoming annual capital expenditures, smooth out the amount of capital infusion needed each year, and help mitigate unexpected capital costs. The scheduled target is 25% of annual depreciation.

The City should aim at increasing it to 100% of annual depreciation.

$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Millions
All Wastewater Funds
O&M Debt Service Capital Acquisitions
Capital Projects Revenue Debt Financing
Cash Balance Target Cash Balance (90 Days)

Figure 3-1 Status Quo Wastewater Utility Financial Plan To fully understand the current condition of the Wastewater Utility, it is important to examine the cash flow projections under the status quo scenario. As shown in Figure 3-1, the status quo conditions would project that the Wastewater Utility would operate from an annual deficit position, thus requiring the use of reserves to keep operating. In this scenario, the Wastewater Utility would not impose any revenue increases over the Study period and continue to incur O&M expenses, make debt service payments, pay for the execution of the planned CIP, and transfer to reserves.

Agenda Item 11

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 3, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works Department
Presentation By: Joshua Wolffe, Public Works Director
Summary
Subject: Consideration of the Road Development Impact Fee Update Recommendation: Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City, adding Chapter 12 (Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees) to Title 8, Chapter 12 of the City of Yuba City Municipal Code to establish roadway development impact fees for new development
Fiscal Impact: Costs associated with the preparation of the update will be recovered as part of the updated fees. A portion of the cost of this update is anticipated to be paid for by a Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grant
Purpose:

To introduce an Ordinance for roadway facilities development impact fees pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 legislation as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (Commencing at Government Code Section 66000).

Background:

The City of Yuba City’s Roadway fee component of its Development Impact Fee program was last updated through an AB 1600 Fee Justification Study in 2007. This fee is annually escalated using the Engineering New-Record (ENR) escalation index.

On March 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-021, reducing existing development impact fees, including Water Connection and Extension Fees, and Wastewater Connection and Extension fees to match the adopted Infill Impact Fee Rates. This resulted in an approximate 50 percent reduction in development impact fees for development not previously considered as being “infill.”
On January 21, 2025, the City adopted a 2040 General Plan, and this included an updated Circulation Element which details future roadway infrastructure needs of the City.

Additionally, on January 21, 2025, the City adopted a new traffic model that was prepared by Fehr & Peers traffic engineers. Fehr and Peers modeled future land use and transportation demands related to roadway circulation needs and MHM Engineers & Surveyors prepared detailed roadway improvement cost estimates (Roadway Facilities Capital Improvement Program; Attachment 2, Exhibit B), for those roadway facilities. Fehr & Peers prepared a City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee

Calculations report (Fee Calculations or Fee Calculations Report) to inform the calculations contained in the Roadway Impact Fee Program Nexus Study.

For this Roadway Impact fee update, the City utilized Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) to assist in preparing the AB 1600 fee justification study. The purpose of this Nexus Study (Attachment 2, Exhibit C) was to establish the Roadway Fee Program and the legally required nexus findings for the City to implement the Roadway Fee Program and to set the initial development impact fee rate. The Nexus Study summarized key components of the implementation and administration of the proposed Roadway Fee Program.

Ahead of bringing forward this AB 1600 study for consideration, the City conducted public outreach with the Development Community through electronic communication as well as providing access to the full draft fee report for a 30-day period that concluded February 24, 2026. All comments received have been included as a staff report Attachment 4.

Analysis:

The Roadway Fee Program is a City-implemented roadway fee applicable to new development in the City. The Roadway Fee Program contains the following fee components:
• Roadways Fee
• Administration Fee
Staff Report Attachment 3 is a table summarizing the proposed Roadway Fee by residential, commercial and industrial land use. For each land use, the administration component fee is calculated as two percent of the cost and will fund administration of the Roadway Fee Program. The Roadway Fee will be charged and collected per residential dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space and is consistent with the requirements of California Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 legislation, as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code sections 66000 et. seq.).

The Roadway Fee Program totals $636,500,000 as reflected in Table 3-2 of the proposed Yuba City Roadway Facilities Nexus Study. This is based on the 2040 General Plan buildout estimates and needed road infrastructure to serve anticipated development reflected in the City’s traffic model.

Below is a summary of key legislation affecting how the updated AB 1600 study was required to be prepared.

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

In response to the provisions of AB 602, Roadway Fees will differ by dwelling unit size with the proposed residential fee land uses for all fee components summarized below:

Roadways Residential Fee Categories
• Single Family <1,500 sq. ft.

• Single Family 1,500 sq. ft.–2,499 sq. ft.
• Single Family >2,500 sq. ft.
• Multifamily (same size ranges)
• Single Family – Senior (same size ranges)
• Multifamily – Senior (same size ranges)
• Mobile Home (same size ranges)
The proposed fees are based on the best land use information, backbone infrastructure and public facilities cost estimates, funding source information, and administrative cost estimates available at this time. The cost estimates presented in this report are in constant 2024 dollars.

Senate Bill (SB) 13 and Accessory Dwelling Units
In addition to the considerations discussed above pursuant to AB 602, a separate piece of legislation, SB 13, passed in 2019, establishes a new system for assessing fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). It amended California Government Code Section 65852.2(3)(A)(f)(3) to read:
“A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
As a result, ADUs smaller than 750 square feet in size are statutorily exempt from development impact fees. Fees on ADUs 750 square feet or larger in size will be charged a rate that is 50 percent of the primary residential unit based upon the primary dwelling unit’s square footage, in compliance with SB

13. Appendices C and D of the Nexus Study contain Transportation Impact Fee Comparisons of other jurisdictions in the region. Tables D-1 through D-3 show Yuba City’s existing fee rate and the proposed fee graphically in comparison with Yuba and Placer Counties as well as the cities of Elk Grove, Lincoln, Chico, West Sacramento and Woodland.

By accepting the proposed Roadway Development Impact Fee AB 1600 Nexus Study, will result in development paying for needed improvements to new and expanded road infrastructure thereby reducing the financial impact upon existing City residents as the build-out of the 2040 General Plan occurs.

Staff proposes that entitled projects with either a recorded final map or an active building permit will be "grandfathered-in" and will pay today's lower road fee.

Additionally, the City may consider modifications to the development impact fee(s) to be paid for a project as part of a negotiated development agreement that is approved by the City Council.

Staff Report Attachment 2 Resolution is included for information purposes and will be recommended for approval at the next meeting concurrently with the second reading of the ordinance.

Fiscal Impact:

If approved, the updated fee will be used to fund capital improvement projects to accommodate future transportation needs of the City as planned growth occurs consistent with the build-out of the 2040 General Plan. If adopted at the March 17, 2026, meeting the updated road fee would become effective 60-days following adoption, or on May 16, 2026.

Alternatives:

1. Do not approve the Nexus Study of Roadway Development Impact Fee Program and direct staff to reduce or modify proposed fees.

2. Do not proceed with updating fees, resulting in inadequate funding in future road infrastructure needs resulting from new development within the City.

Recommendation:

Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City, adding Chapter 12 (Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees) to Title 8, Chapter 12 of the City of Yuba City Municipal Code to establish roadway development impact fees for new development.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Roadway DIF Ordinance

2. Attachment 2 - Roadway DIF Resolution

3. Exhibit A: 2026 New DIF Rate Table

4. Exhibit B - Capital Improvement Program

5. Exhibit C: Nexus Study

6. Attachment 3 - DIF Comparison Existing vs Proposed Rate Table

7. Attachment 4 - Yuba City DIF Roads - BIA Comment Letter 2.20.26 Prepared By: Submitted By:

Joshua Wolffe
Public Works Director
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

-2-
ORDINANCE NO._____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY ADDING CHAPTER 12 (ROADWAY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES) TO TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO

ESTABLISH ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR NEW

DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council has found and determined in the concurrently adopted Resolution that the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees established by this Chapter will be imposed upon development projects for the purpose of mitigating their impacts on the City’s ability to provide public roadway improvements and services as needed and ensuring that development pays its fair share of public costs associated with their impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council in adopting this Ordinance hereby further acknowledges, adopts, and relies upon the findings, factual information, analysis, and conclusions in the concurrently adopted Resolution ____; and WHEREAS, the City Council in adopting this Ordinance does hereby replace and superseded any previously adopted Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees, whether they are set forth by resolution or ordinance, that are directly contrary to the Fees adopted by this Ordinance and the concurrently adopted Resolution.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it has considered and adopted all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Yuba City does ordain as follows:

Section 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals and all findings, factual information, analysis, and conclusions in the concurrently adopted Resolution ____are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Chapter 12 (Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees) shall be added to Title 8 of the City of Yuba City Municipal Code and shall read as follows:

Section 8-12.01. Title.

This Chapter shall be known as the “Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fee Ordinance of the City of Yuba City.”
Section 8-12.02. Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter 12 is to establish Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees to ensure that new development pays its fair and proportionate share of transportation and roadway improvements required to accommodate growth. This Chapter and the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees provided are adopted in

-3-
accordance with the City’s general police power and are intended to: (a) promote public health, safety, and welfare; (b) implement the City’s General Plan circulation policies; (c) provide adequate roadway capacity for new development; and (d) comply with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000 et seq.).

Section 8-12.03. Findings.
(a) New development generates additional demand for roadway and transportation improvements.
(b) The City’s adopted Roadway Impact Fee Study identifies the purpose and use of the fee as well as the relationship between the impacts of development and the proportionality of the fee to those impacts.
(c) Without the imposition of Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees on new impactful development, existing roadway facilities will become inadequate over time resulting in numerous adverse impacts, including inadequate traffic safety and transportation improvements. (d) The City’s adopted Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees shall be supplementary to any other conditions imposed upon a development project pursuant to other provisions of the Municipal Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, or any other Federal, State or local laws, which may authorize the imposition of project specific fees or conditions on development.
(e) The fee methodology allocates roadway costs among land uses in proportion to traffic generation.
(f) The collected fees will fund capacity-enhancing improvements necessary to serve new growth.
(g) Actual fee amounts shall be adopted in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act by separate City Council resolution.

Section 8-12.04. Definitions.
(a) “Development” means any project requiring City approval that increases roadway demands.
(b) “Fee Schedule” means the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fee Schedule adopted by City Council resolution.
(c) “Mitigation Fee Act” means the statutory authority and limitations provided for in Government Code sections 66000 et. seq. as now written and as they may be amended in future years by the California Legislature.

-4-
(d) “Roadway Facilities” means streets, intersections, signals, traffic controls, bridges, bike/pedestrian improvements, and related infrastructure identified in the fee study.

Section 8-12.05. Imposition of Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees. (a) Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees shall be imposed on all new development generating additional roadway demand.
(b) Pursuant to California Law, the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees will vary based on the impact of the Development.
(c) Pursuant to California Law, the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees will vary based on residential dwelling unit size.
(d) Generally, Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the date of final inspection, whichever comes first. However, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 66007 the City may require payment earlier in some limited circumstances.

Section 8-12.06. Fee Schedule and Adjustments Adopted by Resolution. (a) The City Council shall adopt a Fee Schedule for the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fee amounts by separate resolution.
(b) Revisions to the Fee Schedule, including annual adjustments, may occur in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in State law through a separate resolution without amendment to this Chapter.

Section 8-12.07. Credits and Reimbursements.
(a) Credits may be granted and approved by the City Council for eligible roadway improvements constructed by a developer.
(b) Reimbursement may be provided for improvements exceeding a project’s proportional share when approved by the City Council.

Section 8-12.08. Exemptions.
(a) Renovations that do not increase building area or intensity. (b) Reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged structure with a new structure that does not increase building area or intensity.
(c) Development qualifying for exemptions under City policy or State law. (d) City of Yuba City projects.

-5-
Section 8-12.09. Appeals.

A developer may appeal fee application or calculation pursuant to procedures established by the City Manager and consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act.

Section 8-12.10. Use of Funds.

As provided in the Mitigation Fee Act, the funds collected by the City pursuant to this Chapter shall only be used for roadway capacity improvements and refurbishment, including planning, engineering, design, right-of-way, and construction.

Section 8-12.11. Roadway Capital Improvement Plan.

A Roadway Capital Improvement Plan may be adopted by the City Council resolution pursuant to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Section 8-12.12. Accounting and Reporting Requirements.

A Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fee Reserve Account (Reserve Account) is hereby established in accordance with the accounting and reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. The fees paid to the City pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited into the Reserve Account and used solely for the purpose described in this Chapter. All monies deposited into the Reserve Account shall be held separately and apart from other City funds and all interest or other earnings on the unexpended balance in the Reserve Account shall be credited to the Reserve Account. The Reserve Account shall be reviewed and accounted for as required by the Mitigation Fee Act as now written and as it may be amended in the future.

Section 8-12.13. Distribution of Impact Fee Funds.

All monies and interest earnings in each of the Impact Fee Reserve Accounts shall be expended on the construction and related design and administration costs of constructing public facility improvements and purchasing land and equipment identified in the Fee Study. Such expenditures may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

A. All direct and indirect costs incurred by the City to construct facility improvements pursuant to this Chapter, including but not limited to, the cost of land and right-of- way acquisition, planning, legal advice, engineering, design, construction, construction management, materials and equipment.

B. Costs of issuance or debt service associated with bonds, notes or other security instruments issued to fund facility improvements identified.

C. Administrative costs incurred by the City in establishing or maintaining the Impact Fee Reserve Accounts required by this Chapter, including but not limited to the

-6-
cost of studies to establish the requisite nexus between the fee amount and the use of fee proceeds and yearly accounting and reports.

Section 8-12.14. Regulations.

The City Manager, or her/his designee, is authorized to adopt written administrative regulations or guidelines that are consistent with and that further the terms and requirements set forth within this Chapter.

Section 8-12.15. Severability.

If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Chapter is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this chapter, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published, in accordance with Government Code, Section 36933, or as otherwise required by law.

Section 4. The Ordinance, which shall become effective sixty (60) days after adoption, will be signed by Mayor and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage and cause its publication as prescribed by law.

Introduced by title only on the 3rd day of March 2026 and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yuba City on the _____ day of ______________, 2026.

Marc Boomgaarden , Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 2

RESOLUTION NO.________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

CONCURRENTLY ADOPTED WITH AND MAKING FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES THROUGH ORDINANCE NO. __________ AND THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 12 (ROADWAY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES) TO TITLE 8, OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE; ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY AND; ADOPTING RELATED CEQA FINDINGS; AND, ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City (the “City”) provides numerous public services and it constructs and maintains numerous public improvements, including roadways, for the benefit of residents, businesses, and employees within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2040 General Plan on January 21, 2025 (Resolution No. 25-007) as a technical update to the 2004 General Plan (Resolution No. 04-049). The General Plan provides policy direction for ministerial and discretionary project reviews, together with implementation programs and comprehensive policy direction for growth and development; and,
WHEREAS, new development generally generates growth which in turn impacts public facilities and roadways in ways that the revenues generated through property taxes and other means are generally insufficient to accommodate; and, WHEREAS, if additional capital roadway improvements are not added to the City as development occurs, the existing roadway facilities will become inadequate over time resulting in numerous adverse impacts, including inadequate traffic safety and transportation improvements; and,
WHEREAS, to prevent undesirable consequences, and to reduce the impacts of new development on the City’s roadways, the City's must develop and improve roadways at a rate which will accommodate the City’s expected growth; and, WHEREAS, it is the City's intent and desire in the adoption of the Fee Schedule attached here to as Exhibit A to have developers pay for their fair share of public costs associated with new development while at the same time facilitating growth that is in the public interest; and,
WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared the “Yuba City Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, dated December 31, 2025 (“Fee Study”). The Fee Study is, and has been on file with the City Clerk; and, WHEREAS, The Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees established by this Chapter will be imposed upon development projects for the specific purpose of mitigating

the impact of the development on the City’s ability to provide public roadway improvements and services as needed; and,
WHEREAS, the Fee Study and its supporting documents identify the development potential of the City from the year 2025 until 2040; identifies roadway improvements to serve and accommodate new development; and provides a summary of the portion of each housing improvement category's costs that can be funded by new development; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has relied upon and adopts the factual information, analysis, and conclusions in the Fee Study in the establishment of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees and concurrent adoption of Ordinance No. ___________; and, WHEREAS, all legal publications, notices, and prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution, the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees, and Ordinance No. __________ have occurred; and,
WHEREAS, the City has and will continue in the future to implement and maintain accounting of the funds collected in accordance with the requirements of State law and in particular the Fee Mitigation Act; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees is both in the best interests of the community and needed to ensure adequate traffic safety and transportation improvements are implemented as development occurs.

WHEREAS, the City Council in adopting this Resolution does hereby replace and superseded any previously adopted Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees, whether they are set forth by resolution or ordinance, that are directly contrary to the Fees adopted by this Resolution and the concurrently adopted Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Yuba City as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council finds that all of the recitals and facts cited herein and in Ordinance No. ___________ which is adopted concurrently with this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein.

Section 2. CEQA Finding. The City Council finds that the actions in this Resolution and the concurrently adopted Ordinance No.
___________ are statutorily exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and it is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15273(a)(1) (Rates, Tolls Fairs and Charges) of Title 14 of the Code of California Regulations (CEQA Regulations) because the rates established are

funding capital projects. The written findings supporting this determination can be found herein, in the 2040 General Plan (Resolution No. 25-007), the technical update to the 2004 General Plan (Resolution No. 04-049), and in the Fee Study supporting the establishment of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees.

Likewise, the City Council finds that this action is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with the required certainty that action will not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Moreover, the City Council finds this action is categorically exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Regulations Sections 15378(b)(4) because this establishment of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees and the rates herein do not involve any commitment to any specific project, now or in the future.

Section 3. Compliance with Mitigation Fee Act. The City Council finds and determines it has complied with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.

Section 4. Adoption of Roadway Facilities Capital Improvement Program. The City Council finds and determines that the City of Yuba City Roadway Facilities Capital Improvement Program dated December 31, 2025, is complete and accurate and the City Council hereby adopts the factual information, analysis, supporting documents, and conclusions in the Capital Improvement Program for the purposes of establishing the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees in this Resolution and Ordinance No. _________. The Capital Improvement Program, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, has been on file and it will remain on file with the City Clerk for review in perpetuity.

Section 5. Adoption of Fee Study. The City Council finds and determines that the “Fee Study”, is complete and accurate and the City Council hereby adopts the factual information, analysis, supporting documents, findings, and conclusions in the Fee Study for the purposes of establishing the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees in this Resolution and Ordinance No. ___________.

The Fee Study, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, has been on file and it will remain on file with the City Clerk for review in perpetuity.

Section 6. Specific Fee Study Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines that:

a. New development generates additional demand for
roadway and transportation improvements.
b. The City’s adopted Roadway Impact Fee Study
identifies the purpose and use of the fee as well as the relationship between the impacts of development and
the proportionality of the fee to those impacts.
c. Without the imposition of Roadway Facilities
Development Impact Fees on new impactful
development, existing roadway facilities will become
inadequate over time resulting in numerous adverse
impacts, including inadequate traffic safety and
transportation improvements.
d. The City’s adopted Roadway Facilities Development
Impact Fees shall be supplementary to any other
conditions imposed upon a development project
pursuant to other provisions of the Municipal Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental
Quality Act, or any other Federal, State or local laws, which may authorize the imposition of project specific
fees or conditions on development.
e. The fee methodology allocates roadway costs among
land uses in proportion to traffic generation.
f. The collected fees will fund capacity-enhancing
improvements necessary to serve new growth.
g. Actual fee amounts shall be adopted and amended by
City Council resolution.

Section 7. Creation of Reserve Account. The City Council hereby directs staff to create and establish the City’s Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fee Reserve Account (Reserve Account) and to ensure that the funds in the Reserve Account are used, reviewed, accounted for, and reported as required by the Mitigation Fee Act, as now written and as it may be amended in the future.

Section 8. City Manager Authority. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or her/his designee, to establish procedures and hear any appeals a developer may have regarding the application or calculation of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees to any development. The City Manager is authorized to adopt any procedures, regulations, or guidelines that are consistent with terms and conditions of this Resolution, Ordinance _____, the Mitigation

Fee Act, and any other applicable legal limitations on the City Manager’s authority. The City Council directs the City Attorney to provide the City Manager with counsel during such development and adoption and to provide appropriate legal counsel during any appeals.

Section 9. Fee Schedule. The City Council hereby adopts the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Section 10. CEQA Filing. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager, or her/his designee, to ensure the proper filing of a Notice of Exemption.

Section 11. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 12. Effective Date of Resolution and Fee Schedule. This Resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee Schedule shall become legally effective immediately, but it shall not be implemented and charged until 60 days after this Resolution’s effective date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developments that received approval from the Planning Commission or the City Council and have recorded a final map or have an active building permit before the Fee Schedule’s implementation shall be assessed the road impact fee that was in place and charged at the time of entitlement.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the _______ day of _______________, 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CITY OF YUBA CITY
_____________________________
Marc BoomGaarden, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
_________________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Attachments:

A: Exhibit A: Fee Schedule
B: Exhibit B: Roadway Facilities Capital Improvement Program dated December 31, 2025
C: Exhibit C: Development Impact Fee Study dated December 31, 2025

EXHIBIT A

ROAD DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE TYPE
Proposed Impact Fee Including Administration Fee
Land Use Category <1,500 SQFT 1,500 - 2,499 SQFT 2,500+ SQFT Nonresidential per KSF
Single-Family Residential $14,990 $16,625 $18,284
Multi-Family Residential $7,182 $7,965 $8,760
Single-Family Residential - Senior $3,843 $4,263 $4,688 Multi-Family Residential - Senior $2,944 $3,264 $3,590
Mobile Home $7,431 $8,242 $9,064
Neighborhood Commercial $30,126
Community Commercial $29,184
Regional Commercial $40,482
Office $16,990
Light Industrial $6,288
Manufacture $9,466
Notes:

SQFT = square feet KSF = thousand square feet

EXHIBIT B

City of Yuba City Traffic Impact Fee Update
Major Planned Roadway Improvements in Accordance with the October 2024 Traffic Study Update Last Revised 3/7/07
Printed 3/20/2025
2 of 2

EAST-WEST ROADWAYS
1-1 Bogue Road Township Road to Western Parkway 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 2,385 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 44.9 108.0 63.1 150,490 $4.50 $0 $68,000 $746,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $954,000 $930 $730 $930 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $3,469,000 $520,350 $242,830 $693,800 $1,457,000 $0 $6,626,000 1-2 Bogue Road Western Parkway to South George Washington 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 2,660 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 48.7 108.0 59.3 157,740 $4.50 $30,000 $74,000 $814,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,064,000 $930 $730 $930 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,224,000 $633,600 $295,680 $844,800 $1,775,000 $0 $7,877,000 1-3 Bogue Road South George Washington to Harter Parkway 4-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 4-Lane Urban Edge 4-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 112.5' 15B 21 2,150 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.7 112.5 45.8 98,470 $4.50 $30,000 $48,000 $522,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $860,000 $1,360 $730 $1,360 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,674,000 $701,100 $327,180 $934,800 $1,963,100 $8,020,000 $8,020,000 1-4 Bogue Road Harter Parkway to Holcomb Avenue 4-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 4-Lane Urban Edge 4-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 112.5' 15B 21 1,850 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 68.4 112.5 44.1 81,590 $4.50 $30,000 $40,000 $438,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $740,000 $1,360 $730 $1,360 0 0.00 $0 $2,516,000 $377,400 $176,120 $503,200 $1,056,800 $4,751,000 $4,751,000 1-5 Bogue Road Holcomb Avenue to Sanborn Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 650 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.0 121.0 55.0 35,750 $4.50 $30,000 $20,000 $211,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $260,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $2,699,000 $404,850 $188,930 $539,800 $1,133,600 $4,304,000 $4,304,000 1-6 Bogue Road Sanborn Road to South Walton Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 3,325 70% 30% Assume 70.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 71.4 121.0 49.6 115,440 $4.50 $30,000 $55,000 $423,500 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,330,000 $1,460 $730 $1,241 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,639,000 $695,850 $324,730 $927,800 $1,948,400 $8,341,000 $8,341,000 1-7 Bogue Road South Walton Avenue to Kells Ranch Parkway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,600 98% 2% Assume 98.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 62.5 121.0 58.5 91,730 $4.50 $15,000 $43,000 $461,580 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $640,000 $1,460 $730 $1,445 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,017,000 $602,550 $281,190 $803,400 $1,687,200 $6,806,000 $6,806,000 1-8 Bogue Road Kells Ranch Parkway to SR-99 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 900 98% 2% Assume 98.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 62.5 121.0 58.5 51,600 $4.50 $15,000 $25,000 $267,540 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $360,000 $1,460 $730 $1,445 33D 1.00 $4,250,000 $5,525,000 $828,750 $386,750 $1,105,000 $2,320,500 $8,474,000 $8,474,000 1-9 Bogue Road SR-99 to Railroad Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,530 61% 39% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 61.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

68.4 121.0 52.6 81,180 $4.50 $250,000 $62,000 $413,580 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,012,000 $1,460 $730 $1,175 30 2.00 $1,750,000 $5,314,000 $797,100 $371,980 $1,062,800 $2,231,900 $8,972,000 $8,972,000 1-10 Bogue Road Railroad Avenue to South Park Drive 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,155 50% 50% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 50.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

77.5 121.0 43.5 25,120 $4.50 $0 $12,000 $63,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $462,000 $1,460 $730 $1,095 0 0.00 $0 $633,000 $94,950 $44,310 $126,600 $265,900 $1,424,000 $1,424,000 1-11 Bogue Road South Park Drive to Garden Highway 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,595 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 77.5 77.5 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2-1 Lincoln Road Township Road to Western Parkway 2-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 7A 21 2,310 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 67.6 104.0 36.4 84,080 $4.50 $450,000 $83,000 $912,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $924,000 $1,520 $730 $1,520 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $4,762,000 $714,300 $333,340 $952,400 $2,000,100 $0 $8,599,000 2-2 Lincoln Road Western Parkway to George Washington 2-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 7A 21 2,725 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 67.8 104.0 36.2 98,650 $4.50 $275,000 $72,000 $791,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,090,000 $1,520 $730 $1,520 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $5,392,000 $808,800 $377,440 $1,078,400 $2,264,700 $0 $9,538,000 2-3 Lincoln Road George Washington to Harter Parkway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,680 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 68.0 121.0 53.0 89,040 $4.50 $450,000 $86,000 $937,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $672,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,203,000 $630,450 $294,210 $840,600 $1,765,300 $7,578,000 $7,578,000 2-4 Lincoln Road Harter Parkway to Sanborn Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,840 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 75.0 121.0 46.0 130,640 $4.50 $30,000 $62,000 $680,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,136,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $5,897,000 $884,550 $412,790 $1,179,400 $2,476,800 $10,190,000 $10,190,000 2-5 Lincoln Road Sanborn Road to South Walton Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 3,330 25% 75% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 25.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

77.2 121.0 43.8 36,460 $4.50 $30,000 $20,000 $53,750 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,332,000 $1,460 $730 $913 0 0.00 $0 $760,000 $114,000 $53,200 $152,000 $319,200 $2,465,000 $2,465,000 2-6 Lincoln Road South Walton Avenue to SR-99 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,480 43% 57% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 43.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

73.8 121.0 47.2 50,330 $4.50 $500,000 $73,000 $344,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $992,000 $1,460 $730 $1,044 0 0.00 $0 $1,114,000 $167,100 $77,980 $222,800 $467,900 $2,918,000 $2,918,000 2-7 Lincoln Road SR-99 to Bunce Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,565 30% 70% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 30.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

78.8 121.0 42.2 32,470 $4.50 $725,000 $88,000 $288,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,026,000 $1,460 $730 $949 31 0.00 $850,000 $731,000 $109,650 $51,170 $146,200 $307,100 $2,353,000 $2,353,000 2-8 Lincoln Road Bunce Road to Garden Highway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,150 10% 90% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 10.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

77.0 121.0 44.0 9,460 $4.50 $150,000 $20,000 $21,300 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $860,000 $1,460 $730 $803 0 1.00 $0 $173,000 $25,950 $12,110 $34,600 $72,700 $1,127,000 $1,127,000 2-9 Lincoln Road Garden Highway to Levee 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 3,200 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 121.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3-1 Franklin Road Township Road to Western Parkway 2-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 7A 21 2,180 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.5 104.0 37.5 81,750 $4.50 $380,000 $75,000 $823,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $872,000 $1,520 $730 $1,520 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $4,564,000 $684,600 $319,480 $912,800 $1,916,900 $0 $8,176,000 3-2 Franklin Road Western Parkway to George Washington 2-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 7A 21 2,695 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 69.1 104.0 34.9 94,060 $4.50 $24,000 $45,000 $493,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,078,000 $1,520 $730 $1,520 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $5,847,000 $877,050 $409,290 $1,169,400 $2,455,800 $0 $9,874,000 3-3 Franklin Road George Washington to El Margarita Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,690 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 72.1 121.0 48.9 131,540 $4.50 $144,000 $74,000 $810,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,076,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $5,678,000 $851,700 $397,460 $1,135,600 $2,384,800 $9,949,000 $9,949,000 3-4 Franklin Road El Margarita Road to Harter Parkway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,675 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 69.4 121.0 51.6 86,430 $4.50 $360,000 $75,000 $824,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $670,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,196,000 $629,400 $293,720 $839,200 $1,762,400 $7,453,000 $7,453,000 3-5 Franklin Road Harter Parkway to North Harding Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 905 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.0 121.0 55.0 49,780 $4.50 $260,000 $49,000 $534,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $362,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 0 0.00 $0 $1,322,000 $198,300 $92,540 $264,400 $555,300 $2,774,000 $2,774,000 3-6 Franklin Road North Harding Road to North Walton Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 2,655 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 121.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $160 0 0.00 $0 $425,000 $63,750 $29,750 $85,000 $178,500 $604,000 $604,000 3-7 Franklin Road North Walton Avenue to SR-99 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,530 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 75.0 75.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $280,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3-8 Franklin Road SR-99 to Clark Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 2,630 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.0 121.0 55.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3-9 Franklin Road Clark Avenue to Plumas Blvd. 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 21 3,030 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 62.6 121.0 58.4 176,950 $4.50 $448,000 $125,000 $1,370,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,212,000 $160 $730 $160 31 2.00 $850,000 $2,185,000 $327,750 $152,950 $437,000 $917,700 $5,685,000 $5,685,000 3-10 Franklin Road Plumas Blvd. to Garden Highway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Residential to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11A 21 2,950 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 68.1 121.0 52.9 156,060 $4.50 $448,000 $116,000 $1,267,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,180,000 $1,540 $730 $1,540 0 0.00 $0 $4,543,000 $681,450 $318,010 $908,600 $1,908,100 $8,899,000 $8,899,000 4-1 Bridge Street Western Parkway to George Washington 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 0 2,750 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program - Requires piping 1,420 feet of Live Oak Canal

0.0 104.0 104.0 286,000 $4.50 $30,000 $132,000 $1,449,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,380 $730 $1,380 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $5,545,000 $831,750 $388,150 $1,109,000 $2,328,900 $0 $9,323,000 4-2 Bridge Street George Washington to El Margarita Road 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 0 2,595 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 104.0 104.0 269,880 $4.50 $200,000 $142,000 $1,557,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,380 $730 $1,380 0 0.00 $0 $3,582,000 $537,300 $250,740 $716,400 $1,504,500 $0 $6,644,000 4-3 Bridge Street El Margarita Road to Harter Parkway 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 0 1,630 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 104.0 104.0 169,520 $4.50 $300,000 $107,000 $1,170,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,380 $730 $1,380 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,000,000 $600,000 $280,000 $800,000 $1,680,000 $0 $6,850,000 4-4 Bridge Street Harter Parkway to North Harding Road 4-Lane Major Arterial New 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 8 0 995 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 121.0 121.0 120,400 $4.50 $380,000 $93,000 $1,015,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,740 $730 $1,740 0 0.00 $0 $1,732,000 $259,800 $121,240 $346,400 $727,500 $3,475,000 $3,475,000 4-5 Bridge Street North Harding Road to Tharp Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,345 30% 70% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 30.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

64.0 121.0 57.0 23,000 $4.50 $275,000 $38,000 $125,100 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $538,000 $1,460 $730 $949 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $2,133,000 $319,950 $149,310 $426,600 $895,900 $3,692,000 $3,692,000 4-6 Bridge Street Tharp Road to North Walton Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,315 55% 45% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 55.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

74.1 121.0 46.9 33,920 $4.50 $275,000 $43,000 $259,050 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $526,000 $1,460 $730 $1,132 0 0.00 $0 $819,000 $122,850 $57,330 $163,800 $344,000 $1,949,000 $1,949,000 4-7 Bridge Street North Walton Avenue to SR-99 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,630 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

80.0 80.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $275,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-8 Bridge Street SR-99 to Gray Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,330 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 80.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $275,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-9 Bridge Street Gray Avenue to Cooper Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,870 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program
116.0 116.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $275,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-10 Bridge Street Cooper Avenue to Shasta Street 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 3,040 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 100.0 100.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $275,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-11 Bridge Street Shasta Street to Second Street 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,810 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 100.0 100.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $275,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5-1 Lassen Boulevard Harter Parkway to Tharp Road 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,010 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program
121.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5-2 Lassen Boulevard Tharp Road to North Walton Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,300 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program
121.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6-1 State Route 20 Stabler Lane to SR-99 6-Lane Highway Widen Highway add 2-outside lanes 6 Lane (SR 20 & 99) (CALTRANS) 19 21 2,615 100% 0% 5 buildings to be removed or modified incl gas station. 84.0 150.0 66.0 172,590 $4.50 $2,723,900 $351,000 $3,852,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,046,000 $1,450 $730 $1,450 33 1.00 $2,750,000 $6,542,000 $981,300 $457,940 $1,308,400 $2,747,700 $14,188,000 $14,188,000 7-1 Butte House Road Township Road to Western Parkway 2-Lane Collector Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 7A 21 2,350 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.0 104.0 38.0 89,300 $4.50 $50,000 $46,000 $498,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $940,000 $1,520 $730 $1,520 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $4,822,000 $723,300 $337,540 $964,400 $2,025,300 $0 $8,286,000 7-2 Butte House Road Western Parkway to Hooper Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 4,170 75% 25% Assume 75.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 71.4 121.0 49.6 155,120 $4.50 $20,000 $72,000 $593,250 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,668,000 $1,460 $730 $1,278 0 0.00 $0 $3,996,000 $599,400 $279,720 $799,200 $1,678,400 $0 $7,936,000 7-3 Butte House Road Hooper Road to Tierra Buena Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,450 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 67.5 121.0 53.5 38,790 $4.50 $312,725 $49,000 $268,500 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $580,000 $1,460 $730 $1,095 0 0.00 $0 $794,000 $119,100 $55,580 $158,800 $333,500 $1,976,000 $1,976,000 7-4 Butte House Road Tierra Buena Road to Harter Parkway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,675 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 68.2 121.0 52.8 70,620 $4.50 $312,725 $64,000 $347,500 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,070,000 $1,460 $730 $1,095 32 1.00 $1,100,000 $2,565,000 $384,750 $179,550 $513,000 $1,077,300 $5,060,000 $5,060,000 7-5 Butte House Road Harter Parkway to Tharp Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 0 1,585 50% 50% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 50.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

76.0 121.0 45.0 35,660 $4.50 $50,000 $22,000 $116,500 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,460 $730 $1,095 0 0.00 $0 $868,000 $130,200 $60,760 $173,600 $364,600 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 7-6 Butte House Road Tharp Road to SR-99 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 3,860 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 84.0 84.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $20,000 $2,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7-7 Butte House Road SR-99 to Gray Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,450 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 84.0 84.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $50,000 $5,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8-1 Queens Avenue Tuly Parkway to Blevin Road 2-Lane Minor Arterial New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 21 625 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 94.0 104.0 10.0 6,250 $4.50 $0 $3,000 $32,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $250,000 $1,380 $730 $1,380 36 1.00 $850,000 $1,713,000 $256,950 $119,910 $342,600 $719,500 $2,715,000 $2,715,000 8-2 Queens Avenue Blevin Road to SR-99 2-Lane Minor Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 4,340 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 94.0 94.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 31 0.00 $850,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9-1 Jefferson Avenue Ruth Avenue to Water Tank Site 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 21 750 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 66.0 66.0 49,500 $4.50 $16,000 $24,000 $263,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $300,000 $1,170 $730 $1,170 0 0.00 $0 $878,000 $131,700 $61,460 $175,600 $368,800 $1,810,000 $1,810,000 9-2 Jefferson Avenue Water Tank Site to Harter Parkway 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 21 720 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 66.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $16,000 $2,000 $9,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $288,000 $1,170 $730 $950 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $2,092,000 $313,800 $146,440 $418,400 $878,700 $3,268,000 $3,268,000 9-3 Jefferson Avenue/ Poole
Boulevard
Harter Parkway to Tharp Road 4-Lane Major Arterial New 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 8 22 2,150 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 121.0 121.0 260,150 $4.50 $16,000 $119,000 $1,306,000 $600 Relocation 30KV - 60 KV Poles $1,290,000 $1,740 $730 $1,740 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $4,991,000 $748,650 $349,370 $998,200 $2,096,300 $9,684,000 $9,684,000 10-1 Pease Road Township Road to Western Parkway 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 2,090 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 56.0 108.0 52.0 108,680 $4.50 $16,000 $51,000 $557,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $836,000 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $1,944,000 $291,600 $136,080 $388,800 $816,500 $0 $4,154,000 10-2 Pease Road Western Parkway to Tierra Buena Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 5,390 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 312,620 $4.50 $16,000 $143,000 $1,566,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $2,156,000 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $5,013,000 $751,950 $350,910 $1,002,600 $2,105,500 $0 $10,841,000 10-3 Pease Road Tierra Buena Road to Tuly Parkway 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 22 2,610 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.3 108.0 57.7 150,600 $4.50 $300,000 $98,000 $1,076,000 $600 Relocation 30KV - 60 KV Poles $1,566,000 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $2,428,000 $364,200 $169,960 $485,600 $1,019,800 $6,090,000 $6,090,000 10-4 Pease Road Tuly Parkway to Stabler Lane 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 22 2,575 80% 20% Assume 80.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 92.2 108.0 15.8 32,550 $4.50 $420,000 $57,000 $499,200 $600 Relocation 30KV - 60 KV Poles $1,545,000 $930 $730 $890 0 0.00 $0 $1,834,000 $275,100 $128,380 $366,800 $770,300 $4,649,000 $4,649,000 10-5 Pease Road Stabler Lane to SR-99 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 22 2,150 40% 60% Assume 40.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 108.0 48.0 41,280 $4.50 $20,000 $21,000 $90,800 $600 Relocation 30KV - 60 KV Poles $1,290,000 $930 $730 $810 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $1,947,000 $292,050 $136,290 $389,400 $817,800 $4,146,000 $4,146,000 10-6 Pease Road SR-99 to Live Oaks Boulevard 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 2,750 60% 40% Assume 60.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 75.4 108.0 32.6 53,790 $4.50 $30,000 $28,000 $180,600 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,100,000 $930 $730 $850 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $2,653,000 $397,950 $185,710 $530,600 $1,114,300 $5,048,000 $5,048,000 11-1 Stewart Road South Walton Avenue to SR-99 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 2,560 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 108.0 48.0 61,440 $4.50 $30,000 $31,000 $169,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,024,000 $930 $730 $830 33C 1.00 $3,500,000 $4,563,000 $684,450 $319,410 $912,600 $1,916,500 $7,673,000 $7,673,000 11-2 Stewart Road SR-99 to Phillips Road 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 21 1,915 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 66.0 6.0 5,750 $4.50 $30,000 $6,000 $31,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $766,000 $1,170 $730 $950 0 0.00 $0 $910,000 $136,500 $63,700 $182,000 $382,200 $2,090,000 $2,090,000 11-3 Stewart Road Phillips Road to Railroad Avenue 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 21 685 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 66.0 6.0 2,060 $4.50 $30,000 $4,000 $22,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $274,000 $1,170 $730 $950 0 0.00 $0 $326,000 $48,900 $22,820 $65,200 $137,000 $759,000 $759,000 11-4 Stewart Road Railroad Avenue to Garden Highway 2-Lane Urban Edge New 2-Lane Urban Road Edge 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 14 21 4,970 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 108.0 48.0 119,280 $4.50 $30,000 $57,000 $312,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,988,000 $1,200 $730 $965 0 0.00 $0 $2,399,000 $359,850 $167,930 $479,800 $1,007,600 $5,707,000 $5,707,000 $12,728,350 $3,488,000 $31,872,750 $43,205,000 32.00 $51,250,000 $160,591,000 $24,088,650 $11,241,370 $32,118,200 $67,451,100 $198,416,000 $303,140,000

NORTH-SOUTH ROADWAYS

RIGHT OF WAY COST UTILITY CONSTRUCTION COST ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION COST SOFT COSTS Segment
Number Roadway Name Segment Limits Roadway Designation Project Scope Typical Street Cross Section Roadway
Case
Utililty
Case
Segment
Length
(Feet)
%of Segment in
Fee Program
%of Segment not
in Fee Program Segment Site Review Notes
Weighted
Existing
ROW
(Feet)
New ROW
(Feet)
Add'l Req'd
ROW
(Feet)
ROW
Acquisition
(SF)
ROW
$ / S.F.
($= 0 if
dedicated)
Imprvmnts to be
Acquired (i.e.
house, barn)
ROW Acquisition
Service Costs
(assume 10%)

SUBTOTAL
RightofWay
Acquisition Cost
Utility Cost per
Linear Ft Scope of Work

SUBTOTAL
Utility Cost
Roadway Cost
per Linear Ft
Typical Cost of
Residential Road
Factored
Roadway Cost
Signal
Case
Numberof Major
Intersections
(New Signalized
Only)
Intersections
Cost

SUBTOTAL
Roadway Cost
Professional
Services
(15.0%)
Yuba City
Admin.
(7.0%)
Contingency
(20.0%)

SUBTOTAL
Design,
Environmental &
Other Costs

TOTAL TOTAL
Marketplace Buildout
2024 AB 1600 2024 AB 1600
COST AB 1600 COST
12-1 Garden Highway Stewart Road to Diamond Pointe Way 4-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,390 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

73.0 73.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12-2 Garden Highway Diamond Pointe Way to Bogue 4-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 4,160 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 90.0 90.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12-3 Garden Highway Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 4-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 4,360 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 84.0 84.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12-4 Garden Highway Lincoln Road to Winship Road 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,460 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 60.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12-5 Garden Highway Winship Road to Percy Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 1,470 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 124.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $160 0 0.00 $0 $236,000 $35,400 $16,520 $47,200 $99,200 12-6 Garden Highway Percy Avenue to Franklin Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 3,575 100% 0% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 121.0 41.0 146,580 $4.50 $0 $66,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12-7 Garden Highway Franklin Road to Second Street 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 940 100% 0% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 77.0 121.0 44.0 41,360 $4.50 $0 $19,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 13-1 Wilbur Avenue Franklin Road to Bridge Street 2-Lane Collector No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,400 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 60.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 14-1 Clark Avenue Richland Road to Franklin Road 2-Lane Collector No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 3,300 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 55.0 55.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $325,000 $33,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 15-1 B Street Percy Avenue to Plumas Avenue 2-Lane Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 11C 0 670 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 55.0 104.0 49.0 32,830 $4.50 $325,000 $48,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $120 $730 $0 31 0.00 $850,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16-1 SR-99 SR-20 to Bogue Rd 6-Lane Highway Widen Highway add 2-outside lanes 6 Lane (SR 20 & 99) (CALTRANS) 19 0 15,855 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 142.0 150.0 8.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,450 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17-1 South Walton Avenue Stewart Road to Bogue Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 4,050 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 108.0 48.0 194,400 $4.50 $0 $88,000 $963,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,620,000 $930 $730 $930 see east-west roadways
$0 $3,767,000 $565,050 $263,690 $753,400 $1,582,200
17-2 South Walton Avenue Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 5,280 35% 65% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 35.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

69.0 121.0 52.0 96,100 $4.50 $0 $44,000 $166,950 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $2,112,000 $1,460 $730 $986 see east-west roadways
$0 $1,822,000 $273,300 $127,540 $364,400 $765,300
17-3 South Walton Avenue Lincoln Road to Franklin Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 5,310 50% 50% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 50.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

75.0 121.0 46.0 122,130 $4.50 $0 $55,000 $302,500 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $2,124,000 $1,460 $730 $1,095 31 2.00 $850,000 $4,608,000 $691,200 $322,560 $921,600 $1,935,400 17-4 North Walton Avenue Franklin Road to Bridge Street 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,820 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

75.0 75.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 see east-west roadways
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
17-5 North Walton Avenue Bridge Street to SR-20 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 3,440 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

94.0 94.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 see east-west roadways
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
17-6 Stabler Lane SR-20 to Butte House Road 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,330 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

76.0 76.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $140,000 $14,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17-7 Stabler Lane Butte House Road to Queens Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 1,290 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 74.0 121.0 47.0 0 $4.50 $140,000 $14,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$336,000 $336,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$7,933,000 $7,933,000
$4,867,000 $4,867,000
$8,970,000 $8,970,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0

City of Yuba City Traffic Impact Fee Update
Major Planned Roadway Improvements in Accordance with the October 2024 Traffic Study Update Last Revised 3/7/07
Printed 3/20/2025
3 of 2

RIGHT OF WAY COST UTILITY CONSTRUCTION COST ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION COST SOFT COSTS Segment
Number Roadway Name Segment Limits Roadway Designation Project Scope Typical Street Cross Section Roadway
Case
Utililty
Case
Segment
Length
(Feet)
% of Segment in
Fee Program
% of Segment not
in Fee Program Segment Site Review Notes
Weighted
Existing
ROW
(Feet)
New ROW
(Feet)
Add'l Req'd
ROW
(Feet)
ROW
Acquisition
(SF)
ROW
$ / S.F.
($= 0 if
dedicated)
Imprvmnts to be
Acquired (i.e.
house, barn)
ROW Acquisition
Service Costs
(assume 10%)

SUBTOTAL
Right of Way
Acquisition Cost
Utility Cost per
Linear Ft Scope of Work

SUBTOTAL
Utility Cost
Roadway Cost
per Linear Ft
Typical Cost of
Residential Road
Factored
Roadway Cost
Signal
Case
Number of Major
Intersections
(New Signalized
Only)
Intersections
Cost

SUBTOTAL
Roadway Cost
Professional
Services
(15.0%)
Yuba City
Admin.
(7.0%)
Contingency
(20.0%)

SUBTOTAL
Design,
Environmental &
Other Costs
TOTAL
Marketplace
2024 AB 1600
COST
TOTAL
Buildout
2024 AB 1600
AB 1600 COST
17-8 Stabler Lane Queens Avenue to Bradley Estates 2-Lane Collector No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,190 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 76.0 76.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $140,000 $14,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17-9 Stabler Lane Bradley Estates to Jamie Drive 2-Lane Collector No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,830 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 76.0 76.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $140,000 $14,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17-10 Stabler Lane Jamie Drive to Pease Road 2-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,990 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 76.0 76.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $140,000 $14,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 18-1 Tharp Road Butte House Road to SR-20 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,835 40% 60% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 40.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

63.0 121.0 58.0 65,770 $4.50 $80,000 $38,000 $165,600 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,134,000 $1,460 $730 $1,022 see east-west roadways
$0 $1,159,000 $173,850 $81,130 $231,800 $486,800 $2,946,000 $2,946,000 18-2 Tharp Road SR-20 to Lassen Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 1,310 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 76.0 121.0 45.0 58,950 $4.50 $80,000 $35,000 $381,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $160 0 0.00 $0 $210,000 $31,500 $14,700 $42,000 $88,200 $680,000 $680,000 18-3 Tharp Road Lassen Avenue to Bridge Street 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 2,040 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 76.0 121.0 45.0 91,800 $4.50 $80,000 $50,000 $544,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $160 see east-west roadways
$0 $327,000 $49,050 $22,890 $65,400 $137,400 $1,009,000 $1,009,000 18-4 Tharp Road Bridge Street to Franklin Road 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 0 2,070 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 66.0 16.0 16,560 $4.50 $80,000 $16,000 $85,500 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,170 $730 $950 see east-west roadways
$0 $984,000 $147,600 $68,880 $196,800 $413,300 $1,483,000 $1,483,000 19-1 Phillips Road Bogue Road to Newkom Ranch Way 4-Lane Major Arterial New 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 8 0 2,120 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 121.0 121.0 256,520 $4.50 $80,000 $124,000 $1,359,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,740 $730 $1,740 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $4,939,000 $740,850 $345,730 $987,800 $2,074,400 $8,373,000 $8,373,000 19-2 Phillips Road Newkom Ranch Way to Stewart Road 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 0 1,995 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 104.0 104.0 207,480 $4.50 $80,000 $102,000 $1,116,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,380 $730 $1,380 see east-west roadways
$0 $2,754,000 $413,100 $192,780 $550,800 $1,156,700 $5,027,000 $5,027,000 20-1 Harter Parkway Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 5,280 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 106.0 106.0 559,680 $4.50 $170,000 $269,000 $2,958,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,430 see east-west roadways
$0 $7,551,000 $1,132,650 $528,570 $1,510,200 $3,171,500 $13,681,000 $13,681,000 20-2 Harter Parkway Lincoln Road to Franklin Road 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 6,900 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 869,400 $4.50 $0 $392,000 $4,305,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $12,282,000 $1,842,300 $859,740 $2,456,400 $5,158,500 $21,746,000 $21,746,000 20-3 Harter Parkway Franklin Road to Bridge Street 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 1,840 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 231,840 $4.50 $0 $105,000 $1,149,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $3,276,000 $491,400 $229,320 $655,200 $1,376,000 $5,801,000 $5,801,000 20-4 Harter Parkway Bridge Street to Redhaven Avenue 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 1,600 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 201,600 $4.50 $0 $91,000 $999,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $2,848,000 $427,200 $199,360 $569,600 $1,196,200 $5,044,000 $5,044,000 20-5 Harter Parkway Redhaven Avenue to SR-20 4-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,760 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 see east-west roadways
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
20-6 Harter Parkway SR-20 to Jefferson Boulevard 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 8 0 1,750 10% 90% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 10.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program
121.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,740 $730 $831 see east-west roadways
$0 $146,000 $21,900 $10,220 $29,200 $61,400 $208,000 $208,000 20-7 Harter Parkway Jefferson Blvd. to Butte House Road 4-Lane Parkway Widen Existing 2-lane Residential to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11A 20A 1,820 80% 20% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 80.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program
109.0 121.0 12.0 17,470 $4.50 $0 $8,000 $69,600 $0 No work required $0 $1,540 $730 $1,378 see east-west roadways
$0 $2,007,000 $301,050 $140,490 $401,400 $843,000 $2,920,000 $2,920,000 20-8 Tuly Parkway Butte House Road to Queens Avenue 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 535 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 95.5 126.0 30.5 16,320 $4.50 $0 $8,000 $82,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $953,000 $142,950 $66,710 $190,600 $400,300 $1,436,000 $1,436,000 20-9 Tuly Parkway Queens Avenue to Bradley Estates 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 1,925 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 30.0 106.0 76.0 146,300 $4.50 $80,000 $74,000 $813,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,430 0 0.00 $0 $2,753,000 $412,950 $192,710 $550,600 $1,156,300 $4,723,000 $4,723,000 20-8 Tuly Parkway Bradley Estates to Heidi Way 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 1,150 50% 50% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 50.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

98.7 106.0 7.3 4,200 $4.50 $0 $2,000 $10,500 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,080 0 0.00 $0 $621,000 $93,150 $43,470 $124,200 $260,900 $893,000 $893,000 20-9 Tuly Parkway Heidi Way to Lizanne Drive 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 1,030 100% 0% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 100.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

0.0 106.0 106.0 109,180 $4.50 $0 $50,000 $542,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,430 0 0.00 $0 $1,473,000 $220,950 $103,110 $294,600 $618,700 $0 $2,634,000 20-10 Tuly Parkway Lizanne Drive to Pease Road 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 2,610 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 106.0 106.0 276,660 $4.50 $0 $125,000 $1,370,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,430 0 0.00 $0 $3,733,000 $559,950 $261,310 $746,600 $1,567,900 $0 $6,671,000 21-1 El Margarita Road Harter Parkway to Franklin Road 2-Lane Minor Arterial New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 0 2,300 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 104.0 104.0 239,200 $4.50 $42,000 $112,000 $1,231,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,380 $730 $1,380 30 2.00 $1,750,000 $6,674,000 $1,001,100 $467,180 $1,334,800 $2,803,100 $10,709,000 $10,709,000 21-2 El Margarita Road Franklin Road to Imperial Way 2-Lane Minor Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 7 21 1,145 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 54.0 106.0 52.0 59,540 $4.50 $80,000 $35,000 $383,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $458,000 $1,490 $730 $1,490 0 0.00 $0 $1,707,000 $256,050 $119,490 $341,400 $717,000 $0 $3,265,000 21-3 El Margarita Road Imperial Way to Bridge Street 2-Lane Minor Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 7 21 800 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 40.0 106.0 66.0 52,800 $4.50 $80,000 $32,000 $350,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $320,000 $1,490 $730 $1,490 0 0.00 $0 $1,192,000 $178,800 $83,440 $238,400 $500,700 $0 $2,363,000 21-4 El Margarita Road Bridge Street to Spirit Drive 2-Lane Minor Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 7 21 2,530 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 54.0 106.0 52.0 131,560 $4.50 $80,000 $68,000 $741,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,012,000 $1,490 $730 $1,490 0 0.00 $0 $3,770,000 $565,500 $263,900 $754,000 $1,583,400 $0 $7,107,000 21-5 El Margarita Road Spirit Drive to SR 20 2-Lane Minor Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 7 21 770 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 54.0 106.0 52.0 20,020 $4.50 $80,000 $18,000 $94,500 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $308,000 $1,490 $730 $1,110 33B 1.00 $3,750,000 $4,178,000 $626,700 $292,460 $835,600 $1,754,800 $6,336,000 $6,336,000 21-6 El Margarita Road North Colusa Frontage Road to Jefferson Blvd. 2-Lane Residential No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,400 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 54.0 54.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $80,000 $8,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 22-1 George Washington Blvd Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 2-Lane Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 7 21 5,280 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 106.0 26.0 137,280 $4.50 $60,000 $68,000 $746,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $2,112,000 $1,490 $730 $1,490 see east-west roadways
$0 $7,868,000 $1,180,200 $550,760 $1,573,600 $3,304,600 $0 $14,031,000 22-2 George Washington Blvd Lincoln Road to Franklin Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 5,340 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 121.0 41.0 218,940 $4.50 $360,000 $135,000 $1,481,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $2,136,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 see east-west roadways
$0 $7,797,000 $1,169,550 $545,790 $1,559,400 $3,274,800 $0 $14,689,000 22-3 George Washington Blvd Franklin Road to Bridge Street 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,905 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 121.0 41.0 78,110 $4.50 $40,000 $40,000 $432,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $762,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 see east-west roadways
$0 $2,782,000 $417,300 $194,740 $556,400 $1,168,500 $5,145,000 $5,145,000 22-4 George Washington Blvd Bridge Street to SR-20 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 3,230 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 84.0 121.0 37.0 119,510 $4.50 $120,000 $66,000 $724,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,292,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 see east-west roadways
$0 $4,716,000 $707,400 $330,120 $943,200 $1,980,800 $8,713,000 $8,713,000 23-1 Western Parkway Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 5,280 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 106.0 106.0 559,680 $4.50 $0 $252,000 $2,771,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,430 see east-west roadways
$0 $7,551,000 $1,132,650 $528,570 $1,510,200 $3,171,500 $0 $13,494,000 23-2 Western Parkway Lincoln Road to Franklin Road 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 5,320 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 670,320 $4.50 $0 $302,000 $3,319,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $9,470,000 $1,420,500 $662,900 $1,894,000 $3,977,400 $0 $16,767,000 23-3 Western Parkway Franklin Road to Bridge Street 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 2,660 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 335,160 $4.50 $0 $151,000 $1,660,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $4,735,000 $710,250 $331,450 $947,000 $1,988,700 $0 $8,384,000 23-4 Western Parkway Bridge Street to SR-20 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 2,560 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 322,560 $4.50 $0 $146,000 $1,598,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $4,557,000 $683,550 $318,990 $911,400 $1,914,000 $0 $8,069,000 23-5 Western Parkway SR-20 to Jefferson Avenue 4-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,610 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 124.0 124.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $280,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 23-6 Western Parkway Jefferson Avenue to Butte House Road 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 3,580 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 451,080 $4.50 $280,000 $231,000 $2,541,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $6,373,000 $955,950 $446,110 $1,274,600 $2,676,700 $0 $11,591,000 23-7 Western Parkway Butte House Road to Pease Road 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 4,430 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 558,180 $4.50 $0 $252,000 $2,764,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $7,886,000 $1,182,900 $552,020 $1,577,200 $3,312,200 $0 $13,963,000 24-1 Township Road Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 5,280 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 306,240 $4.50 $10,000 $139,000 $1,528,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $4,911,000 $736,650 $343,770 $982,200 $2,062,700 $0 $8,502,000 24-2 Township Road Lincoln Road to Franklin Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 5,320 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 308,560 $4.50 $10,000 $140,000 $1,539,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $4,948,000 $742,200 $346,360 $989,600 $2,078,200 $0 $8,566,000 24-3 Township Road Franklin Road to SR-20 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 5,220 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 52.0 108.0 56.0 292,320 $4.50 $10,000 $133,000 $1,459,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $4,855,000 $728,250 $339,850 $971,000 $2,039,100 $0 $8,354,000 24-4 Township Road SR-20 to Jefferson Avenue 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 2,580 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 149,640 $4.50 $8,000 $69,000 $751,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $2,400,000 $360,000 $168,000 $480,000 $1,008,000 $0 $4,159,000 24-5 Township Road Jefferson Avenue to Butte House Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 4,415 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 256,070 $4.50 $12,000 $117,000 $1,282,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $4,106,000 $615,900 $287,420 $821,200 $1,724,600 $0 $7,113,000 24-6 Township Road Butte House Road to Pease Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 3,640 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 211,120 $4.50 $8,000 $96,000 $1,055,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $3,386,000 $507,900 $237,020 $677,200 $1,422,200 $0 $5,864,000 25-1 Oji Way Franklin Road to Kean Avenue 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 0 390 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 66.0 66.0 25,740 $4.50 $8,000 $0 $124,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,170 $730 $1,170 32 1.00 $1,100,000 $1,557,000 $233,550 $108,990 $311,400 $654,000 $0 $2,335,000 25-2 Oji Way Kean Avenue to Cinemark Parking Lot 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 0 230 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 40.0 66.0 26.0 5,980 $4.50 $8,000 $0 $35,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,170 $730 $1,170 0 0.00 $0 $270,000 $40,500 $18,900 $54,000 $113,400 $0 $419,000 26-1 Sanborn Road McCune Avenue to Cherry Street 2-Lane Collector Widen Residential to 2-Lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 5 0 1,285 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 66.0 66.0 84,810 $4.50 $8,000 $38,965 $429,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,090 $730 $1,090 37 1.00 $650,000 $2,051,000 $307,650 $143,570 $410,200 $861,500 $3,342,000 $3,342,000 27-1 Civic Center Blvd. SR 20 to SR 99 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 21 1,780 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 224,280 $4.50 $8,000 $101,726 $1,119,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $712,000 $1,780 $730 $1,780 0 0.00 $0 $3,169,000 $475,350 $221,830 $633,800 $1,331,000 $6,331,000 $6,331,000 27-2 Civic Center Blvd. SR 99 to Gray Avenue 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 21 1,350 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 170,100 $4.50 $8,000 $77,345 $851,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $540,000 $1,780 $730 $1,780 0 0.00 $0 $2,403,000 $360,450 $168,210 $480,600 $1,009,300 $4,804,000 $4,804,000 28-1 Royo Ranchero Drive Libby Lane to Colusa Frontage Road 2-Lane Collector Widen Residential to 2-Lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 5 0 370 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 66.0 66.0 24,420 $4.50 $8,000 $0 $118,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,090 $730 $1,090 37 1.00 $650,000 $1,054,000 $158,100 $73,780 $210,800 $442,700 $0 $1,615,000 29-1 Sutter Street Lamon Way to North Colusa Frontage Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 470 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 121.0 121.0 56,870 $4.50 $8,000 $0 $264,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $188,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $1,937,000 $290,550 $135,590 $387,400 $813,600 $0 $3,203,000 Total Upgrade Existing and Develop New Roadways $3,776,000 $4,768,036 $48,771,150 $16,830,000 10.00 $12,100,000 $176,752,000 $26,512,800 $12,372,640 $35,350,400 $74,238,100 $143,456,000 $316,614,000 Interchange and Bridge
Items with reduced percent in fee program Utility Construction Cost Soft Costs Roadway Construction Cost Total $354,214,000 $636,505,000 Cost Per Dwelling Unit $13,647 $15,57
SR-20 /SR-99 Interchange N/A Construct 6 Lane Overcrossing and Connecting Ramps 0 0 0 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 0.0 0.0 422,968 $4.50 $1,800,000 $371,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $109,436,305 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SR-99/Pease Road Interchange N/A Construct 4-Lane Overcrossing and Connecting Ramps 0 0 0 12% 88% Assume 12.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,080,288 $4.50 $850,000 $572,000 $754,080 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $642 0 0.12 $67,999,257 $8,160,000 $1,224,000 $571,200 $1,632,000 $3,427,200 Widen & Retrofit 5th Street Bridge 4-Lane Major Arterial No work - completed 0 0 2,500 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 80.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Local Bridge to Marysville 4-Lane Major Arterial New 4-Lane Arterial 4-Lane Arterial - no parking - ROW 124' 0 0 0 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Railroad Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 18-Foot HMA/Concrete Path 38 0 15,300 25% 75% Assume 25.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 80.0 80.0 306,000 $5.75 $0 $176,000 $484,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $700 $730 $723 0 0.00 $0 $2,764,000 $414,600 $193,480 $552,800 $1,160,900 Total Interchange and Bridge Projects $2,650,000 $1,119,000 $1,238,080 $0 0.12 $177,435,562 $10,924,000 $1,638,600 $764,680 $2,184,800 $4,588,100 $0 $0
$12,342,000 $12,342,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $4,409,000
$12,342,000 $16,751,000

EXHIBIT C

EX
Final Report
Yuba City Roadway Facilities
Development Impact Fee
Nexus Study
Prepared for:

City of Yuba City
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
December 31, 2025
EPS #222104

Table of Contents
Introduction and Executive Summary .....................................................................1 Roadway Fee Program Overview.......................................................................................1 Nexus Study Requirements.................................................................................................3 Roadway Fee Program Implementation and Administration...................................6 Supporting Documents .........................................................................................................7 Organization of Report..........................................................................................................8 Land Uses and Demographics.....................................................................................9 Demographic Information....................................................................................................9 Yuba City Roadway Improvements and Cost Allocations .............................. 12 Capital Improvement Program........................................................................................ 12 Roadway Facility Cost Allocations .................................................................................. 17 Nexus Findings .............................................................................................................. 19 California Government Code Section 66001 .............................................................. 19 California Government Code Section 66016.5 (AB 602) ....................................... 21 Fee Program Implementation and Administration ........................................... 24 Inflation Adjustment............................................................................................................24 Implementing Ordinances/Resolutions......................................................................... 25 Fee Administration............................................................................................................... 25 Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers................................................................. 25 Fee Credit and Reimbursement to Developers.......................................................... 27 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process ........................................................................ 28 Programming Revenues and Projects with the
Capital Improvement Plan................................................................................................ 28 Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................ 28 Appendices
Appendix A: City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations, prepared by Fehr & Peers
Appendix B: Summary of Roadway Capital Improvement Program Appendix C: Transportation Impact Fee Comparisons
Appendix D: Development Impact Fee Comparisons

List of Tables and Figure
Table 1-1. Roadway Facility Fees.........................................................................................2 Table 2-1. Yuba City 2040 Buildout Estimates............................................................. 10 Table 2-2. PPH—National Data Single Family Detached Units ............................... 11 Table 3-1. Description of Roadway Improvements .................................................... 13 Table 3-2. Roadway Fee Program Cost Summary...................................................... 15 Table 3-3. Roadway Facilities Costs by Category ........................................................16 Table 3-4. Roadway Facility Fees by Residential Unit Size Range........................ 18 Figure 1. Number of Lanes and Functional Classification— Buildout Conditions........................................................................................... 14

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 1
Introduction and Executive Summary
Under the direction of the City, Fehr & Peers prepared an updated traffic analysis to model future land use and transportation demands-related roadway circulation needs and MHM Engineers & Surveyors prepared detailed roadway improvement costs estimates (Roadway Facilities Capital Improvement Program [CIP or Roadway CIP]) for those roadway facilities. Fehr & Peers prepared a City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations report1(Fee Calculations or Fee Calculations Report) to inform the calculations in this City of Yuba City Roadway Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (Nexus Study). This Nexus Study justifies the maximum allowable roadway impact fees that may be collected by the City. This fee program is referred to hereafter as the City of Yuba City Roadway Fee Program (Roadway Fee Program).

Roadway Fee Pro gram Overview
The purpose of the Nexus Study is to establish the Roadway Fee Program and the legally required nexus findings for the City to implement the Roadway Fee Program and to set the initial development impact fees (roadway fees or fees).

This Nexus Study also summarizes key components of the implementation and administration of the proposed Roadway Fee Program. As described herein, the Roadway Fee Program may be updated periodically to reflect changes in land uses, facilities requirements, improvement costs, and other fee program information over time.

The Roadway Fee Program will be a City-implemented roadway fee applicable to new development in the City. The Roadway Fee Program will contain the following fee components:
• Roadways Fee
• Administration Fee
Table 1-1 summarizes the proposed Roadway Fee by residential and commercial land use. For each land use, the administration component fee is calculated as 2 percent of the cost and will fund administration of the Roadway Fee Program.

The Roadway Fee will be charged and collected per residential dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space and are consistent with the requirements of California Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 legislation, as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code sections 66000 et. seq.). 1 City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations report by Fehr & Peers dated December 6, 2024.

Table 1-1
Yuba City Roadway Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Roadway Facility Fees
Residential Land Uses
Nonresidentail Land Uses
Neighborhood Commercial ksf $ 29,535 $ 591 $ 30,126
Community Commercial ksf $ 28,612 $ 572 $ 29,184
Regional Commercial ksf $ 39,688 $ 794 $ 40,482
Office ksf $ 16,657 $ 333 $ 16,990
Light Industrial ksf $ 6,165 $ 123 $ 6,288
Manufacture ksf $ 9,280 $ 186 $ 9,466
PQP (Office) ksf $ - $ - $ -
Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City
[1] City administration fee equal to 2%
2 Prepared by EPS 3/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 m02 3.18.2025.xlsx Single Family Residential DU $ 14,696 $ 16,299 $ 17,925 $ 294 $ 326 $ 359 $ 14,990 $ 16,625 $ 18,284 Multi Family Residential DU $ 7,041 $ 7,809 $ 8,588 $ 141 $ 156 $ 172 $ 7,182 $ 7,965 $ 8,760 Single Family Residential - Senior DU $ 3,768 $ 4,179 $ 4,596 $ 75 $ 84 $ 92 $ 3,843 $ 4,263 $ 4,688 Multifamily Residential - Senior DU $ 2,886 $ 3,200 $ 3,520 $ 58 $ 64 $ 70 $ 2,944 $ 3,264 $ 3,590 Mobile Home DU $ 7,285 $ 8,080 $ 8,886 $ 146 $ 162 $ 178 $ 7,431 $ 8,242 $ 9,064 Fee Fee
sqft per ksf sqft per ksf sqft ksf

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 3
To address provisions of California Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), enacted in 2021, Roadway Fees will vary based on residential dwelling unit size. AB 602 modified the Mitigation Fee Act and stipulates that a jurisdiction must calculate residential fees proportionately to the square footage of the dwelling units, with the exception of water and sewer fees and any other fees for which specific findings can be made as to why the fees should not be enacted on a square foot basis. The Mitigation Fee Act requirements are detailed in the next section.

In response to the provisions of AB 602, Roadway Fees will differ by dwelling unit size with the proposed residential fee land uses for all fee components summarized below:

Roadways Residential Fee Categories
• Single Family <1,500 sq. ft.
• Single Family 1,500 sq. ft.–2,499 sq. ft.
• Single Family >2,500 sq. ft.
• Multifamily (same size ranges)
• Single Family – Senior (same size ranges)
• Multifamily – Senior (same size ranges)
• Mobile Home (same size ranges)
The proposed fees are based on the best land use information, backbone infrastructure and public facilities costs estimates, funding source information, and administrative cost estimates available at this time. The cost estimates presented in this report are in constant 2024 dollars. The following chapters of this report detail the land uses, facilities requirements, cost estimates, and cost allocation methodology used to estimate the fees.

Nexu s Stud y Req uireme nts
California Government Code 66000
The purpose of a Nexus Study is to establish the legally required nexus (or reasonable relationship) between projected new residential and nonresidential development and the capital facilities that will be required to serve that new development.

As briefly described in the previous section, the nexus requirements for imposing development impact fees were established under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act; California Government Code section 66000 and following). The Act sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. The procedures require that a “reasonable

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 4
relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.”2 Specifically, each local agency imposing a fee must:
• Identify the purpose of the fee.
• Identify how the fee is to be used.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. • Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

City Determination Affecting Roadway Facility Cost Allocations The City’s roadway facilities CIP include approximately $39.7 million in costs for utility construction and relocation. These costs are related to new or expanded roadway construction where the adjacent utilities will have to be relocated or placed underground. A disproportionate majority of the utility construction and relocation expenditures are adjacent to planned residential development (as measured by lineal feet of street frontage). When frontage for parks, recreation and open space and public/semi-public uses are excluded, planned residential development represents approximately 79 percent of the street frontage while nonresidential uses represent the remaining 21 percent.

Before adjustment, residential development reflects approximately 63 percent of total dwelling unit equivalent from planned development. Thus, before adjustment, residential development would be allocated approximately $24.9 million of the total $39.7 million in utility construction and relocation costs.

The roadway fee calculations in the Fee Calculations report adjust $24.9 million to a total of $31.3 million (increase of $6.4 million) to allocate 79 percent of the utility construction and relocation costs to residential development.

Assembly Bill 602
In addition, in 2021, AB 602 amended the requirements that would apply to new or updated impact fees by creating a “standards and practices” section to the Act, codified as Government Code Section 66016.5. This section is both declaratory of previously existing law and added certain new requirements. A new provision that pertains to this report requires that a nexus study “shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of 2 Public Needs & Private Dollars; William Abbott, Marian E. Moe, and Marilee Hanson, page 109.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5
proposed units of the development” [66016.5(a)(5)(A)], and “large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study” [66016.5(a)(6)]. The City has prepared a Roadway Facility Capital Improvement Plan that is summarized in Appendix B of this Nexus Study.

Water and sewer systems are specifically exempt from the requirements of Section 66016.5. An exemption to the square footage allocation method may be made for other backbone infrastructure if the nexus study makes the following three findings:
• An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project. • An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
• That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Section 66016.5 [66016.5(a)(5)(C)] also states that the square footage allocation method “does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments.”
In response to these provisions of AB 602, this Nexus Study makes findings justifying the use of the residential fee land uses summarized above for the various fee components. Chapter 4 details all required nexus findings. For the Roadway Fee, the City has decided to establish separate fees for single family and multifamily units and for senior categories of these land use types in recognition of different persons per household and trip generating characteristics for these different types of units.

Senate Bill 13 and Accessory Dwelling Units
In addition to the considerations discussed above pursuant to AB 602, a separate piece of legislation, California Senate Bill 13 (SB 13,) passed in 2019, establishes a new system for assessing fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). It amended California Government Code Section 65852.2(3)(A)(f)(3) to read:
“A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 6
Based on this section of the California Government Code, any ADU smaller than 750 square feet is exempt from Roadway Fee Program fees. Fees on ADUs larger than 750 square feet require the City to perform the following calculations:
1) Determine the total habitable building square footage of both the proposed ADU and the primary residential unit on the lot on which the ADU is proposed.

As an example, assume that a primary single family dwelling unit has 2,000 habitable building square feet and the proposed ADU has 1,000 habitable building square feet.
2) Calculate the ADU’s habitable building square feet as a percentage of the primary unit’s habitable building square feet.

In the example from step 1), the size of the ADU is 50 percent of the primary residential unit.
3) Identify the fee category and fee that would have applied to the primary residential unit. In the Roadway Fee Program, the fee category would differ for the different fee components.

In the example from step 1), the fee category is “Single Family 1,500 sq. ft.— 2,499 sq. ft.”
4) Calculate the ADU fees as the percentage from step 2) multiplied by the Roadway Fee for the fee category identified in step 3).

In the example from step 1), the ADU fee is 50 percent of the primary unit fee.

Roadway Fee Pro gram Imp lemen tatio n
an d A dmin is tra tio n
Implementation
The proposed Roadway Fee Program will be approved by the City through an ordinance establishing and authorizing collection of the fee and a resolution setting the amount of the fees. The Roadway Fee Program will be independent and separate from all other City, Sutter County (County), other agency, or regional development impact fees that may be applicable to residential and nonresidential development in the City.

Administration
The City will administer the Roadway Fee Program. The Roadway Fee Program will include a 2 percent planning and administration component to fund Roadway Fee Program administration. The administration component of the fee must be paid in cash at the issuance of a building permit to provide the City with funding to administer the Roadway Fee Program, while fee credits may be available for the

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
other fee components (as detailed in Chapter 5). Administration of the Roadway Fee Program will include the following major tasks:
• Tracking all Roadway Fee Program payments and assignment of fee credits and reimbursements for improvements constructed privately by developers. • Tracking the progress of construction contracts for Roadway Fee Program improvements.
• Performing annual fee adjustments to account for the inflation of infrastructure and public facilities costs.
• Conducting periodic reviews of development projections, facilities requirements, improvement costs, funding sources, and cost allocation methodologies and making necessary adjustments to the Roadway Fee Program.
• Preparing the required annual and five-year reports on the status of the Roadway Fee Program.

The Roadway Fee Program implementation and administration are detailed in Chapter 6 of this report. Using its authority to implement the Roadway Fee Program, the City reserves the right to make interpretations, clarifications, or other modifications to the Roadway Fee Program implementation and administration provisions summarized in this Nexus Study.

Supp ortin g Do cumen ts
The following documents produced by or for the City are being prepared in conjunction with this analysis:
• City of Yuba City General Plan.
• City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model (2020 update) prepared by Fehr & Peers.
• Fee Calculations report – March 2025 (Fehr & Peers).
• CIP prepared by MHM Engineers and Surveyors (2025). A summary of the CIP is included as Appendix B of this report.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 8
Orga niz ation of Rep ort
This Nexus Study is organized into the following chapters:
• Chapter 1 summarizes the proposed Roadway Fee Program. • Chapter 2 identifies the land uses that will be subject to the Roadway Fee Program.
• Chapter 3 details the Roadway Fee Program improvements, estimated costs, cost allocations, and fee calculations.
• Chapter 4 summarizes the nexus findings for each Roadway Fee Program component.
• Chapter 5 describes Roadway Fee Program implementation and administration.

In addition, the Nexus Study contains the following appendices:
• Appendix A: City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations (Fehr & Peers).
• Appendix B: Summary of Roadway CIP.
• Appendix C: Transportation Impact Fee Comparisons
• Appendix D: Development Impact Fee Comparisons

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9
Land Uses and Demographics
The City’s land use and growth projections are derived from the City’s General Plan document and were summarized in the Fee Calculations Report. While the City provided land use information for full City buildout, a “market absorption” scenario corresponding to cumulative development through 2040 was chosen for the traffic modeling and Fee Calculations Report.

Dem ograp h i c I n forma t ion
Land Use Information
Table 2-1 details the base year and market absorption 2040 buildout estimates from the Fee Calculations Report. As shown, the City anticipates residential growth of approximately 21,500 single family units, 6,900 multifamily units and approximately 12.4 million square feet of nonresidential development.

The estimated number of persons per unit and trips per household by persons per unit factors are used in the cost allocation. As discussed in Chapter 1, in response to the provisions of AB 602, the City is permitted to establish different fees for different land use types. Thus, the roadway fee is proposed to have different residential fee categories, as summarized below:
• Single family by unit size range
• Single family – Senior by unit size range
• Multifamily by unit size range
• Multifamily – Senior by unit size range
Persons per Household and Trips per Household Factors
EPS compiled information from the U.S. Census American Housing Survey (AHS), the National Household Travel Survey and the City to complete the calculations shown in Table 2-2. The AHS data are for single family detached units and are compiled into three dwelling unit size ranges. These unit size ranges were selected based on review of historical single family dwelling unit building permit data from the City. When estimated trips per household from the National Travel Survey are included, the estimated trips per household unit size are calculated for each dwelling unit size range. The unit size category of 1,500 to 2,499 building square feet is considered the average unit size so each other unit size category is compared with the average to derive a trip generation dwelling unit equivalent (DUE) by unit size range.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 10
Table 2-1. Yuba City 2040 Buildout Estimates
Land Use Category Unit
Base
Year
(2020)
Buildout
Condition
Land Use Growth 1
Residential
Single-Family
Residential DU 18,468 39,997 21,529
Multi-Family Residential DU 5,134 12,067 6,933
Retail
Neighborhood
Commercial KSF 592 1,240 648
Community Commercial KSF 3,565 5,685 2,120
Regional Commercial KSF 1,235 2,353 1,118
Non-Retail
Office KSF 1,126 5,606 4,480
Light Industrial KSF 4,681 8,184 3,503
Manufacture 2 KSF - 1,193 1,193
Public/Quasi-Public
(PQP) KSF 230 230
Notes:
1 Represents growth between base year (2020) model and buildout model. 2Base year model classifies manufacturing uses as light industrial.

Per previous discussions with the City and EPS, it was decided that growth in PQP would be classified as office given similar trip rates.

DU = dwelling units. KSF = thousand square feet of occupied space.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Table 2-2
Yuba City Roadway Facilities Fee Nexus Study
PPH - National Data Single Family Detached Units
Dwelling Units (in Thousands) by Number of Persons Per Unit and Unit Square Feet <1,500
Sq. Ft.
1,500-2,499
Sq. Ft.
2,500+
Sq. Ft Total
Trips per Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Household Units Units Trips Units Units Trips Units Units Trips [1]
Persons per Unit
1 person 3.82 6,852 30% 1.13 6,218 18% 0.70 2,065 11% 0.41 15,137 2 persons 6.88 8,194 35% 2.43 12,688 38% 2.58 7,314 38% 2.61 28,202 3 persons 9.44 3,547 15% 1.44 5,924 18% 1.66 2,960 15% 1.45 12,434 4 persons 12.61 2,658 11% 1.44 5,166 15% 1.93 3,980 21% 2.60 11,808 5 persons 14.72 1,181 5% 0.75 2,436 7% 1.06 1,877 10% 1.43 5,496 6 persons 15.28 511 2% 0.34 868 3% 0.39 730 4% 0.58 2,110 7 persons or more [2] 21.03 279 1% 0.25 485 1% 0.30 383 2% 0.42 1,148 Total 23,222 100% 7.78 33,785 100% 8.63 19,309 100% 9.49 76,334 Pct. of Total Units 30% 44% 25% 100%
Trip Generation DUE [3] 0.90 1.00 1.10
Source: US Census American Housing Survey 2021 - National, GHD, John E. Long and EPS. [1] 2017 National Household Travel Survey, California Add On. [2] Assumes 7 persons in a "7 persons or more household." [3] Trips as compared to trips for a 1,500-2,499 sq. ft. unit. 11 Prepared by EPS 12/31/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 m02 3.18.2025.xlsx

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Yuba City Roadway Improvements and
Cost Allocations
This chapter summarizes the planned roadway facilities estimated costs and funding sources, which are based on the Fee Calculations report and MHM Roadway Facilities CIP, which is included as Appendix B of this Nexus Study.

Cap i ta l Im p roveme n t Program
As detailed in Appendix B, the CIP contains approximately $447.3 million in roadway facility costs. The CIP was informed by a series of model runs performed by Fehr & Peers with input and feedback from City staff. The City contemplates development will occur in five planning areas (North, Northwest, North Central, Southwest, and Southeast) shown in Table 3-1. Specifically in the west and southern portions of the City, there are several large Specific Plans or Master Plans that have been approved.

Figure 1 illustrates the planned roadway facility network including the roadway facilities included in the CIP. The Fee Calculations report summarized the categories of major roadway costs as displayed in the table below.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 12

Table 3-1
Yuba City Roadway Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Description of Roadway Improvements
Type [1] Description
East-West Roadway Capacity Increase Widening of four lanes of partes of Butte House Road, Bridge Street, Franklin Road, Lincoln Road, Lassen Boulevard, and Bogue Road. Westerly extension of Bridge Street.

North-South Roadway Capacity Increase Widening to four lanes of parts of George Washington Boulevard, Walton Avenue, Harter Parkway, Tharp Road, and Garden Highway. Estension as two or four lanes of Western Parkway and Harter (Tuly) Parkway.

State Highway Improvements New Interchange at State Route 99/Pease Road. Widening of State Route 20 from four to siz lanes from State Route 20 to west of Stabler Lane.

Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City
[1] This is a partial/summarized list. Improvements are also planned on other roadways (e.g., Pease Road, Township Road, etc.) to upgrade facility type but may not solely increase capacity. See Appendix B for the complete list of projects. 13 Prepared by EPS 12/31/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 m02 3.18.2025.xlsx

Pease Rd
Plumas St
S GeorgeWashington Blvd
Hooper Rd
Harter Pky
NWalton Ave Stabler Ln SWalton Ave
E Onstott Frontage Rd
Clark Ave
Live Oak Blvd
2 2 2
2 4
2 2 2
2 2
4 4 2
2 4 4 4
4 20 4
2 4
4 4
2 2
2 Queens Ave
4 4
4 4
2 6
4 4
2 4
2 2 4
2 2 2
2 4
4 6 6 5
4 4 2
4 2

MARYSVILLE
4 2
2 2 2 4
4 2
4 2 2
YUBA CITY 4
4 4
2 4
2 4 4 4
4 4 4 4
2 2
4 4 4 2
4 2 2 4
4 2
99 2
2 4
2 Richland Rd
4 Lincoln Rd
4 4 4 4
4 2
2 2 2 2 4 4
2 2 2 4
2 2
2 2
Bogue Rd 4
4 4 4 4
2 4
4 2
2 4 2
2 2
2 2
X Roadway Number of Lanes
(Excluding turn pockets or
Functional Classification
Freeway Parkway Local Street
center turn lanes)
New Interchange
Highway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
New/Widened Road
Figure 1
Number of Lanes and
Franklin Rd
StewartRd
Feather River
N:\2019 Projects\3764.00_CONF_Yuba_City_Impact_Fee_Study_Model_Update\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig0x_FClass_Cumulative_10.51.mxd S Township Rd
Western Pkwy
N GeorgeWashington Blvd
Tierra Buena Rd El Margarita Rd
Tharp Rd
Gray Ave
2

Functional Classification - Buildout Conditions

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Roadway Fee Program Costs
Table 3-2 summarizes the Roadway Fee Program improvements and costs that are included in Appendix B.

Table 3-2. Roadway Fee Program Cost Summary
Roadway
Fee
Item [1] Program
North - South Roadways $316,614,000
East-West Roadways $303,140,000
Interchanges and Bridges [2] $16,751,000
Total $636,505,000
TOTAL ROUNDED [3] $636,500,000
Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City
[1] All costs are rounded to the nearest thousand, except the Total Rounded Cost.
[2] Amounts shown for Interchanges and Bridges under
"Roadways Cost" is a combination of roadway, bridge
and related costs.
[3] Rounded amount used in Fehr & Peers fee report.

Roadway Facilities
The Roadway Fee Program also includes an Administration component that is calculated as 2 percent of all Roadway Fee Program costs. The following sections generally describe roadway facility cost categories.

Table 3-3 illustrates the roadway facility costs by category of cost. The total costs in Table 3-3 may differ from the totals in Table 3-2 because of rounding.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 15

Table 3-3
Yuba City Roadway Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Roadway Facilities Costs by Category
Right Utility Roadway Construction Soft Adjustment
Item [1] of Way Relocation Roadway Cost Intersections Cost Costs for Rounding [3]
Total
North - South Roadways $48,780,000 $16,830,000 $164,660,000 $12,100,000 $74,240,000 $4,000 $316,614,000 East-West Roadways $31,880,000 $43,210,000 $109,350,000 $51,250,000 $67,460,000 ($10,000) $303,140,000 Interchanges and Bridges [2] $1,240,000 $0 $10,930,000 $0 $4,590,000 ($9,000) $16,751,000 Total $81,900,000 $60,040,000 $284,940,000 $63,350,000 $146,290,000 ($15,000) $636,505,000 TOTAL ROUNDED [3] $636,500,000
Percentage of Total 12.9% 9.4% 44.8% 10.0% 23.0% 0.0% 100.0% Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City
[1] All costs are rounded to the nearest thousand.
[2] Amounts shown for Interchanges and Bridges under "Roadways Cost" is a combination of roadway, bridge and related costs. [3] Rounded amount used in Fehr & Peers fee report.

16 Prepared by EPS 12/31/2025 Z:
\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 m02 3.18.2025.xlsx

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Roadway Right of Way
The Roadway Fee Program includes a total of approximately $81.9 million in land acquisition and related right-of-way costs.

Utility Construction and Relocation
As noted, construction of new roadway facilities and additional capacity will require utility construction and relocation costs. The CIP includes an estimated $60.0 million in utility construction and relocation costs.

Roadway Construction
The majority of the CIP costs are roadway construction costs, which include grading, aggregate base, asphalt, curb, and gutter, etc. The Roadway Fee Program includes a total of approximately $348.3 million in roadway construction, consisting of approximately $284.9 million in roadway costs and $63.4 million in intersection costs.

Soft Costs
The Roadway Fee Program includes soft costs of approximately $147.3 million for design, construction management and completion of the roadway projects.

Roadway Fac i l i ty Cost A l loca t ion s
For each improvement type, the Roadway Fee is estimated by allocating the roadway costs to the various land uses based on each land use’s relative demand for and benefit received from the facilities.

Table 3-4 provides a cost allocation summary and fee estimate.

The general steps to allocate the costs and estimate the fees are outlined below:
1) Determine the Roadway Fee Program costs. These costs were detailed in the previous chapter.
2) Determine the Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) factor for each land use type that serves as a measure of demand placed on the improvement relative to the demand of an average “Single Family 1,500 – 2,499 sq. ft.” dwelling unit. 3) For each residential unit size category, estimate the fees using the DUE factor by dwelling unit size category from Table 2-1.
4) Add the cost of fee program administration to determine total fee amount.

Costs are shown on a per unit basis for residential development and on a per one thousand building square foot basis for nonresidential development.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 17

Table 3-4
Yuba City Roadway Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Roadway Facility Fees by Residential Unit Size Range
Residential Land Uses
Nonresidentail Land Uses
Neighborhood Commercial ksf 2.56 3.2 1.89 $ 29,535 $ 30,126 Community Commercial ksf 2.56 3.1 1.83 $ 28,612 $ 29,185 Regional Commercial ksf 2.56 4.3 2.54 $ 39,688 $ 40,482 Office ksf 1.32 3.5 1.07 $ 16,657 $ 16,990
Light Industrial ksf 0.45 3.8 0.40 $ 6,165 $ 6,289
Manufacture ksf 0.66 3.9 0.59 $ 9,280 $ 9,466
PQP (Office) ksf 1.4 3.4 1.10 $ - $ -
Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City
[1] City administration fee equal to 2%
18 Prepared by EPS 12/31/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 m02 3.18.2025.xlsx Single Family Residential DU 1.17 3.70 1.00 $ 16,299 0.90 1.00 1.10 $ 14,696 $ 16,299 $ 17,925 $ 14,990 $ 16,625 $ 18,284 Multi Family Residential DU 0.61 3.40 0.48 $ 7,809 0.43 0.48 0.53 $ 7,041 $ 7,809 $ 8,588 $ 7,181 $ 7,965 $ 8,760 Single Family Residential - Senior DU 0.30 3.70 0.26 $ 4,179 0.23 0.26 0.28 $ 3,768 $ 4,179 $ 4,596 $ 3,843 $ 4,263 $ 4,688 Multifamily Residential - Senior DU 0.25 3.40 0.20 $ 3,200 0.18 0.20 0.22 $ 2,886 $ 3,200 $ 3,520 $ 2,943 $ 3,264 $ 3,590 Mobile Home DU 0.58 3.70 0.50 $ 8,080 0.45 0.50 0.55 $ 7,285 $ 8,080 $ 8,886 $ 7,431 $ 8,241 $ 9,064 DUE Factor Adjustment by
Size Range
Land Use Category Unit Unit Length
DUE Factor
per Unit
Adjusted Fee
Per Unit
sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft ksf