Live. . Life. Lincoln . Live Life Lincoln. Live Life. . Lincoln - Live - Life - Lincoln . Live Life Lincoln  MINUTES CITY OF LINCOLN Regular Meeting June 28, 2022  CITY COUNCIL, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY and REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY  OPEN SESSION MEETING  Meeting conducted in-person at City Hall, 600 6th Street, Lincoln, CA and virtually on Zoom with Live  Stream on City of Lincoln YouTube Channel and' WAVE Channel 18. 1. CALL TO ORDER by Mayor Andreatta at 6:00PM. 2. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Paul Joiner  Dan Karleskint William Lauritsen Alyssa Silhi Mayor Holly Andreatta Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney Matt Alves, Public Safety Chief Jennifer Brown, Chief Innovation & Technology Officer Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk Travis Williams, City Engineer (consultant) Nita Wracker, Finance Director Veronica Rodriguez, Human Resources Director  Roll Call: 5 members present, 0 members absent, 0 members excused.  Staff members present: Sean Scully, City Manager  Various City employees, consultants and members of the public were also present in person and via 3. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION - Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney, stated staff met on two  teleconference.  property negotiations but there was no reportable action. 4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE led by Richard Pearl, City Treasurer.  5. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS - none. 6. PRESENTATIONS - none.  7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDAITEMS  a) Gus Murphy, a Lincoln resident, discussed increase of shoplifting incidents at numerous stores. He is working with multiple stores in the City, Lincoln PD, the City, the Placer County DA's office to address b) Mike Nusink, al Lincoln resident, is concerned with a home-based business in his neighborhood Mayor Andreatta asked City staff to respond. City Attorney stated resident holds a legal home-based business permit and is not in violation. It is the City's practice toi follow the Public Records Act which states non-disclosure of confidential information. City Attorney reiterated that this issue is not related to an occupancy permit issue as stated by Mr. Nusink. Mayor Andreatta thanked City Attorney and stated the City Attorney will follow up with Mr. Nusink to discuss concerns. Public Comment closed at 6:11pm.  concerns.  600 Sixth Streer . Lincoln, CA 95648 www.d.lincoln.cus 916-434-2400    Live Life Lincoln Live Life Lincoln. Live - Life Lincoln Live . Life  Lincoln Live. Life Lipcoln  Page: 2of9  City Council, Public Finance Authority and Redevelopment Successor Agency Regular Meeting Minutes June 28, 2022 8. CONSENT  Mayor Andreatta asked if any members of the City Council or public would like to pull any items from the Consent Agenda, hearing none Mayor Andreatta called for a motion. Councimember Joiner motioned approval of the items and the motion was seconded by Councimember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Joiner - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, Silhi - Aye, and  Andreatta - Aye. Those items approved were:  8.A. Approval of Minutes of June 28, 2022 Regular City Council meeting.  8.B. Receive and file Contract Report identifying contracts, task orders and purchase orders executed  by the City Manager and filed in the Office oft the City Clerk.  8.C. Receive and File Budget to Actual Report for period ending May 31, 2022.  8.D. Receive and File Treasurer's Report for the period ending April 30, 2022 and May 31, 2022. 8.E. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-153 accepting the Warrants of June 10 and 17, 2022 to be placed on file 8.F. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-154 requesting Placer County Collect the Charges for the District on the 8.G. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-155 authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the December 8, 2020 Task Order with REY Engineers, Inc. for Professional Design Services in the amount of $98,840 and extending the contract term to December 31, 2023, for professional design services for the 8.H. Waive second full reading and adopt, by title only, ORDINANCE 1046B of the City of Lincoln amending Section 13.04.360 to the Lincoln Municipal Code establishing source water connection charges. 8.. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-156 amending its existing multi-year contract with Stantec, for operations and maintenance oft the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Reclamation Facility (WWTPRF), to allow fora two-year extension in term (with the option to terminate the contract at any time), and to define total compensation of services for the WWTPRF operations over the two-year period, and to allow for an assignability clause that allows the city to transfer the. Agreement over to another public agency during the 8.J. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-157 authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 with Cagwin Dorward for additional landscape areas at pre-determined square footage rates for all new Parks and Streetscape Maintenance once accepted by the City. All services will piggyback to existing Landscape Maintenance Contract terms and specifications as shown in RFP 08222021-01.The first term of the three- year-year contract shall end on June 30, 2025, with an option to extend for one additional three-year period ending June 30, 2027. The Contract allows for a 2.5% escalation and shall be in effect at annual renewal until June 30, 2027. All additional Landscape services will be paid from CFD (Community Facilities CFD 2018-1 (Community Facilities District Fund 285). Fund 285 has a projected 21/22 ending fund balance  with the City Clerk and available for audit. FY2022-23 County Property Tax Roll.  Water Distribution Rehab H, land J Streets Project - CIP 485.  two-year term.  District) 2018-1, Fund 285. off $2,118,794.  600 Sixth Strect Lincoln, CA Ks'sadlinahncawt 916-434-2400    Live Life Lincoln . Live Life. Lincoin. Live - Life Lincoln Live.Life Lincoln Live Life Lincoln.  Page 30 of9  City Council, Public Finance Authority and Redevelopment Successor. Agency Regular Meeting Minutes June 28, 2022  8.K. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-158 authorizing the City Manager to execute Contracts for On-Call Professional Services for Various Projects and Programs with 4Leaf, Inc., A. Graham and Associates, Alpha CM, Ascent, Bennett Engineering, Blackburn Consulting, BPR Consulting Group, Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc., Coastland Civil Engineering, CSG Consultants, DKS Associates, Dokken Engineering, Inc., Dudek, Economic & Planning Systems, ECORP Consulting, Inc., ESA, First Carbon Solutions, Geocon Consultants, Inc., HydroScience Engineers, Interwest, KASL Consulting Engineers, Inc., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Land Logistics, Manger Solutions, Mark Thomas, Psomas, Quincy Engineering, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of CONSOR North America, Inc., Raney Planning & Management, Inc., REY Engineers, Inc., Salaber Associates, Inc., Shums Coda Associates, Stantec, TRC Engineers, Inc., UNICO There is no contract values to the On-Call Professional Services Contracts. Notices to proceed will be authorized for specific project only after sufficient funding has been deposited to the City for development projects or after a Capital Improvement Project is funded and is included in the annual City budget. 8.L. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-159 authorizing the City Manager or designee to enter into an agreement and accept grant funding in the amount of $150,000 from the State of California for the 2022/2023 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant to fund two police traffic vehicles and obtain all equipment necessary to conduct safe and effective traffic enforcement with the goal of reducing and combating traffic related incidents, injuries and deaths related to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, to include cannabis and to execute any and all necessary documents associated with acceptance  Engineering, West Yost, Wood Rodgers, Youngdahl Consulting Group.  and administration of said funds. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conduct a Public Hearing; 2022/23; and  9.A.  2. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-160 approving the Final Engineer's Report, Ordering Improvements, and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1f for Fiscal Year 3. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-161 ordering the levy and collection of assessments within Landscaping The projected Fiscal Year 2022/23 collection ofa assessments is estimated to be $3,559,900, which provides funds that are necessary for maintenance activities associated with the Landscaping and Lighting Travis Williams, City Engineer (consultant) introduced Ed Espinoza from Francisco & Associates, the City's Lighting & Landscaping (LLAD) consultant, who presented the final step in the City's annual approval of the LLAD assessment. Mr. Espinoza gave a brief powerpoint presentation, made a part of these minutes of Al brief City Council discussion ensued regarding how fees apply towards shared use facilities. Next steps include conducting the Prop. 218 analysis and proceedings for the fiscal year of 2022/2023, determining benefit zones, appropriate assessment rates for a replacement LLAD, conducting public Sean Scully, City Manager, stated a possibility of going through the Prop 218 process to include those residents that are not paying funds towards shared facilities. Shared facilities are enjoyed and utilized by  and Lighting District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022/23.  District #1.  mention thereof.  outreach and moving forward with formal process.  everyone. Second risk is in cutting costs would result in cutting services.  Public hearing was opened at 6:34pm  600 Sixth Strect Lincoln, CA 95648 "www.di.lincohn.ca.us 916-434-2400    Live - Life - Lincoln - Live Life. Lincoln. Live Life Lincoln Live - Life Lincoln Live Life Lincoln  Page4of9  City Council, Public Finance Authority and Redevelopment Successor Agency Regular Meeting Minutes June 28, 2022  a.)Lena Labosky, a Lincoln resident, wanted to remind the City that Sun City Lincoln Hills residents  do not use shared facilities, as they pay their local charges.  Public hearing closed at 6:36pm  Mayor Andreatta closed the discussion with noi further public comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Joiner motioned approval of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Councimember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Joiner- Aye, Karleskint = Aye, Silhi- Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye. RESOLUTION 2022-160 approving the Final Engineer's Report, Ordering Improvements, and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022/23; and RESOLUTION 2022-161 ordering the levy and collection of 1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public testimony in regards to amending the Public Facilities Element (PFE) fees for transportation, wastewater, water, drainage and community services with an 2. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-162 adopting the Public Facilities Element Program Nexus Study, dated 3. Waive full reading and introduce by title only, ORDINANCE 1047B of the City of Lincoln amending Section 13.04.360 to the Lincoln Municipal Code establishing water connection charges; and 4. Waive full reading and introduce by title only, ORDINANCE 1048B oft the City of Lincoln amending Sections 13.12.050 and 13.12.060 establishing sewer connection charges and apportionment. (Travis Prior to meeting, Council received three opposition letters from the following: James Wiley of Taylor & Wiley, Chad Roberts of Hefner Law, and John Fett from the Economic Development Committee, all three Travis Williams gave a brief powerpoint presentation, made a part of these minutes of mention thereof, with background and overview of PFE adoption. State requirement changes July 1, 2022. State is changing Councilmember Joiner- raised concerns over documents missing from study & reasons for State deadline. Sean Scully, City Manager stated Staff is comfortable with identifying the methodology of how we are going too continue to apply PFE fees. Cityi is not disputing comments made by the development community. City wants to protect reasonable process at this point. State passed a law AB602 that upended how most fee studies were conducted. Previously, it was based on land use base but as of. July 1, 2022, it is based on square feet. Council asked to adopt framework method, not fees. Staff and Council discussed State  assessments within Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022/23.  9.B.  effective date of August 15, 2022; June 10, 2022 (PFE Update);  Williams)  letters are made a part of these minutes by mention thereof.  method and template.  standards, case law as a result of starting new template. Public Hearing opened at 7:02pm with the following comments:  a.). John Fett, a Lincoln resident and member of the Economic Development Committee, questioned the Nexus study and fundamental flaws with Goodwin Analysis. Concerned that information would lead to b.)Jeff Short, North State Building Industry Association, stated he appreciates efforts made by the City. Concerns with the information, caution City to not move to quickly and adopting resolution that would impact development for a number of years. Directed staff to develop fair fee schedule.  erroneous funding requirements.  600 Sixth Strect  Lincoln, CA Keis'svw.dlinainca +916-434-2400    Live Life Lincoin - Live. Life Lincoln. Live Life Lincoln Live - Life Lincoln - Live - Life Lipcoln  Page! 50 of9  City Council, Public Finance. Authority and Redevelopment Successor Agency Regular Meeting Minutes June 28, 2022  c.) Marcus LoDuca, a Roseville attorney, stated he received document on June 15th & shares Whipple's d.) Richard Pearl, City Treasurer, reiterated that the Council is asked to vote on the concept on the d.) Chad Roberts, Hefner Law, on behalf of Elliott Homes stated he addressed the letter sent to Council voicing concern with Nexus study. His client did not have an opportunity to address concerns with staff and the study could impact development in years to come. Mr. Roberts stated he understands pressure to adopt proposed Nexus study tonight to avoid requirements of AB 602 but he would like an additional  concerns. Asks City to review lessons other cities have learned. Nexus, butr not on the fees. Is the method correct?  conversation to discuss further with stakeholders and get it right.  Public Hearing closed at 7:19pm. conducting a new study.  Ab brief City Council discussion ensued regarding adopting framework, revisiting fees and risks of Mayor Andreatta closed the discussion with noi further public comments and called for a motion. Councimember Silh motioned approval of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Councimember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Silhi - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Joiner- Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: RESOLUTION 2022-162 adopting the Public Facilities Councimember Silhi moved to approve the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Councimember Joiner. By the following Vote (Approved): Silhi- - Aye, Joiner- Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Lauritsen = Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: Waive full reading and introduce by title only ORDINANCE 1047B of the City of Lincoln amending Section 13.04.360 to the Lincoln Municipal Code establishing water Councimember Silhi moved to approve the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Councimember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Silhi- - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Joiner- Aye, Lauritsen = Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: Waive full reading and introduce by title only ORDINANCE 1048B of the City of Lincoln amending Sections 13.12.050 and 13.12.060 establishing sewer connection charges  Element Program Nexus Study, dated June 10, 2022.  connection charges.  and apportionment. 10. GENERAL BUSINESS Service Supervisor Classification.  10.A. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-163 Approving a Revision to the Salary Schedule for the Customer Veronica Rodriguez, Human Resources Director provided a brief staff report on behalf of Justin Orton, Sr. Human Resources Analyst. A market study completed for supervisory position to ensure City was competitive and the study revealed position was 11.5% above market. Staff is requesting to fix salary to be ina alignment with staff compensation package. Fiscal impact equals a reduction of $5k/year and funding for the position is from Enterprise funds. No further comment from City Council or from the public. Councimember Joiner motioned approval of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Councimember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Joiner - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, Silhi - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: RESOLUTION 2022-163 Approving a Revision to the Salary  Schedule for the Customer Service Supervisor Classification  600 Sixth Strect * Lincoln, CA Kc'pww.alinalancau 916-434-2400    Live . Life Lincoln . Live . Life . Lincoln. Live Life Lincoln - Live . Life Lincoln . Live - Life Lipcoln  Page 6of9  City Council, Public Finance Authority and Redevelopment Successor. Agency Regular Meeting Minutes June 28, 2022  10.B. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-164 reclassifying the Finance Department's Accounting Manager position to a Financial Analyst and adoption of the salary schedule for the proposed Financial Analyst Veronica Rodriguez, Human Resources Director provided a brief staff report. A review of the needs of the Finance Department has identified the reclassification of its vacant Accounting Manager position to a Finance Analyst to meet the current and upcoming demands of the Department. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution reclassifying the Finance Department's Accounting Manager position to aF Finance. Analyst and the adoption of the salary schedule for the proposed Financial Analyst classification. The fiscal impact oft this request is approximately $153,703 per yeàr. No further comment from City Council Councimember Lauritsen motioned approval of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Councilmember Silhi. By the following Vote (Approved): Lauritsen - Aye, Silhi - Aye, Joiner- - Aye, Karleskint = Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: RESOLUTION 2022-164 reclassifying the Finance Department's Accounting Manager position to a Financial Analyst and adoption of the salary schedule for the proposed 10.C. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-165 approving the Annual Budget and Capital Improvement Plan for  classification.  ori from the public.  Financial Analyst classification.  Fiscal Year 2022-23, and adopting an Appropriations Limit for the City of Lincoln. Councimember Joiner- left meeting at 7:49pm and returned at 7:51pm. Mayor Andreatta- Left meeting at 7:53pm and returned at 7:55pm.  Sean Scully, City Manager thanked members oft the staff for their collaboration and months of work to piece together $129M puzzle. There are areas of concern and areas that the City can be proud of & that will Nita Wracker, Finance Director- Kudos to Ruthann, our Budget Manager for her tireless hours and dedication. Ms. Wracker gave a brief powerpoint presentation, made a part of these minutes of mention Abudget conversation ensued between City staff and Council. Councimember Lauritsen stated he appreciated efforts and budget workshop. Mayor Andreatta opened the discussion to the public with the a.)Erik Kurland, a Lincoln resident, viewing the meeting via Zoom, stated he would have liked to see Mayor Andreatta called for a motion to adopt resolution 2022-165. Councilmember Joiner motioned approval of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Councimember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Silhi - Aye, Joiner - Aye, Karleskint = Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: RESOLUTION 2022-165 approving the Annual Budget and Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 10.D. Receive an update on current planned and potential future rate studies for Water, Wastewater and Solid' Waste funds and provide any relevant direction on the timing for consideration of new rates as  benefit the community.  thereof.  following comment:  more information around our parks for this year and future years.  2022-23, and adopting an Appropriations Limit for the City of Lincoln.  appropriate.  600 Sixth Strect l Lincoln, CA 95648 www.d.lincoln.ca.us+916-4342400    Live - Life Lincoln - Live Life. - Lincoln. Live - Life Lincoln Live . Life - Lincoln - Live Life Lincoln  Page7of9  City Council, Public Finance Authority and Redevelopment Successor Agency Regular Meeting Minutes June 28, 2022  Sean Scully, City Manager, stated there are deficits in all three enterprise funds. He attributed rising costs to increased rates from wholesale providers but most notably, large deficit is due to lack of new rates over the last 9 years. Mr. Scully continued he'd prefer to bring a total package of rate increases of all three enterprise funds at one time because it gives members of the public a better holistic view of their utility bill. However, the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTRF) expansion must move forward so Staff is working Questions: How would we like to handle the solid waste and water rates? We are prepared to initiate studies on both. Do we start this fall or do we push out to next year? Either path would be appropriate. When would you like to see those studies? All follow Prop 218 which states that the City can't adopt rate AI brief discussion ensued by City Council. Council consensus was to roll out fee increase to waste water in the fall and address additional fees int the Spring. They requested Staff educate community on rate increases, why it is important, how it benefits the community. Mayor Andreatta opened the discussion to  on rate analysis for that expansion ini the next couple of months.  increases beyond a 5-year period.  the public with the following comment:  a.) Eric Kurland, a Lincoln resident, questioned process on how utility rates are voted upon and ori if Sean Scully, City Manager, stated utility rates are voted on by City Council and the Prop 218 process has ap provision that allows for a protest vote, which would have to be passed by a majority protest of the entire Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney- Offered to walk Mr. Kirkland through the process. Mayor Andreatta gained consensus from City Council to address waste water fee in the fall and then roll out additional fees 10.E. Receive a presentation from City Staff and Dan Heldridge of the Housing Trust Placer on possible partnership and funding opportunities on projects that support affordable housing development. Sean Scully, City Manager- Gave a brief introduction into an affordable housing program and whether or  they are mandated?  community.  int the spring.  not the City would be interested in contributing to a revolving loan fund.  Small and medium scale projects would qualify. is to help create and preserve affordable housing.  Dan Heldridge - Provided ani introduction and background. Housing Trust Placer formed in 2020. Mission City Council and Staff deliberated on funds, state and federal housing requirements, location and impact to the City. Mayor Andreatta confirmed Council was on board with looking at project and next steps would be 10.F. Discussion of proposed hotel incentive program and if sO desired Adopt RESOLUTION 2022- Sean Scully, City Manager, thanked EDC members for continued work to accelerate projects and recruit quality hotels. He continued developing and onboarding a hotel can be a lengthy multi- year process and a. Hotel incentive program was introduced by the prior City Manager. Mr. Scully stated the City would promote this program in anticipation of Placer Ranch development which may include lodging. The City would like to get ahead of their development, additionally, the City would like to attract desirable lodging. Significant public benefits include ease of use for families, attracting future developers. providing meeting  to look at a couple different funds.  166 authorizing and approving the Lincoln Hotel Incentive Program.  600 Sisth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 wwadilincol.cais 916-434-2400    Live . Life Lincoln - Live - Life Lincoln. Live. Life - Lincoln * Live Life  Lincoln . Live . Life Lincoln:  Page 8of9  City Council, Public Finance. Authority and Redevelopment Successor Agency Regular Meeting Minutes June 28, 2022  spaces and adds to a diverse economy. Program Eligibility requirements would be put into place provided Prior to meeting, Council received a letter in support from Tom Indrieri, Lincoln Area Chamber of  by the Economic Development Committee (EDC.)  Commerce, made a part of these minutes by mention thereof.  Mayor Andreatta open the discussion to the public with the following comments:  a.). Jason Price, EDC member and Lincoln resident, agreed that the project would help accelerate sales tax revenue and how it would positively impact the general fund. City is under represented from a hospitality standpoint. Lincoln is the gateway to wine and ale trails, concert venue, ag tourism, golf & sports b.)John Fett, EDC Chair and Lincoln resident, thanked EDC committee for their contributions. Program allows the developer a cushion & support from the City. Competition from County and surrounding c.) Richard Pearl, City Treasurer and Lincoln resident, stated 100% of TOT will be absorbed by the d.) James and Jeanette Guertin, La Quinta owners and Lincoln residents, gave thanks for considering project and looking forward to project completion. They stated hotel financing has been challenging and an incentive program is a positive tol help achieve financing. They concluded they are supportive of this Mayor Andreatta thanked La Quinta owners for hanging in there throughout each phase. e.)Tony Frayji, of Frayji Design Group, reminded the current council that the hotel on Ferrari Ranch Road wouldn't be here if City of Lincoln hadn't worked with them as well, as well as the development around the surrounding areas. Start somewhere, to help open the doors fori future business development. Mayor Andreatta closed the discussion with no further comments and called for a motion. Councimember Joiner motioned approval of the program and the motion was seconded by Councimember Silhi. By the following Vote (Approved): Joiner - Aye, Silhi - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: RESOLUTION 2022-166 authorizing and approving the Lincoln Hotel Incentive Program.  activities. Smart to entice hotel development into the city through this program.  cities, if the City doesn't act we could lose out on securing quality development.  City.  community, and want this project to succeed.  11. COUNCIL INITIATED BUSINESS  Councilmember Joiner stated one of EDC's roles is to retain business and noticed Raising Cain's is on the agenda for the Design Review Board on June 30th, 2022 at same location of Kobe restaurant. He suggests EDC reach out to Kobe to assist them tol help find another location, as we want to retain their business.  12. INFORMATION ITEMS 12.A. Airport Appreciation Day.  Sean Scully, City Manager, provided a brief introduction and goals of a future airport appreciation day. City Manager turned it over to Richard Pearl who is spearheading the project. Event would take place October Event willl highlight airport which would include youth and family centric activities, fly-by's and displayair-  8, 2022.  600 Sisth Strect Lincoln, CA 95648 www.di.lncoln.ca.us 916-434-2400    Live . Life . Lincoln . Live Life. Lincoln. Live. . Life Lincoln - Live . Life Lincoln Live Life Lincoln  Page! 9of9  City Council, Public Finance Authority and Redevelopment Successor Agency Regular Meeting Minutes June 28, 2022  craft. City would incur a minimum cost for portable toilets. Event would be staffed by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). Mayor Andreatta thanked Code Enforcement for clean up efforts. City Attorney gave an update on code & lease violations. Dilapidated items will be removed prior to event. Councilmember Silhi provided an update on the 15t in person regional homeless taskforce planning meeting Mayor Andreatta provide an update on the 4th of. July Fireworks Committee fundraising efforts. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC)generously donated $5k. Mayor Andreatta presented the check to Anthony Bersamin, President of the 4th of. July Committee, stated committee is operating in the black. Residents have generously donated. PG&E is taking care oft traffic control. Mayor Andreatta thanked City staff for continual support. Events include annual parade, Potters game and fireworks. 13. ADJOURNMENT- Mayor Andreatta adjourned the meeting at approx. 9:33pm.  on June 29th, 2022. All elected staff is encouraged to attend.  Submitted by:  BweBarls Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk  600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648-www.cilincoln.ca.us*91S+916-434-2400    NCOLA  GUS  Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 1  FY 2022-23 Overview and Final Approval  ANDYASSOCIATES FRANCISCO Where Fund Tomorrow's Innovative Strategies    LLAD Formation and Annexations  The City's LLAD was formed in 1982 to fund the maintenance of City landscaping, parks, open space,  trails, and streetighting. Annexation History  From FY 1982-83 through FY 2003-04, new development annexed into the Original Zone with  variable assessment rates and no CPI escalator authorized.  From FY 2004-05 through FY 2015-16, 32 additional Benefit Zones were annexed into the  LLAD with a CPI escalator authorized.  In October 2018, Community Facilities District No. 2018-1 was formed. Beginning in FY 2018-  19, new development is annexed into CFD No. 2018-1 instead of the LLAD.  FRANCISCO ANDYASSOCIATES  2    City Maintenance District Parcel Summary  Percentage of Total City of Lincoln Taxable Parcels 14% 26% 19% 41% 100%  ORIG  Maintenance District Category  ORIG!  Original LLAD Zone All Other LLAD Zones CFD No. 2018-1  Not in any LLAD Zone or CFD No. 2018-1  Totals:  'Based on number of anticipated parcels at build-out.  FRANCISCO ANDYASSOCIATES  3    LLAD Funding Issues  The City funds the portion of LLAD budget attributed to benefit to non-District parcels  and the public at large.  The Original Zone and 7 other Zones are projected to have an operating deficit for FY  2022-23 (the "Deficit Zones").  For FY 2022-23, the LLAD Budget is proposed to be funded as follows:  FY2022-23 Assessments:  $3,559,900 $395,000 $463,800 $333,800  Deficit Zone Fund Balances Available to Cover FY 2022-23 Operating Deficits: City Contribution for Benefit Attributed to Non-District Parcels and Public at Large: City Contribution to Cover Remaining FY 2022-23 Operating Deficits:  City Contribution is anticipated to increase by approximately 50% for FY 2023-24.  FRANCISCO ANDYASSOCIATES    Proposition 218 Proceedings  Increasing LLAD assessments to alleviate the City's increasing annual contribution requires majority property owner approval in accordance  E  v  with Proposition 218.  In2 2017, a special VS. general benefit analysis of the LLAD improvements was  performed to strengthen the City's benefit nexus.  Inz 2018 and 2019, Council workshops were held on the LLAD funding issues. Inl late 2019, the City hired a consultant to conduct a poll/survey to determine whether  property owners were amenable to LLAD assessment increases.  Survey results indicated property owners were likely to oppose LLAD assessment increases at that time and therefore revisiting Prop. 218 proceedings at a later date  was determined to be the best course of action.  FRANCISCO ANDYASSOCIATES  5    Next Steps and Staff Recommendation  Approve LLAD Final Engineer's Report and assessments for FY 2022-23  On June 14, 2022, City Council adopted Resolutions initiating the FY 2022-23 proceedings and declaring the intent to levy and collect assessments, approving the Preliminary Engineer's  Report, and setting June 28, 2022 as the date for the Public Hearing.  Tonight, City staff recommends City Council conduct a Public Hearing and adopt a Resolution  approving the Final Engineer's Report and assessments for FY 2022-23. Deadline to submit LLAD assessments to the County is June 30th every year. Conduct Prop. 218 analysis and proceedings during FY 2022-23  Determine Benefit Zones and appropriate assessment rates for a replacement LLAD Public Outreach (Community meetings, Virtual Meetings, Mailers, etc.) Mail notices and ballots 45 days prior to Public Hearing per Prop. 218  FRANCISCO ANDYASSOCIATES  6    OLN  Thank you!  We are happy to answer any questions you may have.  FRANCISCO ANDYASSOCIATES Where Fundi Tomorrow's Innovative Strategies Communities    9B  TAYLOR & WILEY APROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS 500CAPITOL MALL, SUITE1150 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA9 95814 TELEPHONE: (916)929-5545  JOHNN M.1 TAYLOR JAMESE B. WILEY MATTHEWS. KEASLING JESSEJ J.YANG KATEA. WHEATLEY MARISSAC. FUENTES  June 28, 2022  Via Email Mayor Andreatta City ofLincoln 6006 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648  RE: Item 9B Public Facilities Element Fee Nexus Study Update  Dear Mayor Andreatta:  We: are writing thisl letter on behalfo fof Pappas Gateway! LP, Pappas Arizona Limited Partnership and. JCPSAC Properties LP (collectively, "Pappas"), successors in interest to Placer Holdings, Inc. ("PHI") in the Development Agreement with the City ofl Lincoln covering the Twelve Bridges Project (DA). Wea are writing to you to express our concerns about the proposed Public Facilities Element (PFE) Nexus Study Update First and foremost, we believe that the Cityl has not provided adequate time for a meaningful review of the Nexus Study. Although we have been discussing withi the Citys staff PFE fees andi fee credits for the last few years, we did not get an official draft oft the latest-and significantly different--PFE Nexus study until last week when the agenda was posted. Our comments prepared by Development & Financial Advisory are attached and at this point are mainly questions regarding methodology and nexus. Additionally, we want to make clear that we believe, as proposed, the Fee program violates the terms of the DA. First, the staff report states that Fee credits associated with the DA will terminate with the DA next year. We believe this is not an accurate statement. In addition, as the DAI is still valid, thet following  before you this evening.  provisions are still applicable:  2.4.1 Development Fees - Adjustments. City's Development Fees may be adjusted by City to account for increases or decreases in the cost of constructing the facilities or in providing the servicest for whichsuch! Development Feesa are collected. As applied to Development Feesi imposed for the construction of capital facilities, increases shall be limited to increases in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco area, unless specific Development Fees amounts are otherwise fixed under this agreement. Such adjustments shall retain the same assumptions, methodology and list ofi improvements upon which such Development Fees, were based at the time of the Effective Date of this Agreement or as may by amended subiectto  Section 4.2 oft this Agreement. [Emphasis added.)    4.1.1 Accounting for PFE Credits. [Excerpt] For purposes of calculating and applying PHI PFE Credits, City shall maintain a single pooled PFE account for roadway, water, wastewater and drainage facilities against which all PHI PFE Credits for contributing to these facilities may be applied, with the exception of the PFE Critical Facilities as defined in Section 3.12 of this agreement and listed in Exhibit' "W".. : Any PFE credits accruing to PHI pursuant tot thei terms of this Agreement shall be adjusted annually in an amount equal to the percentage increase in the CCI of the Engineering News Record during the proceeding calendar year, or the revised cost estimates for applicable PFE mapememsafamawisdes. is greater. [Emphasis added.] 4.2 Initial PFE Update. Subsequent amendments to the Public Facilities Element shall be consistent with the terms, conditions and limitations oft this Agreement. [Emphasis added.] The proposed PFE fee update would breach the terms of Section 2.4.1, 4.1.1 and 4.2. Some examples of  these violations would be:  Iti is not. based upon the same assumptions, methodology and list ofi improvements. In particular, it changes the methodology and nature of wastewater improvements, switching such improvements into the "Critical" category. Furthermore the additional Itisr not clear whether it accounts for the appropriate CCI adjustments to the credits that  improvements have no nexus to Twelve Bridges; and  are outstanding.  As the Cityi is not adopting the contemplated PFE fee tonight, we have planned further discussions with your staff to address our concerns. Nevertheless, as currently formulated, we would find the adoption Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to further discussions with the City with the goal of rectifying these matters in short order, especially given that we have been trying to resolve  of such at fee program al breach of thet terms of our DA.  these items for overt three years.  VeryTrulyYours, $2224  CC: Sean Scully  Kristine Mollenkopf Thad. Johnson Travis Batts Mike Whipple, Jr.    DFA  Development & Financial Advisory Sacramento. Orange County  devfa.com  Memorandum To: Thad. Johnson  From: Development & Financial Advisory("DFA") CC: Jim Wiley & Travis Batts Date: 6/28/22  Re: PFE Nexus Study dated. June 10, 2022  Belowa are preliminary concerns with the draft Public Facilities Element ("PFE") Program Nexus Study ("2022 Nexus Study)prepared by Goodwin Consulting Group dated. June 10, 20221 fort the Cityo ofLincoln ("City").  1. General:  a. Have any facilities been completed sincei the previous nexus study (2012) which are still b. The 2022 Nexus Study has failed to provide supporting documentation for the proposed Failure to properly index fees since 2012 results ina a funding deficiency created by d. Fails to provide required analysis indicating the improvements and facilities are  listed ini the 2022 Nexus Study? equivalent dwelling unit factors. reduced impact fee collections. necessary to serve new development.  2. Transportation:  a. Includes the cost of road reconstruction - Do these facilities provided expanded capacity for future development or cure existing deficiencies Government Code Section 66001 - Should these improvements bei funded as part of the City's new maintenance Local agencies imposing fees to mitigate vehicular traffici impacts on housing units that meet specific characteristics shall be set at a rate that reflects thel lower trip  (g1)?  districts?  b. California Code Section 66005.1  generation associated with the housing development.  SACRAMENTO" ORANGEC COUNTY  www.DevFA.com    1. Housing development located within a % mile of a transit station with 2. Housing development located within % mile of convenience retail, 3. Housing development provides the minimum number of parking spaces.  direct access.  including a store that sells food.  Does the 2022 Nexus Study account for vehicle miles traveled in determining equivalent dwelling units ("EDU") and cost allocations? Ifv vehicle miles traveled are not analyzed is there the potential for conflict between the 2022 Nexus Study and environmental d. Does PPFE Area No. 10 or PFE Area No. 21 have any planned age-restricted or transit- e. The EDU factors for market rates and age-restricted are the same. This is not consistent  documents? oriented developments?  with standard nexus approach for determining traffic impacts.  3. Wastewater:  a. isthe discharge rate of 215 gallons per day per 1.0 EDU based on existing development b. What ist the basis for the cost allocations between PFE Area No. 1a and PFE Area No. 2?  orfuture development?  Does future development have al lower discharge rate? i. Are these allocations summarized in the 2022 Nexus Study? Do any of the facilities provide benefit to existing users? i. Are any oft the planned facilities expansion of existing facilities?  d. How! has the 2022 Nexus Study accounted for the existing funding deficiency outlined in the March 19, 2019 presentation to City council? The estimated mismanagement oft the wastewater account was estimated at $28.8 million. e. Active adult EDU factors are the same for all density ranges at 0.72. Table A-15: 10.3 MGD appears to provide capacity for approximately 47,900E EDUS based on 215 gallons per day compared to the! 55,566 EDUS projected. Includes roughly $30 million of various storage bonds andl booster pumps for non- potable water. Should these be allocated to newa and existing development? h. Assumes $92.1 million in debt attributable to future development for expansion of the  wastewater treatment facility. i. Isthis required?  ii. Is debt assumed for existing development? iv. Are other funding sources available? V. What is timing of bond financing?  iii. Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs?  vi. What happensi if fee paid prior to financing costs incurred?  4. Water:  a. Does the Nexus Study account for mandated water efficiency standards?  Senate Bill X7-7 i. AB 1668/SB606  iii. Dot future units have al lower demand factor compared to existing units?  b. What is the water demand for an assumed EDU?  PFE Nexus Study Discussion Items  Page2of5    Why did the EDU factors increase from the previous nexus study in 2012? d. Why are market rate and active adult EDU factors the same? e. Why are the high density EDU factors the same as low density?  f. Can the: single-family residential fee bet tiered to match Placer County' Water Agency? What ist the basis for the cost allocations between PFE Area No. 1a and PFE Area No. 2?  Fee based on lot size to match specific water consumption. i. Arei these allocations summarized int the Nexus Study? h. Do any of thei facilities provide benefit to existing users? . Are any of the planned facilities expansion ofe existing facilities?  Table A-18 & A-19:  EDU counts do not appear to match. ii. Does PFE Area No. 2 include any publicfacilities?  iii. Should Citywide costs include an EDU assumption for publici facilities?  5. Drainage:  a. Whati is the basis for the cost allocations between PFE Area No. 1a and PFE Area No. 2?  Are these allocations summarized in the 2022 Nexus Study? b. Do any of thet facilities provide benefit to existing users? i. Includes $20.6 million for Lakeview Farms - Phase 2. The schools and publici facilities categories are not assigned EDUS. ii. Does PFE Area No. 2 include any publici facilities? ili. Should Citywide costs include an EDU assumption for publici facilities?  Table A-22 & A-23:  6. Fire:  a. Includes the replacement costs of vehicles ande equipment yet these costs are also funded as part of Community Facilities District No. 2018-2 ("CFD2018-2"). b. What happens to vehicles that are replaced? C. Do existing facilities provide capacity for future development?  i. Ifso, some facilities will be depreciating assets. New development should only be responsible for a share of the replacement costs less depreciation.  d. How would an assumption for active adult in PFE Area No. 2 impact facility e. Does the City need a ladder truck for PFE Area No. No. 1a and 2? Revise engine requirements in on PFE Area No. 21 from 3.1to 3.0. i. Does each station need a Type 1 and' Type 3 engine?  requirements?  How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? h. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this  assumption isi incorrect.  Per acre EDU factors have adjusted since previous nexus studyi in 2012?  1. What was the reason for the adjustment?  PFE Nexus Study Discussion Items  Page3 3of5    7. Police:  a. What is the basis fori thei facility standard of 475: square feet per personnel? b. Doe existing residents require additional facilities to meet the 475 square foot standard? 1. - Ifso, how many square feet are required and what is the City's plan oft finance?  i. What is existing standard?  Assumes $6.9 million in debt attributable to future development. ii. Is debt assumed for existing development? iv. Are other funding sources available? V. What is timing of bond financing?  i. Ist this required?  ili. Does the Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs? vi. What happensi ift fee paid prior to financing costs incurred? d. Can CFD 2018-21 fund the costs of vehicles and equipment? e. Includes $2.81 million for animal shelter.  Will this benefit existing development? li. Does County of Placer provide these services?  How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? EDUf factors are the same for market rate and active adult. Ifpopulation based this Per acre EDU factors have adjusted since previous nexus study in 2012?  assumption is incorrect.  1. What was the reason fori the adjustment?  8. Administration:  a. What is the basis for the 350 square feet per employee standard? to serve existing residents? This is approximately $24.8 million.  What ist the existing standard?  b. How does the City plan to fund the 35,590 square feet of additional square feet required Why does the existing, Future Area 1 and Future Area 2 population estimates not match  between Police, Fire and Administration? . Ist this based on fee credit projects?  d. Assumes! $7.7 million in debt attributable to future development. ii. Isd debt assumed for existing development? iv. Are other funding sources available? V. Whati ist timing of bond financing?  i. Is this required?  ili. Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs?  vi. What happens if fee paid prior to financing costs incurred?  e. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this  assumption is incorrect.  9. Library:  a. Ist the basis for the. .7 square foot per person standard the General Plan?  . - What is the existing standard?  PFEI Nexus Study Discussion Items  Page 4of5    b. Will new libraryf facilities be required by existing residents? Assumes a cost per square footi if$1,006?  . How does the City plan tot fund existing resident's facility requirement? Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide al breakdown or source for this assumption?  d. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? e. B EDUI factors are the same for market rate and active adult. Ifpopulation based this  assumptioni is incorrect.  10. Solid Waste:  a. The list off facilities includes maintenance vehicles.  Aret there other sources of revenue to fund these items? 1. Monthly user fees or CFD revenues?  b. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. Ifpopulation based this  assumption is incorrect.  11. Parks, Trails & Recreation:  a. What are the existing park and recreation standards? b. How are plan area fee programs accounted fori in the calculation?  How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? d. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. Ifpopulation based this  assumption is incorrect.  Pera acre EDU factors have adjusted since previous nexus study in 2012?  1. What was the reason for the adjustment?  e. What ist thel basis fort the cost per acre assumptions for neighborhood and community The 2022 Nexus Studyi includes costs for thei following community facilities:  parks?  Aquatic Center- $17.6 million ii. Swimming Centers/Pools- $5.0r million li. Basketball Courts - $1.2 million iv. Community Centers- $10.0 million community facilities?  V. What is the existing level of service standards for the above-reference  vi. Whati ist the basis for the cost assumptions?  DFA is available to discuss the concerns ing greater detail.  PFEI Nexus Study Discussion Items  Page! 5of5    9B  HEFNER 2150 River Plaza Drive #450 Sacramento, CA 95833-4136 T916.925.6620 F916.925.1127 hefner-law.com  LAW  Chad E. Roberts 916.567.7312 croberts@hsmlaw.com  June 28, 2022  Lincoln City Council Mayor Holly Andreatta Mayor Pro Tem Paul Joiner Councilmember Dan Karleskint Councilmember William Lauritsen Councilmember Alyssa Silhi 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648  Sent Via Email  RE: June 28, 2022 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item No. 9.B  Objections to Proposed Nexus Study and] Publicl Facilities Element (PFE) Fees  Dear Mayor. Andreatta, Mayor Pro Tem Joiner, and Councilmembers,  On behalf of our client, Sunset Tartesso, LLC, an entity controlled by Elliott Homes, Inc., we respectfully request your Council continue Agenda Item No. 9.B, which proposes to amend the Public Facilities Element fees for transportation, wastewater, water, drainage, and community services. As explained in this letter and attachments hereto, wel have fundamental concerns about flaws in the proposed nexus study and fees and request additional time for our client and the development community to address those concerns with City of Lincoln staff and consultants. Thel Mitigation Fee. Act' "was passed by thel Legislature 'ini response to conçerns among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to development projects." " (Ehrlich V. CityofCulver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 864; see generally Gov. Code, SS 66000-66025.) To ensure fees charged are appropriate and fair, "Government Code section 66001 requires the local agency to determine 'how there is a reasonable relationship' between the proposed use of a given exaction and both 'the type of development project' and 'the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee isi imposed.' " (Id. at p. 865 "In a challenge to development fees, the public agency bears the initial burden of producing evidence to show it used a valid method for imposing the fee in question." (Boatworks, LLCv. City of Alameda (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 290, 298.) A fee cannot withstand scrutiny under the Mitigation Fee Act ift the methodology and supporting nexus study fail to establish the necessary nexus and reasonable relationship for each type of development project. (See, e.g., SummerHill  [quoting Gov. Code, $ 66001].)    Agenda Item No.9.B-PFE Fees and Nexus Study  June 28, 2022 Page 2  Winchester LIC V. Campbell Union School. Dist. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 545, 553; Balch Enters. V.A New Haven Unified Sch. Dist. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 783, 794.) "Thel Board imposing the fee must therefore show that a valid method was used for arriving at the fee in question . [and] the court must be able to assure itself that before imposing the fee the District engaged in a reasoned analysis designed to establish the requisite connection between the amount of the fee imposed and thel burden created." (Shapell. Industries, Inc. V. Governing Board (9DICHApp4m216235) A petitioner who successfully challenges a fee under the Mitigation Fee Act is also entitled to seek attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5. (See generally Boatworks, LLCV. City of Public review of nexus studies and proposed fees is also a critical component of the Mitigation (1). Any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, may submit evidence that the city, county, or other local agency's determinations and findings required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 66001 are insufficient or that the local agency otherwise failed to comply with this chapter. Evidence submitted pursuant to this subdivision may include, but is not limited to, information regarding the proposed fee calculation, assumptions. or methodology or the calculation. assumptions. or methodology for an existing fee upon which the (2) The legislative body of the city, county, or other local agency shall consider any evidence submitted pursuant toj paragraph (1) that ist timely submitted under this chapter. After consideration oft the evidence, thel legislativel body oft the city, county, or other local agency may change or adjust the proposed fee or fee increase if  Alameda, supra, 35 Cal.App.5th 290 at p. 307.) Fee Act. Subsection 66019(d) provides:  proposed fee or feei increase is based.  deemed necessary by thel legislative body.  (Gov. Code, S 66019, subd. (d).)  While our client only received thej proposed nexus study on. June 13, 2022 and has notl had adequate time to exhaustively review it and the underlying assumptions, our client engaged twoi independent consultants with substantial expertise to review the proposed: nexus study and fees. The concerns these experts raise provide substantial evidence establishing that the nexus study and fees, as proposed, do not comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. First, in its June 24, 2022 memorandum, Development & Financial Advisory advances numerous questions that should be addressed in thei nexus study but remain unknown at the current time. These questions raise serious preliminary concerns about the likely erroneous assumptions and inadequate information and analysis in the nexus study. Second, in its June 23, 2022 letter, Jason Reed, P.E., with Wood Rodgers, Inc. similarly raises deficiencies in the analysis and assumptions: in thej proposedi nexus study and public noticing for the requested action tonight. Both of these documents are attached to this letter and incorporated herein by reference. Absent the ability of City consultants and staff to provide sufficient answers to each question and the    Agenda Item No. 9.B - PFE. Fees and Nexus Study  June 28, 2022 Page 3  concerns that Development & Financial Advisory and Wood Rodgers, Inc., raise, your Wer understand your Council: may feel pressured to adopt thej proposed nexus study and fees tonight in an effort to avoid new requirements from AB 602 that take effect. July 1, 2022. While that may appear to be an easier path in the short-term and we understand the desire to avoid the additional work AB 602 requires, such a short-sighted strategy does not embody good governance orj justify adopting the nexus study and fees as proposed tonight. Instead of rushing to avoid the new requirements that will apply to future nexus study updates anyway, your Council should ensure that its Public Facilities Element Fees comply with state law and are calculated based on sufficient analysis with the opportunity for input from stakeholders. Int these efforts, wel believe the City will also find that shifting to quare-tootage-based fees does not pose a significant hurdle, especially because numerous jurisdictions and districts havel been utilizing that methodology long before AB Thank you for considering our concerns and ensuring that the City ofLincoln continues to reach decisions that uphold stakeholder engagement, fairness, and compliance with state law. We welcome the opportunity. to provide further stakeholder input in advance of a future meeting to  Council cannot defensibly adopt the proposed nexus study and fees.  602.  consider a more thorough and adequate nexus study.  Very truly yours,  HEFNER, STARK & MAROIS, LLP 122  By  Chad E. Roberts  cc:  Sean Scully, City Manager Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney Price Walker, Elliott Homes, Inc.  Attachments: June 24, 2022 Memorandum from Development & Financing Advisory  June 23, 2022 Letter from Wood Rodgers, Inc.    DFA  Development & Financial Advisory Sacramento Orange County  devfa.com  Memorandum To: Price Walker  From: Development & Financial Advisory("DFA") CC: Jason Reed & Chad Roberts Date: 6/24/2022  Re: PFE Nexus Study dated. June 10, 2022  Below are preliminary concerns with the draft PublicFacilities Element ("PFE") Program Nexus! Study( ("2022 Nexus Study")p prepared by Goodwin Consulting Group dated. June 10, 20221 for the City ofLincoln ("City").  1. General:  a. Have any facilities been completed sincet the previous nexus study (2012) which are: still b. The 2022 Nexus Study has failed to provide supporting documentation for the proposed Failure to properly index fees since 2012 results in a funding deficiency created by d. Fails to provide required analysis indicating the improvements and facilities are  listed int the 2022 Nexus Study? equivalent dwelling unit factors. reduced impact fee collections. necessary to serve new development.  2. Transportation:  a. Includes the cost of road reconstruction- - Do these facilities provided expanded capacity fori future development or cure existing deficiencies (Government Code Section 66001 . Should these improvements be funded as part of the City's new maintenance  (g))?  districts?  b. California Code Section 66005.1  Local agencies imposing fees tor mitigate vehiculartraffici impacts on housing units that meet specific characteristics shall bes set at a rate that reflects the lower trip  generation associated with the housing development.  SACRAMENTO - ORANGE COUNTY  www.DeVFA.com    1. Housing development located within a % mile of a transit station with 2. Housing development located within % mile of convenience retail, 3. Housing development provides the minimum number of parking spaces.  direct access.  including a store that sells food.  Does the 2022 Nexus Study account for vehicle miles traveled in determining equivalent dwelling units ("EDU") and cost allocations? If vehicle miles traveled are nota analyzedi is there the potential for conflict between the 2022 Nexus Study and environmental d. Does PPFE Area No. 1or PFE Area No. 2 have any planned age-restricted or transit- The EDU factors for market rates and age-restricted are the same. This is not consistent  documents? oriented developments?  with standard nexus approach for determining traffici impacts.  3. Wastewater:  a. Isthe discharge rate of 215 gallons per day per: 1.0 EDU based on existing development b. What is the! basis fort the cost allocations between PFE Area No. 1and PFE Area No. 2?  orf future development?  Does future development have al lower discharge rate? Aret these allocations summarized ini the 2022 Nexus Study? Are any of the planned facilities expansion of existing facilities?  Doany of thet facilities provide benefit to existing users?  d. How has the 2022 Nexus Study accounted for the existing funding deficiency outlined in the March 19, 2019 presentation to City council? The estimated mismanagement oft the wastewater account was estimated at $28.8 million. Active adult EDU factors are the same for all density ranges at 0.72. Table A-15: 10.3 MGD appears to provide capacity for approximately 47,900EDUS based on 215 gallons per day compared to the! 55,566 EDUS projected. Includes roughly $30 million of various storage bonds and booster pumps for non- potable water. Shouldi these be allocated to new and existing development? h. Assumes $92.1 million in debt attributable tofuture development for expansion oft the  wastewater treatment facility. Is this required?  ii. Is debt assumed for existing development? iv. Are other funding sources available? V. What is timing of bondi financing?  ii. Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs?  vi. What happens if fee paid prior to financing costs incurred?  4. Water:  a. Does thel Nexus Study account for mandated water efficiency standards?  Senate Bill X7-7 ii. AB 1668/SB 606  iii. Dofuture units have al lower demand factor compared to existing units?  b. What is the water demand for an assumed EDU?  PFEI Nexus Study Discussion Items  Page 2of5    Why did the EDU factors increase from the previous nexus study in 2012? d. Why are market rate and active adult EDU factors the same? e. Why are the high density EDU factors the same as low density?  f. Can the single-family residential fee bet tiered to match Placer County' Water Agency? Whati is thel basis fori the cost allocations between PFE Area No. 1and PFE Area No. 2?  Feel based on lot sizet to match: specific water consumption. i. Are these allocations summarized int the Nexus Study? h. Do any of thet facilities provide benefit to existing users? i. Are any oft the planned facilities expansion ofe existing facilities?  Table A-18 & A-19:  EDU counts dor not appear to match. ii. Does PFE Area No. 2i include any publici facilities?  iii. Should Citywide costs include an EDU assumption for publici facilities?  5. Drainage:  a. What is thel basis for the cost allocations between PFE Area No. 1a and PFE Area No. 2?  i. Arei these allocations summarized ini the 2022 Nexus Study? b. Doany of thet facilities provide benefit to existing users? i. Includes $20.6 million for Lakeview Farms - Phase 2. The schools and public facilities categories are not assigned EDUS. ii. Does PFE Area No. 2i include any public facilities? iii. Should Citywide costs include an EDU assumption for publici facilities?  Table A-22 & A-23:  6. Fire:  a. Includes the replacement costs of vehicles and equipment yet these costs are also funded as part of Community Facilities District No. 20182PCFD2018-2). Doexisting facilities provide capacity fori future development?  b. What happens to vehicles that are replaced?  Ifso, somei facilities will be depreciating assets. New development should only be responsible for as share of the replacement costs less depreciation.  d. How would an assumption for active adult in PFE Areal No. 2 impact facility e. Does the City need al ladder truck for PFE Area No. No. 1and 2? Revise engine requirements in on PFE Areal No. 2from 3.1to 3.0. Does each station need a Type 1 and Type 3 engine?  requirements?  How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? EDU factors are thes same for market rate and active adult. Ifpopulation based this Per acre EDU factors have adjusted since previous nexus studyi in 2012?  assumption isi incorrect.  1. What was the reason for the adjustment?  PFEI Nexus Study Discussion Items  Page3of5    7. Police:  a. What is thel basis for the facility standard of 475 square feet per personnel? b. Doe existing residents require additional facilities to meet the 475 square foot standard?  . What is existing standard?  Ifso, how many square feet are required and whati is the City's plan of finance?  Assumes $6.9 million in debt attributable tot future development. ii. Is debt assumed for existing development? iv. Are other funding sources available? V. What is timing of bond financing?  Ist this required?  iii. Does the Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs? vi. What happens if fee paid prior tot financing costs incurred? d. Can CFD 2018-21 fund the costs of vehicles and equipment? e. Includes $2.8 millioni for animal shelter.  Will this benefit existing development? ii. Does County of Placer provide these services?  How wouldi future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? EDU factors aret the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this Peracre EDU factors have adjusted since previous nexus studyi in 2012?  assumption is incorrect.  1. What was the reason for the adjustment?  8. Administration:  a. What is the basis for the 350 square feet per employee standard? tos serve existing residents? This is approximately $24.8 million.  What is the existing standard?  b. How does the City plant to fund the 35,590: square feet of additional square feet required Why does the existing, Future Area 1a and Future Area 2 population estimates not match  between Police, Fire and Administration? i. Is this based on fee credit projects?  d. Assumes $7.7 million in debt attributable to future development. ii. Isd debt assumed for existing development? iv. Are other funding sources available? V. What is timing of bond financing?  i. Ist this required?  iii. Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs?  vi. What happens if fee paid priort toi financing costs incurred?  e. How wouldi future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? EDU factors arei the samei for market rate and active adult. If population based this  assumption is incorrect.  9. Library:  a. Ist the basis for the. 7 square foot per person standard the General Plan?  What is the existing standard?  PFEI Nexus Study Discussion! Items  Page 4of5    b. Will new library facilities be required bye existing residents? Assumes a cost pers square foot if $1,006?  How does the City plan tot fund existing resident's facility requirement? Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide al breakdown or source for this assumption?  d. How wouldi future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? e. EDU factors are the: same for market rate and active adult. If population based this  assumption is incorrect.  10. Solid' Waste:  a. The list of facilities includes maintenance vehicles.  . Are there other sources of revenue tot fund these items? 1. Monthly user fees or CFD revenues?  b. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. Ifpopulation based this  assumption isi incorrect.  11. Parks, Trails & Recreation:  a. What are the existing park and recreation standards? b. How are plan area fee programs accounted fori int the calculation?  How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? d. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this  assumption is incorrect.  Per acre EDU factors have adjusted since previous nexus studyi in 2012?  1. What was the reasoni for the adjustment?  e. What is thel basis for the cost per acre assumptions for neighborhood and community The 2022 Nexus Study includes costs for1 thet following community facilities:  parks?  Aquatic Center $17.6 million ii. Swimming Centers/Pools - $5.0million iii. Basketball Courts $1.2 million iv. Community Centers $10.0 million community facilities?  Whati is the existing level of service standards for the above-reference  vi. Whati is the basis for the cost assumptions?  DFAisa available to discuss the concerns in greater detail.  PFEI Nexus Study Discussion Items  Page! 5of5    woDD RODCERS  June 23, 2022 CityofLincoln Attn: Mr. Ray Leftwich, PE 600 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor Lincoln, CAS 95648 E-mail: efwieneroastandwicom  RE:  Public Facilities Element Feel Program Nexus Study Update Draft Report  Comments for Review  Dear Mr. Leftwich:  Wood Rodgers, Inc. has received and reviewed the City of Lincoln Public Facilities Element Fee Program Nexus Study Update Draft Report (Report) on behalf of our client, Elliott Homes. The Report is dated. June 10, 2022, and has been prepared by Goodwin Consulting Group. Please our comments for your review and response.  Comment: General  Prior iterations of the Report (2018 / 2019 timeframe) had included improvement exhibits to depict where thet facilities asi included ini the program costs are located. Please provide a copy of  the exhibits to review.  Comment: General  Verbiage was not found in the Report to memorialize the previously approved Village 1 Public Facilities Finance Plan' Volumes 1&2 (V1PFFP) language for PFE fees collected within a Village are tol be used for PFE improvements within said village before they are usedi for other purposes. This language wasi included on pages 12 and 13 ofthe V1PFFPVolume: land pages 15-17 oft the V1PPFP Volume 2. This applies to the non-critical fee component and is noted accordingly in the V1PFFP  references.  Comment: General  Accounting of PFE revenues and expenditures should be categorized on a per village basis, per  comments above to pool funds collected.  Comment: Pagel-Introduction  The Report discusses that 'Funding for these facilities may come. from several sources, including the City's Public Facilities Element Fee Program, federal ands state program, existing reviews in the impact fee funds and other fundings sources.' How have the other funding sources noted been considered in establishing the PFE fees, or dot the PFE fees assume a' 'go alone' funding sourcei for all designated improvements, with exception of any existing revenues int the impact feet fund? The first bullet point indicates that Fees must be posted to the public agency's website within 30 days of any change int the fees. We had received thei first notification oft the newi fees by way ofe- mail receipt of the Report on June 14, 2022. This requirement does not appear to have been  Comment: Page 4 -N New" Transparency Requirements for Public Agencies  Corporate Office: 3301 C Street, Bldg. 100-B Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel: 916.341.7760 Fax: 916.341.7767  w.woodrodgera.cen    June 23, 2022 Page 2of3  satisfied with the intended presentation and approval of PFE update to City Council on. June 28,  2022. Please advise.  Comment: Page 6-F Plan Based Fee Methodology  Please refer to General comment above relative to pooling of PFE revenue within the respective villages and analysis of adequate funding per village based ori ifs shortfalls in particular villages are  anticipated.  Comment: Page! 9 Population  The number of existing jobs per resident is presented at 8,600 private jobs per 51,252 population, or 0.16) jobs per population. Jobs within build-out of Areas 1 and 2 (City buildout) is indicated at over 95,000 jobs and 130,000 residents, or a 0.73 jobs per population, a 4.5x increase from existing jobs basis and very high on a population basis for a community with Retirement housing as a significant make-up of the population base. For comparison, City of Roseville demographic information (sourced from City of Roseville Economic Development website) has 92,281 jobs and ap population of 147,969. This represents a 0.62 jobs per population ratio, whichi is lower thani the numbers projected for Lincoln. Lincoln would need to be larger employer base and neti importer ofj jobs. These numbers affect services required whichtranslates toi infrastructures sizinga and costs as included ini the PFE for Citywide backbone infrastructure. Are these numbers realistic, or does a new jobs estimate need to be prepared which could potentially reduce some infrastructure  requirements and costing?  Comment: Page: 14-Table V-1  PFE Area Number 2 has a cost allocation for Interchanges, at approximately $116,762,247. The Report claims that nearly all interchange cost is Area 2 impact and therefore cost. Interchange improvements associated with new development (Area 2 development) only provides for interchanges along the Highway 65 corridor. As such, a similar argument can be made to Village 1as to existing Area 11 that the Village 1 development has no more impact or demand for the interchanges than existing area 1 has considering the geographic location and circulation elements to access the Village, and therefore should not be allocated cost fori it. Alternatively, if Village 1 was nott tol be pulled out of cost: structure fort the interchanges of Areas/,theinterchange  costs should be allocated citywide, to both Areas 1 and 2.  Comment: Page 34- - Level of Service - Fire  The section starts bys stating: The City'sfire department level of service is based on response time. For Area No. 1, the City's) fire department has determined that the existingj fire stations 33, 34, and 35 can provide adequate coverage and response times to all of Area No. 1 and Village. 1.' Ifthis is the case, Village 1 should not be included in Area #21 fee structure as adequate level of service is  achieved with existing facilities.  Comment: Page 46- - Required Facilities and Estimated Costs Library  The construction cost of $1,006 per square foot is an exceptionally high cost. What is the source of this information? Additionally, although the general plan indicates a level of service of 0.7 square feet of space per1 1,000 residents, is that realistic based upon the demands on the existing library? The existing library is operating limited hours and days of the week as-is. Increasing the usage of the existing facility prior to new facility construction would be more economical.    June 23, 2022 Page 3of3  Comment: Table A-15-1 Wastewater Treatment Cost Estimates  The total cost allocated for total expansion oft treatment plant is established at "$417M. Is there anyf funding participation from Placer County or ist the need fort this level ofwastewater treatment plant expansion it solely generated by the City demands and estimated demands for future capacity? Additionally, what EDU waste factors have been considered for the evaluation of treatment plant expansion? Isi it based upon new lower waste generation per EDU due tol low flow  fixture requirements on development?  Please do not hesitate to contact me ify you have any questions about the comments above or ify you would liket to  meet and discuss. Thank you, WOOD RODGERS, INC. PK jason Reed, PE Senior Engineer, Associate  Cc: Mr. Travis' Williams, PE; City of Lincoln, E-mail Mr. Price Walker; Elliott Homes, Inc., E-mail Mr. Chad Roberts; Hefner Law, E-mail  Mr. Mike Whipple; DFA-D Development & Financial Advisory, E-mail    9B  Gwendolyn Scanlon  From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:  John Fett Scanlon Kelye McKinney  Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:41 PM  Alyssa Silhi; William Lauritsen; Dan Karleskint; Holly Andreatta; Paul Joiner; Gwendolyn Peter Gilbert; Dan Cross; Michele Hutchinson; Eric. Johnson; Bill Lyons; Tony Manning; 1st Qtr Retail CBRE Placer SF.pdf; Retail Space per Capita 2018.pdf; Land Use Summary 2050.pdf; Roseville CA. Jobs per US Census 65ki in 2019.pdf; Council Letter on PFE  Public Facilities Element Fees Comments  6-28-2022.pdf  Dear City Council Members,  Ihave reviewed and analyzed the Public Facilities Element Fee Program and found what appears to be substantial errors based on erroneous assumptions. These errors are caused by relying on a General Plan that may be outdated. The  Goodwin Report finds the following:  1) Calculated that Lincoln's projected build out of 130,000 people results in 95,000 jobs. Roseville, by example, has 143,000 people and 64,700 jobs (US Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimate). They are also al hub city. Clearly,a 2) Calculated that Lincoln's projected commercial space will exceed 20,000,000 SF at build out. The national average of retail space per capita is 235 SF (and likely declining). Thus for 130,000 people Lincoln would typically have about 3,000,000 SF of retail space, not 20,000,000: SF. This is an apparent error exceeding 600%. Roseville, which has 143,000 people has about 6,500,000 SF of retail space, or 45/SF of space per capita. Roseville is al hub city with the second highest retail sales tax per capita in the state of California. Rocklin, with 75,000 people has 2,600,000: SF of commercial retail space or 34SF of space per capita. Lincoln will be unlikely to exceed either of The Goodwin Report is calculating over $2.2 billion of fees collected from different projects. Many of these assumptions are for commercial projects which may never have viability. How these miscalculations manifest themselves for our city and our future revenue are not clear, but one thingi is certain: This projections in the analysis could lead to erroneous Please note we have only had four days to review the Goodwin Report and the resulting PFE schedule since it was only posted last Friday. We suggest you review our points with the Goodwin consulting team prior to taking any actions.  projection of 95,000 jobs in Lincoln appears unreasonable.  these per capita ratios.  funding requirements.  Thank you, Sincerely, John Fett LovelincolncA  CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  1    Public Facilities Element Fees Comments  June 28, 2022 Dear City Council Members,  Ihave reviewed and analyzed the Public Facilities Element Fee Program and found what appears to be substantial errors based on erroneous assumptions. These errors are caused by relying on a General 1) Calculated that Lincoln's projected build out of 130,000 people results in 95,000 jobs. Roseville, bye example, has 143,000 people and 64,700 jobs (US Census Bureau ACS! 5-year estimate). They are also al hub city. Clearly, a projection of 95,000 jobs in Lincoln appears unreasonable. 2) Calculated that Lincoln's projected commercial space will exceed 20,000,000: SF at build out. The national average of retail space per capita is 23 SF (and likely declining). Thus for 130,000 people Lincoln would typically have about 3,000,000: SF of retail space, not 20,000,000: SF. This is an apparent error exceeding 600%. Roseville, which has 143,000 people has about 6,500,000 SF of retail space, or 45/SF of space per capita. Roseville is al hub city with the second highest retail sales tax per capita ini the state of California. Rocklin, with 75,000 people has 2,600,000: SF of commercial retail space or 34SF of space per capita. Lincoln will be unlikely to exceed either of The Goodwin Report is calculating over $2.2 billion off fees collected from different projects. Many of these assumptions are for commercial projects which may never have viability. How these miscalculations manifest themselves for our city and ouri future revenue are not clear, but one thingi is certain: This projections int the analysis could leadi to erroneous funding requirements. Please note we have only had four days to review the Goodwin Report and the resulting PFE schedule since it was only posted last Friday. We suggest you review our points with the Goodwin consulting  Plani that may be outdated. The Goodwin Report finds thei following:  these per capita ratios.  team prior tot taking any actions.  Thank you, Jokue Tett    FIGURES 1 SACRAMENTO 012022 RETAIL OVERVIEW (continued)  FIGURE2: Submarket Statistics Submarket Arden/Watt/ /Howe Carmichael Citrus Heights/Fair Oaks Folsom/El Doradol Hlls Creenhaven/Pocket Laguna/Elk Grove Lincoln North! Highlands North Natomas Rocklin Roseville South! Natomas South Sacramento West Sacramento/Davis SacramentoRetail: Market Source: CBREF Research  InQ12022, discount retailers and fitness clubs were thet two most active categories ini the market. Chuze Fitness (34,070 sq. ft.)signed the largest lease oft the quarter, andi RL Liquidators (30,1 100 sq. ft.) signed the second largest lease in Q12 2022. Both leases were signed int the South Sacramento submarket. Several national retailers have also signed expansions throughout the region, including DoorDash, Old Navy,and Market-wide availability and vacancy decreased quarter-over- quarter asa result ofi increased tenant demand and leasing activity. Availability decreased 15 basis points (bps) to 8.5% while vacancy decreased 9 bps to 6.6% in 012022. Since peaking in Q4 2020 at7 7.5%, vacancy has continued Direct asking lease rates decreased slightly, due to a significant amount of lower quality product coming to market. The average asking lease rate decreased by $0.01 quarterover-quarten., to $1.60 NNN. Net absorption totaled negative 45,161 sq. ft.i in 012022, thei first quarter ofr negative absorption: since Q2 2021. Despitet the downtick inc occupancy gains, demand remains robust across alls submarkets fort top tier space. There were nor new construction deliveries in 012022. However, new retail developments aref following the rooftops ine expanding suburban areas. South Folsom, West Roseville, and Elk Grove are looking forward to the delivery ofr newly proposed projects int their respective submarkets. The Sacramento Retail market remains fluid, as highlighted by several noteworthy investment transactions during the quarter. Highland Reserve Marketplace (191,415 sq. ft)locatedi in thel Roseville submarket was acquired by Schnitzer Properties for $52 million. Consumer demand for goods remained strongt this quarter, which will continue to! bolster retail investment ini the Sacramento region throughout 2022.  Net Total Total Average Area & &) 3,643,210 9.6 13.6 1,152,690 48 4.8 1,071,163 17.6 19.0 4,779,512 8.3 9.8 5,341,789 71 78 429,018 1.5 9.8 16.8 5,543,730 24 41 1,168,982 14 1.7 2,583,559 49 5.7 3,379,685 3.4 3.6 2,579,959 5.6 7:2 6,416,935 5.9 9.1 656,257 7.5 13.2 4,465,124 6.1 8.7 2,640.922 73 8.4 48,754,047 6.6 8.5  Rentable Vacancy Avallabillty Direct Asking 01Net YTDNet  Rate(s) Absorption Absorption 1.34 11,056 11,056 1.98 5,530 5,530 1.20 (938) (938) 127 (12,243) (12,243) 2.06 (21,253) (21,253) (2,354) (2,354) 1.53 (39,092) (39,092) 2.12 4,134 4,134 2:37 (1,300) (1300) 1.22 (10,791) (10,791) 223 3,834 3,834 1.56 11,807 11,807 1.92 2,059 2,059 1.48 (4,857) (4,857) 1.51 11,707 11.707 1.93 (2,190) (2,190) 1.60 (45,161) (45,161)  Five Below.  its steady decrease into: 2022.  Hwy! 50/Rancho Cordova/Rosemont 2,901,512 14.7    Real Estate> Commercial Real Estate  Retail space per capita in selected countries worldwide in 2018  (in squarefeet)  30  25 23.5  o 4 6G a  20  16.8  15  11.2  10  5  4.6 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.4  2.8 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2  1.4   M -  e Statista 2022 A Show source e  Additional Information    Table A-5 Land Use Summary  EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (2022)  Estimated Number ofResidents Int the City Estimated Number ofJ Jobs Inthepity  51,252 8,564  ESTIMATED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT'  Total Persons Total Units per Household Population 67 2.37 159 2,199 2.37 5.212 1,724 2.37 4,086 791 1.71 1,350 935 1.71 1,595 5,716 12,402 1,955 2.37 4,633 13,202 2.37 31,289 8,534 2.37 20,226 6,192 1.71 10,566 29,883 66,714 35,599 79,115 Net Average Total Bldg SF Total Acres F.AR. BldgSF perJ Job Jobs 190.9 0.30 2,494,420 500 4,989 89.8 0.30 1,172,853 300 3,910 276.0 0.25 3,005,640 327 9,192 556.6 18,090 1.319.9 0.30 17.247.800 500 34,496 432.8 0.30 300 18,851 480.0 0.25 5,227,200 327 15,985 2,232.6 28,130,177 69,332 2,789.2 34,803,090 87,421 147.18 nla nla nia nla 93.70 n'a nla nia n/a 179.10 nla nla n'a 419.98 185.10 nla n/a nia n'a 104.60 nla nla nla nla 6,031.30 n'a n'a nla n'a 6,321.00 130,367 95,985  Residential- PFEAreaN No.1 Veryl LoW Density Low Density Medium! Density High Density Hight Density- Twelve Bridges Sublotal Residontial- PFE Area No.2 Veryl Low Density Low Density Medium Density HighDensity Subtotal Total Residential Non Residential- No.1 Commercial Business &Professional Industrial Subtotal Non- ental Area NO. Business8 &Professional Industrial Subtotal Total Non- Residential Public/Other- -PFEA Area No.1 Parks Schools PublicFaciities Subtotal Public/ 1Other- -PFEA Area No.2 Parks Schools Open Space Subtotal  6,672,913  TOTAL EXISTING &FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT BUILDOUT  Estimated! Number ofResidents int the City Estimated! Number of Jobs Inthe City Includes developmentf from the currentG General Plan. Sources CityofLincain; Dept. afFinence: EnviranicsA Analytics, Ine; Goodwin ConsultingGroup inc.    Roseville, CAJobs 2019 per US Census  Employment by Occupations 64.7k 2019 VALUE 1,688  2.63% IYEARGROWTH 3.65%  From: 2018 to2 2019. employment in Roseville, CA grew atarate of263%,f from 63.1kE employees to 64.7k employees. Ther most common jobs groups, by number ofp people! living in Roseville. CA, are! Management Occupations (8.208 peoplel, Sales & Related Occupations 17.988 people), and Office& Administrative Support Occupations (7.198 people). This chart illustrates thes share breakdown of the primaryj jobs heldby residents of Roseville, CA Patal lom tbecensus Bureau AES5yeark Estimate  Total:647k Sales - & Related Occupations 1975 357 ys Technologisisa Socaisavice -  Health Diagnosings Computer& Architecture reatingPracttioners Mathematical Engneen &Other Technical Occupations Occupations Education Instruction,  Food  Personat Production Cares Preparationa Service Occupations Serving Related Dccupatins 2685 Occupations Healthcare Suppont Uccugations 25  Management Occupations  Tansportation Occupations 2975 2.45 2.124 Construction Insiailation. Mainienance. &Extraction GRepair Occupations Accugatinas 187%  R3  1 Business & Financial  fechmcans Ompaton OficeEAdministative  Operations Occupations LibraryOccupations  Support.Occupations  anaz 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019    Cityof Lincoln  Public Facilities Element  Update  JUNE 28, 2022    Current PFE  -Ord 517B establishing Public Facilities Fee adopted March 14, 1989 Last update adopted by Res 2012-024 on February 28, 2012  Adjusted for inflation on May 13, 2014  Contract for services with Goodwin Associates for Update approved on October 28, 2014 Process for adoption delayed due to numerous changes to City staff and nuances associated with Construction, Operations and Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (COJA) between the City  and Placer County, adopted on October 16, 2013  Contract with Goodwin Associates amended in October 2017, April 2018, July 2020, and March  2022    Laws and Regulations - AB1600 Mitigation Fee Act - California Government Code [S$66000 -66008] Provide a nexus for the purpose, use, relationship and need for the fee  Shall only include the portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the  fee is imposed  Five year reporting of purpose, relationship, funding and timing of improvements  Capital Improvement Plan adopted annually May include the following facilities:  Water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer facilities Transportation and transit facilities plan adopted pursuant to $66002  Public buildings, parks, recreation facilities and other capital project identified in the capital facilities    AB602  Amends Government Code Section 65940.1 Adds Government Code Section 66016.5  Requires fees, zoning ordinances, development standards and annual reports to be posted on City's  website  Fee nexus study shall be adopted prior to adoption of an impact fee *All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days notice Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning January 2022  Nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022 shall calculate fees for residential development projects  proportionally to square footage of proposed housing units  State of California to provide a nexus study template for square footage proportionality by January 1,  2024    Review of PFE Update  Assigns two primary fee areas:  Area No. 1:includes buildout of 1988 General Plan, Lincoln 270 and Village 7 Area No. 2: includes 2008 General Plan Villages 1-6and Special Use Districts A-C Area No. 1 Drainage divided by drainage areas north and south of Auburn Ravine  Village 1 within Area No. 2 is included within Area No. 1 for Fire Area No. 1 Library is demand is met by 12 Bridges Library  *12 Bridges Development Agreement includes different allocation factors that will continue until  the DA expires on April 15, 2023    Fees for Typical 1.00 EDU Permit  Facility Type Transportation Wastewater Wastewater Treatment Water Transmission Water Storage Drainage Area 1Northof Ravine Drainage Area 1Southo of Ravine Drainage Areawide Fire Police Administration Library Solid Waste Parks and Trails Area1 Neighborhood parks Area2 Regional Parks -Area2 Trails- Area2 Park Recreational Facilities Total Area North of Ravine Total Area South of Ravine Total Area2  Current PFE  2012PFEI Indexed to! Inflation? Proposed Area 1Fee  Proposed Area 2Fee $6,477 $4,568 $7,699 $1,920 $1,024 $2,700 $264 $767 $691 $803 $1,103 $0 $682 $5,754 $0 $0 $0 $758 $34,946 $32,510  $3,636 $1,870 $4,575 $3,037 $3,571 $1,795 $1,060 $0 $557 $1,097 $970 $0 $802 $4,182 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,092 $25,357  $5,040 $2,514 $6,419 $3,719 $4,374 $2,489 $1,469 $0 $772 $1,520 $1,346 $0 $1,111 $5,798  $4,848 $6,370 $7,699 $1,150 $933 $0 $0 $811 $862 $892 $1,103 $1,482 $665 $0 $3,847 $4,210 $719 $826  $35,102 $34,082  $36,417    Area 1 Fee: Low Density Residential  North of Auburn Ravine  Current Fee  2012 PFE Indexed to Inflation  Proposed Fee  Transportation Wastewater Water Drainage  $3,636 $6,445 $6,608 $1,795 $7,608 $26,092  $5,040 $8,933 $8,093 $2,489 $10,547 $35,102  $6,477 $12,267 $2,944 $3,467 $9,791 $34,946  Community Facilities1 Total    Area 1 Fee: Low Density Residential  South of Auburn Ravine  Current Fee  2012 PFE Indexed to Inflation  Proposed Fee  Transportation Wastewater Water Drainage  $3,636 $6,445 $6,608 $1,060 $7,608 $25,357  $5,040 $8,933 $8,093 $1,469 $10,547 $34,082  $6,477 $12,267 $2,944 $1,031 $9,791 $32,510  Community Facilities1  Total    Area 2 Fee: Low Density Residential  2019 Draft  Transportation Wastewater Water Drainage  $4,848 $14,069 $2,083 $811 $14,606 $36,417  Community Facilities  Total    Area 2 Fee: Low Density Residential  Village 1  Proposed Fee  Transportation Wastewater Water Drainage  $4,848 $14,069 $2,083 $811 $14,435 $36,246  Community Facilities  Total    Municipal Code Section 13.04.160  Currently includes the Water PFE cost of $6,608.77 per 1,150 gallons per day (1.00 EDU)  Proposed revision to reference the most recently adopted nexus study  Add allocation factors for Residential Facilities  Current ordinance provides the minimum charge of 1.00 EDU    Municipal Code Sections 13.12.050 and 13.12.060  *Adds sanitary sewer allocation factors for Residential Facilities  Defers payment of Sewer PFE for commercial shell construction to time of Tenant improvements  when allocation factors can be determined  Currently includes the Sewer PFE cost of $6,134.00 per each 1.00 EDU Proposed revision to reference the most recently adopted nexus study  Revises the date of Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index used for annual inflation adjustments to align with the rest of the PFE and to be in place at the beginning of the fiscal year    Recommendations  Conduct a public hearing to receive public testimony in regards to amending the PFE fees for transportation, wastewater, water, drainage and community services with a proposed effective  date of September 10, 2022  "Adopt a resolution adopting the Public Facilities Element Program Nexus Study, dated June 10,  2022  Waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending Section 13.04.160  establishing water connection charges  Waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending Section 13.12.050 and  13.12.060 establishing sewer connection    Questions????    City of  Operating and  Lincoln  Capital  Improvement  Budget  Fiscal Year 2022-2023    Funds Overview  General Fund (Fund 100)  ARPA SLFRF Federal Assistance (Fund  102 & 237)  Public Safety Tax Share (Fund 102) Development Services Fund (Fund 248)  PFE Funds Enterprise Funds  OB    Budget Overview & Highlights  Total proposed combined budget is $129,722,349 across 57 funds  $11,548,406 in SLFRF ARPA funds with $10,000,000 available to be used for general governmental purposes Anticipation of continued construction Position allocation increases Increases in Capital projects  Photo Credit Nancy Rice    Photo Credit MI Milville  General Fund    General Fund: Funding Sources  FY2020-21 Actual  FY2021-22 Projected  FY2022-23 Proposed Budget  Projected Increase/ Decrease  FundingSources Indludingtransfersin)  Property Taxes Sales & Other taxes Licenses & Permits Intergovernmenta. Service Charges Recreation Services Fines and Forfeitures Use of Money and Property Other Revenues Transfer In Total Sources  11,893,785 5,102,939 1,577,978 747,768 2,506,143 749,668 39,059 327,883 342,205 815,810 24,103,238  11,903,720 5,500,000 1,498,605 140,300 2,346,520 945,100 39,600 318,973 629,941 756,961 24,079,720  12,508,199 5,570,000 1,522,000 238,000 2,356,155 1,162,000 41,000 325,282 267,401 456,963 24,447,000  5% 1% 2% 70% 0% 23% 4% 2% -58% -40% 1.5%    General Fund Budget  Beginning unaudted balance  July1,2022 Total Inflows -Total Outflows"  9,932,690 24,447,000 (26,714,893)  Projected - ending balance  June30,2023  7,664,797  Photo Rachel Colon  OlfowsindueLDadiadt expense, transfertoReserves    General Fund: Expense and Revenue Trend  $30.0  $25.0  $20.0  $15.0  $10.0  $5.0  $0.0 -Revenue Expenditures $14.3  FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17 FY2017-18 FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 Proposed  Projected Budget $24.1 $24.9  $16.4  $16.4 $15.3  $17.8 $15.8  $18.3 $18.0  $21.5 $18.7  $21.6 $19.3  $24.1 $19.7  $24.4 $26.7    FY2022-23 Proposed Budget  FY2020-21 FY2021-22 Actuals Projected  General Fund Uses  Uses by Department  Police Fire Recreation Library Finance City Manager  6,379,106 6,978,875 7,557,314 5,730,898 5,953,317 6,157,753 559,929 1,190,680 1,311,976 579,810 699,405 533,808 580,854 28,334 85,100  50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%  860,491 587,476 192,974 219,312 278,522 369,941  City Council /1 Treasurer 180,352 349,747 Economic Development 129,336 54,334 Community Development 662,100 625,756  City City Economic Communit Parks/Facl City Parks/Faclities/Fleet  1,541,970 2,008,794 2,418,996 218,570 276,078  Police Fire Recreatio Library Finance Manager Council/ Developm y ilities/Flee! Attorney "20-21 39% 35% 3% 4% 3% 0% 1% 1% 4% 9% 1% City 21-22 37% 32% 6% 4% 3% 0% 2% 0% 3% 11% 1% "22-23 37% 30% 6% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 12% 1% Total  Treasurer ent Developmi  ent  Attorney  243,111  16,544,213 18,802,940 20,197,866    Public Safety Tax Share (Fund 101)  Begimingunaucited balance  July1,2022 -Total Inflows -Total Outflows  1,145,652 1,048,574 979,671)  Projected 4 ending balance  June30,2023  1,214,555    ARPA State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF)  Standard Allowance (Fund 102)  ARPA Federal Assistance (Fund 237)  Received FY 21/22 To be Received 22/23 FUNDS AVAILABLE  $4,225,797 $5,774,203 $10,000,000  Received FY2 21/22  $1,548,406  FUNDS AVAILABLE  $1,548,406  Approved &/or Expended Amounts Business Grants (FY21/22) Admin Business Grants (FY21/22) LPOA retro & incentive. payments 9 firefighter personnel (3 yrs) REMAINING AVAILABLE  Approved &/or Expended Amounts COVID Business relief (FY21/22)  $ (972,500) $ (50,000) $ (340,957) $12,872,814) $ 5,763,729  $ (5,000)  REMAINING AVAILABLE  $1,543,406    Development Services (Fund 248)  Begmingunauited balance  July1,2022 -Total Inflows -Total Outflows  12,271,017 5,865,500 (4891,624)  Projectedending balance  June30,2023  13,244,893    Summary of PFE Funds  Available Funds July 1, 2022  Available  Fund #  Proposed Revenues  Proposed Funds June 30,  Fund Name  Expenses  2023  240 Transportation 241 CS-Police 243 C5-Administration 244 CS-Library 246 CS-Parks  4,711,259 1,516,001 2,307,455 915,577 7,883,129  2,835,500 1,093,000 967,500  (4,200) (465,900) (405,680) (296,918) (1,723,300)  7,542,559 2,143,101 2,869,275 618,659 9,562,829  3,403,000  242* CS-Fire  (6,416,966)  484,000  (26,190)  (5,959,156)  "Construction of three Fire Stations to provide Citywide coverage  247** Drainage  30,776  1,596,160  (500)  1,626,436  **Acquisition of Regional Retention site to serve entire General Plan area    Enterprise Fund - Water (Fund 710)  18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000  * Revenue * Expenses 2022-23 Proposed Budget 12,694,100 15,102,704  2019-20 12,385,230 11,648,751  2020-21 12,955,475 12,769,604  2021-22 Projected 15,398,700 13,838,315  Revenue lExpenses  2022-23  2021-22 Proposed  2019-20 2020-21 Projected Budget 3,206,209 3,942,688 4,128,559 5,688,944 12,385,230 12,955,475 15,398,700 12,694,100 11,648,751 12,769,604 13,856,583 15,102,704 3,942,688 4,128,559 5,688,944 3,280,340  Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expenses Ending Fund Balance  Photo Credit Eiden.    Enterprise Fund - Wastewater (Fund 720)  14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000  +-Revenue -Expenses 2022-23 Proposed Budget 11,188,350 12,898,934  2019-20 12,196,495 10,255,718  2020-21 11,970,016 9,620,888  2021-22 Projected 10,281,772 11,007,924  Revenue Expenses  2022-23  2021-22 Proposed  2019-20 2020-21 Projected Budget 5,151,019 4,742,668 7,091,796 6,365,644 12,196,495 11,970,016 10,281,772 11,188,350 10,255,718 9,620,888 11,007,924 12,898,934 7,091,796 7,091,796 6,365,644 4,655,060  Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expenses Ending Fund Balance    Enterprise Fund - Solid Waste (Fund 730)  10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000  -Revenue * Expenses 2022-23 Proposed Budget 7,712,825 9,082,690  2019-20 7,637,878 6,077,952  2020-21 7,551,764 8,849,286  2021-22 Projected 7,793,525 6,807,332 2022-23 2021-22 Proposed  Revenue Expensesi  2019-20  2020-21 Projected Budget  Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expenses Beginning Fund Balance  3,929,136 5,489,062 4,191,540 5,177,733 7,637,878 7,551,764 7,793,525 7,712,825 6,077,952 8,849,286 6,807,332 9,082,690 5,489,062 4,191,540 5,177,733 3,807,868    Enterprise Fund - Airport (Fund 750)  2,000,000 1,750,000 1,500,000 1,250,000 1,000,000 750,000 500,000 250,000  -+-Revenue -Expenses 2022-23 Proposed Budget 1,670,636 1,546,464  2019-20 1,573,480 1,577,749  2020-21 1,516,665 1,376,583  2021-22 Projected 1,665,017 1,543,731  Revenue Expenses  20  2021-22 Propo  2019-20 2020-21 Projected Budget (6,232,008) 6236277.6.96.195) (5,974,909) 1,573,480 1,516,665 1,665,017 1,670,636 1,577,749 1,376,583 1,543,731 1,546,464 (6,236,277) 6.096.95/6.974909 (5,850,737)  Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expenses Ending Fund Balance    CIP- PARKS  100  245 246  270 Lighting  PARKS  General Fund Park Tax Park PFE Landscape & Total  McBean Stadium Bleacher Replacement Foskett Park & Wilson Park Laser Grading Foskett Park Soccer Field Renovation McBean Park Bandstand Electrical Brown Park Matting replacement Coyote Pond Park Matting replacement Joiner Park Shade and Picnic Areas Moore Road Class 1 Trail Foskett Park post and cable Total Parks  120,000 30,000 74,500 67,500 66,500  $ 120,000 $ 30,000 $ 340,000 $ 74,500 $ 67,500 $ 66,500 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,215,000 $ 85,000  340,000  1,215,000 85,000  194,500 164,000 1,640,000 100,000 2,098,500    CIP-S STREETS  221 tax  223  244 245 298  620  Streets-Gas Streets-TDA Library PFE ParkTax Federal Facility Maint/ Total  Grants Replacement 1,670,464  Joiner Pkwy Pavement Rehab Phase 2-CON Ferrari Ranch Road UPRR Crossing IStreet &JS Street Rehabilitation Slurry seal & re-stripe parking lots Road Sealant project Bicycle Infrastructure Project 22/23 Total Streets  279,536 515,000 373,536 1,526,464 850,000  $ 1,950,000 $ 515,000 $ 1,900,000 $ 321,153 $ 850,000 $ 43,274 5,579,427  53,708 191,931  75,514  43,274  1,223,536 2,364,274 53,708 191,931 1,670,46475,514    CIP - WATER, WASTEWATER, DRAINAGE, AIRPORT  275 CFD2004-1 Retention Basin  711  721 Wastewater  750  755 Federal Grants  Storm Water Water Capital Capital Airport Aviation Total  WATER Water distribution rehabilitation FY 21/22 East Water distribution Rehab FY21/22 West Total Water WASTEWATER SCADA control upgrades Total Wastewater  850,000 4,810,000 5,660,000  $ 850,000 $ 4,810,000 5,660,000 $ 235,000 235,000  235,000 235,000  Ongoing projects requiring no additional funding in FY 2022-2023 WATER  Verdera North Pressure Reducing Station Fire! hydrant replacement program -Replace fire hydrants and laterals across the city Large water meter replacement WASTEW/ATER Oxidation Ditch -Retrofit of existing rotor system Corp Yard CDS unit installation -Installation of hydrodynamic separator  Replacement/repair of water pipelines, fire hydrants, water valves and laterals  -Replacement of 5 existing large water meters that are past their service life    CIP- - WATER, WASTEWATER, DRAINAGE, AIRPORT  275 CFD2004-1 Retention Basin 2,277,000 2,277,000  711  721 Wastewater  750  755 Federal Grants  Storm Water Water Capital Capital Airport Aviation Total  DRAINAGE Lakeview Farms Volumetric Storage Ph1 Total Drainage AIRPORT Airport Oil/Water Separator Airport Pavement Management Plan Total Airport  $ 2,277,000 2,277,000 $ 70,000  12,000 108,000$ 120,000 12,000 108,000 190,000  Ongoing projects requiring no additional funding in FY 2022-2023 AIRPORT Underground Fuel Tank Removal -Removal of existing underground fuel tank system Reconstruct Runway 15-33 Design -Design services for the reconstruction of Airport Runway    CIP. - PUBLIC BUILDINGS  236 Fees  241  243 244 250  540  620  Supplemental PFE-Police PFE- Admin Library PFE State Grants Capital Facility! Maint/ Total  Improvement Replacement  Community Center Improvements PD: server room A/C upgrade PDI ITroom expansion McBean Park roof repairs Beermans Plazal lawn replacement McBean Pavilion. ACI Replacement Police parking lot expansion Police Dispatch break room City Hall exterior painting Twelve Bridges Library exterior paint McBean Pavilion exterior paint McBean Pavilion Interior upgrades Council Chambers & Office relocation design Total Public Bidgs  178,000  $ 178,000 $ 40,000 $ 350,000 $ 80,000 $ 50,000 $ 75,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 140,000 $ 186,500 $ 123,000 $ 100,000 $ 225,000 130,000 1,622,500  40,000 350,000  80,000 50,000 75,000  50,000 25,000  140,000  51,500 123,000 100,000  135,000  225,000  274,500 465,000 365,000 135,000 178,000  75,000    CIP - VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT  100  223  246  270 Lighting  711  721  731  General Fund Streets- TDA Park PFE Landscape & Water Capital Wastewater Solid Waste Total  Capital Capital  VEHICLES and EQUIPMENT HME Type 3 Wildland engine Fire SUV/pickup for Chief (10) Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Fire Chevy Traverse Police (2) Patrol Vehicles Police (2) Chevy Silverado 1500 -Parks Chevy Colorado Parks (2) Collection truck- Solid Waste Roll off collection truck- Solid Waste (2) F350 Utility trucks with liftgate & crane- - Streets Dump truck- Streets 3Axle Trailer Streets Chevy Silverado 1500- Water Case Backhoe Water Trailer mounted bypass pump Wastewater Ford F250 utility truck- Wastewater Vactor and two separators Wastewater Bobcat for WWTRF Total Vehicles and Equipment  477,000 79,800 140,000 40,000 140,000 20,000  $ 477,000 $ 79,800 $ 140,000 $ 40,000 $ 140,000 80,000 40,000 800,000 $ 800,000 270,000 $ 270,000 $ 190,000 $ 190,000 $ 45,000 $ 33,000 $ 175,000 $ 90,000 $ 65,000 $ 600,000 115,000  80,000  20,000  190,000 190,000 45,000  33,000 175,000  90,000 65,000 600,000 115,000  896,800 425,000 80,000 20,000 208,000 870,000 1,070,000 3,569,800    CIP - TECHNOLOGY  223 243 244 270  600  630 710  711  720 730  Streets-TDA PFE-Admin Library PFE Landscape & Internal Fund Technology Water Water Capital Wastewater Solid Waste  Lighting Service  Operations  TECHNOLOGY City-wide Financial Software Physical Security Upgrades Network Architecture Security Solid Waste Routing software Cityl Hall /Library Camera! Security Project Public Works work order system Total Technology  500,000  600,000 200,000  225,000 $ 2,400 74,400$  40,000 30,000  19,200  6,000 6,000  12,000  19,200 40,000 30,000 6,000 6,000 500,000 12,000 800,000 2,400 299,400    2022/2023 FUTURE YEARS CIPS -$126,149,462  PARKS  $ 12,121,000 $ 6,050,000 $ 350,000 $ 208,000 $ 3,590,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 213,500 $ 183,500 $ 183,500 $ 120,000 $ 122,500  STREETS  $ 21,910,462 $ 214,844 $ 300,000 $ 52,621 $ 65,000 $ 52,621 $ 1,550,000 $ 312,000 $ 1,966,078 $ 171,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 2,280,000 $ 2,015,000 $ 3,265,000 $ 2,028,000 $ 130,000 $ 309,625 $ 350,000 $ 2,053,673 $ 100,000 $ 95,000  McBean Baseball Stadium Ph2 McBean Park Playground Ph1 Joiner Park Playground Equipment Jimenez Park Ph4 Baseball Fields McBean Baseball Dugouts Foskett Park Parking Lot ADA Ph2 Coyote Pond Park Parking Lot ADA Pete Singer Park Parking Lot ADA Twelve Bridges Park Parking Lot ADA Wilson Park Parking Lot ADA  Fiddyment Road base failure & pothole repair Twelve Bridges Channel Maintenance 540 F Street ADA Ramp with signage Ashwood Court Drainage Imp 540FStreet Directional signs Industrial Avenue Rehab Ferrari Ranch Road metering project Lincoln Blvd Repaving Ph2 Deploy signal coordination GPS receivers High School street resurfacing & sewer 3rd Street Rehab East Avenue Rehab Joiner Parkway Pavement Rehab Ph3 Lincoln Blvd Ph4 McBean Sidewalk gap closure Ph1 Crosswalk at Ferrari and Groveland Twelve Bridges Striping Refresh Ph2 Fiddyment Road Rehab Project New Storm drain manholes Storm Drain Replacement    WASTEWATER UPRR Sewer Rehab East Joiner Pump Station Imp QStreet Lift Station Rehab East Joiner Lift Station Rehab High School Area Street Resurfacing & Sewer Sewer hot spot repairs Aviation & Venture Sewer Line Rehab Sewer Restriction Aviation Drive Pump 3rd St Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Markham Sewer Point Repairs CCTV Wastewater Collection System Ph2 Reclamation - Machado & Singer Sewer Restriction - Lincoln Crossing Sewer Restriction North East Avenue Sewer Restriction NRPS Collection Shed Sewer Restriction - Old Town North Sewer Restriction - Old Town South (A) Sewer Restriction - Old Town South (B) Sewer System Rehab FY23/24 Sewer System Rehab FY 24/25 Sewer System Rehab FY 25/26 Sewer System Rehab FY27/28 WWTRF Expansion Ph2  56,781,000 $ 1,940,000 $ 2,285,000 $ 2,010,000 $ 1,745,000 > 1,555,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 685,000 $ 510,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 265,000 $ 590,000 1,040,000 $ $ 975,000 $ 1,840,000 $ 1,941,000 $ 2,615,000 $ 2,475,000 $ 1,900,000 $ 1,625,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 2,845,000 $ 2,100,000 4,880,000 $ 13,000,000  2022/2023 FUTURE YEARS CIPS-5126,149,462 WWTRF Expansion Ph1  WATER  $ 13,425,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 2,525,000 $ 5,400,000 $ 366,000 $ 188,000 $ 178,000 $ 20,395,000 $ 20,395,000 $ 1,001,000 $ 210,000 $ 210,000 $ 145,000 $ 436,000 $ 150,000 $ 65,000 $ 85,000  Water Distribution Rehab FY23/24 Water Distribution Rehab FY24/25 Water Distribution Rehab FY25/26 DRAINAGE New Storm Drain Manholes Storm Drain Replacement AIRPORT Reconstruct Runway 15-33 Construction PUBLIC BLDGS Community Center Roof Civic Center Exterior Painting Fire Stations 33, 34, & 35 ADA Improvements Fire Stations 35 Driveway & Fencing VEHICLES / EQUIPMENT Ford F350 utility truck Ford F350 Utility truck with crane    New Positions  ITS Supervisor GISA Analyst I/II Code Enforcement Officer I/II  Police Sergeant Dispatcher Police Records Clerk/Evidence Tech (2FTE) Fire Engineer (9 FTE)  Associate Planner Engineer Building Inspector (2FTE) Permit Tech  Maintenance Services Manager Wastewater Tech Water Tech (2 FTE)  T/Administration  Public Safety  Community Development  Public Works    Photo Credit David Hughes    IDF  Holly. Andreatta, Mayor City ofLincoln 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 June 28, 2022  Lircoln AREACHAMBER OFC COMMERCE  RE: Proposed Lincoln Hotel Incentive Program.  Tom Indrieri, CEO  Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce Dear Mayor Andreatta and members oft the City Council,  Markl Luster, President The Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce would like to submit al letter of Sierra Pacific Industries support for the proposed Lincoln Hotel Incentive Program. Edl Mertens, Past President development and help move: forward and drive economic development int the  The Chamber is very supportive ofaj program designed to encourage hotel  Mertens Insurance. Agency City ofLincoln. Brandon Bowling, Vice President Asa voice for our business  we  William Jessup University  community, enthusiastically support an  incentive program that can help bring more hotels to our city. As Lincoln PG&E impossible to estimate the loss of revenue and tax dollars that wel lose to Roseville and] Rocklin due to our relatives, friends and corporate events that Sutter Health revenue and' TOT taxes from activities generated right here in Lincoln? But only having one. hotel forces most families to lodge elsewhere and ai majority  Brandon Sanders, Director continues to grow, SO does our schools and sports programs. It is nearly Eric Dalton, Treasurer have to lodge int the nearby cities. Wouldn'tit be: nice to capture all that Kimberly McCue, Secretary spend their money gassing up and eating outi in close proximity toi the hotel Claire Luke, Board Chair On behalf oft thel Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce, Ia ask that you support  Lincoln Funeral Home they are staying at.  Lincoln Community Foundation the proposed Lincoln Hotel Incentive Program.  Melanie Bergevin, Director Sincerely,  Edward Jones FSB Public. Affairs Randy Johnson, Director Lincoln Gun Exchange Aldo Pineschi, Director Aldo Pineschi Consulting Vic Wursten, Director PRIDE Industries Lew Forrest, Director Realty One Group  Tom Indrieri 530-300-6039  Cherri Spriggs, Director CEO - Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce  540FSt., Lincoln, CA 95648 Phone:916-645-2035 Fax:916-645-9455 wwwlincohnchamber.com    ACTION SUMMARY June 28, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 1  Presentation  CONSENT  ITEM RESO/ORD# Joiner Karleskint Lauritsen Silhi Mayor Andreatta  8A 8B 8C 8D 8E 8F 8G 8H 81 8J 8K 8L  153 154 155 1046B 156 157 158 159  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y  1 1 1 2 2 2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y  1 1 2 2 Y Y Y  Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y    ACTION SUMMARY June 28, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 2  Consent  Public Hearings  General Business  Info Items  ITEM RESO/ORD# Joiner Karleskint Lauritsen Silhi Mayor Andreatta  9A 9A 9B 9B 9B 10A 10B 10C 10D 10E 10F 12A  160 161 162 1047B 1048B 163 164 165  : 166 = 1 Y Y 2 Y  1 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 2 2 2 Y 2 2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Y Y Y 1 1 1 Y 2 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y