Sacramento Suburban Development

[otnemarcaS]

Originally Posted by Darn Good City

(It currently takes me 5 minutes to get home from work during regular rush hour traffic times, because I live and work near Downtown, and can take the grid to get anywhere)

My friend works for Intel in Folsom and it also takes her 5 mins to get home in Folsom during rush hour traffic. Guess it's better to have her move to MT/DT and commute to Folsom so she can declare how urban she is and show how deplorable surburbs are (microchip engineering job be damned). Or she can convince Intel to move it's 6800 employee, 7 building, 214 acre campus into beautiful DT/MT Sacramento.

Reminds me of those apt building banners I see around town that says "If you lived here, you'd be home by now". Yeah, right, spare me.

[econgrad]

Tronblue
^ I think its funny your trying to act like your above it all, and yet your making assumptions as well as just criticizing what we are discussing. why don't you add something useful or factual to our discussions? Personally, I like to read what Ozone and Wbrug and even Nuehickman's posts especially when they get mad, and especially when I am challenged to think about my arguments more and in one actual case, changed my mind about street cars which I now support with Wburg. Dialogue and arguments are extremely useful when being open minded and actually being interested in what people have to say that is different from you. Even if Ozone, Wburg and Newhicky really do not care what I have to say, I enjoy the debates very much and find it very informative and useful. Yet, I do not believe they are not interested in what I have to say because their responses are genuine even if some anger and frustration comes to fruit. So basically what I am saying is, can you add something of meaning to this conversation or are you just going to play the game of "I am so above it all" like a person without a purpose but doesn't want anyone to know that...

[TWAK]

takes me 8 minutes to get home and I do live within the city limits, but not downtown. I could always move to a warehouse in west sacramento next to where I work.
Not everybody can work in some office or something in downtown. Or does the lower income class not count in those urban dreams?

[tronblue]

Econ- Sorry that I offended you, but I'm glade to make you laugh. I think its great to find forum users that aren't overly serious most of the time about what they post and how they respond. Thanks for calling me out and putting me in my place.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by tronblue

Econ- Sorry that I offended you, but I'm glade to make you laugh. I think its great to find forum users that aren't overly serious most of the time about what they post and how they respond. Thanks for calling me out and putting me in my place.

Wasn't offended in the least. And I never wanted to call you out or put you in your place. I believe strongly in good dialogue among opposing points of view that's all. Too many peeps today are so worried about what their opinions might endure for them in this world today. I would never want to put you in your place, I was just trying to get you more involved. Forgive me if I seemed to harsh.
(I hate Emoticons too! ah shit, I just used one! again! I cant stop! dammit! F*ck! )

[BrianSac]

I'm all for living close to where you work weather it be in Folsom or Downtown. If I worked in Folsom I would live in Folsom. Since I work Downtown I live near Downtown.

Econgrad: It seems you have issues with urbanity, density, walking to work, you seem to equate anything in the "city" as anti-family. What about all the urban, pedestrian-friendly, car-free cities in Europe that are "pro" family.
Trust me I have no issues with a huge pad in the hills, 3 car garages, huge decks, SUVs, driving everywhere from one end of mall to other because it takes too long to walk the acreage from one big box to the other. I have family that all live that way in El Dorado County. They own huge trucks so I can borrow them once a year when I really need a truck. But, if someone wants to downsize by living in the city so they can walk to the grocery store and a million other small businesses in their neighborhood, and walk or bike to work how is that anti-family? Have you ever lived in a city like SF, NYC, Seattle, London to truely appreciate what real city living is like.
Oh, not everyone is as eloquent as you hence the emoticons,

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

I'm all for living close to where you work weather it be in Folsom or Downtown. If I worked in Folsom I would live in Folsom. Since I work Downtown I live near Downtown.

Econgrad: It seems you have issues with urbanity, density, walking to work, you seem to equate anything in the "city" as anti-family. What about all the urban, pedestrian-friendly, car-free cities in Europe that are "pro" family.
Trust me I have no issues with a huge pad in the hills, 3 car garages, huge decks, SUVs, driving everywhere from one end of mall to other because it takes too long to walk the acreage from one big box to the other. I have family that all live that way in El Dorado County. They own huge trucks so I can borrow them once a year when I really need a truck. But, if someone wants to downsize by living in the city so they can walk to the grocery store and a million other small businesses in their neighborhood, and walk or bike to work how is that anti-family? Have you ever lived in a city like SF, NYC, Seattle, London to truely appreciate what real city living is like.
Oh, not everyone is as eloquent as you hence the emoticons,

I don't remember using the term Anti-Family. I am not anti-urban, I am anti-rhetoric and anti-unreasonable (hahahaha reasonable). The hatred, pure hatred towards people who live in different areas is just ridiculous. You know well I have lived in NYC, and loved it. urbanism in itself is not anti family, but creating a pattern of cool hip urban dwellings for "empty nesters" and 2 to 3 bedroom condos around 900 to 1200 SF at the price of $600,000 when one could buy a house with a yard and a pool for $350,000 is just simply put: Ass backwards. My critique of the urban movement is thus: Too much rhetoric against the other side of living (suburbs). Also, the only reason the costs of development and the costs of ownership are so high in urban areas is bad taxing and bad environmental studies, meetings, workshops, bureaucracies on top of bureaucracies wasting our tax dollars. we all agree that some of us want urban living, the answer is just build it according to demand and stop with the EIR's and other useless crap, fire most of the city planning staff and let the few people left actually work for once. By work I mean allowing and making sure things are done in a few years, not 10, 20, 30 or 40 or even 50 (How long have the railyards been an issue?) . Temper growth with reason, but do not hinder progress. I want huge buildings in Sacramento, I want a thriving metropolis. Just spare me the meaningless hatred and rhetoric and stupidity and politics and get to what is important: standard of living. We need more roads as well as we need public transit. If one wants to live in a "walkable community" then build them according to demand, but do not force all of us to concede and give up what we want if we want cars and trucks and 4X4 trails. There is no evil forces designing and building cars and houses in suburbs that is destroying our earth and way of life. The reason why we do not have a large urban city in Sacramento is that there was no demand for one before. The town was a military town very middle class. The progress is just amazing, but lets not get overboard about it. Lets not deny other communities (the suburbs) around the central city their rights for a common standard of living by forcing people to live a way they do not wish. We can all have what we want if we work and communicate instead of label and detest. I would live downtown if there was something worth buying...I would have to commute to work, but walking to bars and restaurants would be fun again. Think of this: When you enter a place Price Costco and buy in bulk, its less expensive. When developers build a compact dwelling, a highrise or skyscraper with extremely dense living, it should be much more affordable than a house with a yard in a lesser dense area. The reasons it is not more affordable is not because of higher demand, it is because of high costs of development. The high costs of development is not due to scarce resources, or pure expensiveness of the engineering process of large buildings, but the high costs are due to bad policies and regulations. In turn, some fool themselves in creating a fantasy of urbanism that needs to be funded by our tax dollars and in turn we get mediocre urban products. I want the same city Wburg wants, well maybe a combination of what Majin and Wburg want. Its the process and the politics and the reasoning I disagree with, not the end results.

[Majin]

Holy shit wall of text.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by econgrad

Rebuttal for Wburg:

FALSE, if you do your research and know anything about real estate you would see that property values in both Urban and suburban areas fluctuate. Without Urban renewal, and all the tax money that goes with it, DT and MT would probably be just work areas and low rent ghettos, while old neighborhoods in Fair Oaks, The Fab 40's, Citrus Heights, Folsom, Roseville El Dorado Hills continue to rise in value (yes, even with the dip in the market the houses are still worth more now and will continue to rise). MOST suburbs maintain there values without all the renewal programs paid for by our taxes.

Property values increase over time due to many factors, but quality of neighborhood is not necessarily one of them. When Oak Park was built, houses cost about $5000. Today, they cost about $100-200,000, but I don't think you'd suggest that the area was a high-value area even though houses cost 20-40 times as much. Neighborhood decline is mostly about social and economic issues, not land values.

Oh, by the way: Midtown didn't get any urban renewal efforts, thank goodness! Midtown was preserved because people bought and fixed up the individual houses, and pressured banks to allow loans in neighborhoods that had previously been "redlined" (denied credit because nonwhites lived in the neighborhood.) Downtown urban renewal programs were primarily a way for the city to get rid of its nonwhite neighborhoods, and a way for the business class to make money off the public dole.

This moves on to your next false statement "suburbs are a disposable product", if that were true then the values of homes would go down, not up. An $80,000 home in Folsom built in the 1960's would not be worth $600,000 now if it was a disposable product. The rest of your paragraph about the middle class moving in to more wealthier suburbs is amazingly off base as well, the middle class is moving into NEW suburbs built in natomas and Elk Grove and roseville, because this is a wise investment for them and their families.

What I said was that most suburbs are a disposable product, not necessarily individual homes or all suburbs. Suburbs can be built to be sustainable if they are built intelligently. Folsom homes are worth a lot because of their stage in the growth cycle: they're an old town, but a new suburb. And I would argue that part of why Folsom has seen continued growth while Elk Grove and Natomas stagnate is because they made an effort to ensure that they had a public transit connection with Sacramento. And remember, when we're talking about neighborhood decline, we're not necessarily talking about property values.

The available supply of land that can be developed is dictated by us, not by suburban developers. There is and always will be plenty of room. The costs you quote above are paid for by the profit and taxes the profit creates by selling these mass neighborhoods.

The available supply of land that can be developed is dictated by the physical constraints of the land. We build on the easiest places first, although in many cases building there has other costs in reducing available arable farmland or increasing flood risks. As land becomes less available, more expenses (like flood control) are necessary to make these lands available. Normally, a suburban developer will try to get the government to pay for as much of this as possible--in essence, they seek government subsidy, often in massive quantity.

The costs of Urban Renewal is far greater and is paid for by taxes not out of profit or investment which in turn makes the tax based investment (Our money) less valuable in the long run. The flooding issue is moot, Downtown if flooded would be a mega disaster, where if natomas flooded it would be just a disaster, the more impacted the development the more damage will be caused by natural disasters and the costs are greater. As regards to your levee comment: Levee's are used for Urban, Suburban, Farm Land, Parks, etc. How do the costs make any difference in these matters?

The Sacramento Valley has a finite amount of space. Every year, water enters that finite amount of space via the rivers and precipitation. It all has to go somewhere. If the amount of space it can occupy (due to levees) is reduced, then the total amount of water has to occupy a smaller space, thus resulting in more water in a smaller area. By building for density instead of sprawl, we occupy less land area, requiring fewer and shorter levees. This saves money spent on levee construction.

Have you ever flown? There is so much room, it would take 1000 years before we started to run out of land. Also, climate change and oil shortages are a political belief, not backed by sound science, please do not use these beliefs to take away my choice of living, this is something to fight and die over. Freedom. FYI: Suburban land devlopers are just guys that build houses for families, they work hard, invest millions, and keep this country livable.

I don't think suburban land developers are evil people, they're just trying to build stuff. But the way they are being built is not sustainable in the long run. There's a lot of room in this country, but I don't think that filling it all with people and suburbs, even over the next thousand years, is something humanity should aspire to. For starters, where will we put the farms that grow the food that all these people will eat? Will we willingly sacrifice the diversity and beauty of the natural world so everyone can have a lawn and a backyard pool? And how many people do you think should have to fight and die so you won't have to sacrifice any personal comfort?

We agree partially. Build as much public trans as you want to, just equally support our rights to be free and drive our cars. Equal investment in roads and public trans is fine in my book, just do not force people out of their cars for a political agenda.

Assuming that government funds and resources are limitless, that might not be a bad idea, but remember that every dollar the government spends on public transit or public roads comes from tax revenue. This means that these funds and resources are not limitless. Your "rights to be free" require more public expenditure for roads and highways than public transit does: one city bus takes 40 cars off the road but requires a fraction of the cost in fuel, road wear and infrastructure costs.

Let's repeat that. Roads are a public cost that the taxpayer bears, and they are more expensive per capita than public transit systems.

Darn Good City: Read that book, and seen the movie. They are both propaganda. I do recommend them for everyone here just to see how silly the assumptions are. Example, Suburbs cause segregation? Then why is San Francisco about 60% white, and Rancho Cordova suburb more like 40%? How is a great international city not as diverse as suburbs? Because Urban living does not support families as good as suburban living. Therefore family oriented cultures, especially Hispanic, Asian and Indian (East Indian for those of you who live in Rio Linda) will be living in suburbs making them more diverse as inner city costs continue to rise as we struggle to pay for renewing it every so many years.

Rancho Cordova is 66% white. San Francisco is 44% white.

[econgrad]

^
Rechecked:

http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/Index.aspx?page=34
Rancho 53.6% white

San Francisco 44.0% White as of 2008
http://www.ssf.net/about/demographics.asp

Which is still a lower % than Rancho...

[snfenoc]

In response to the wall:

econgrad, I also get tired of the suburb-hate I see on this board. Yes, the urbanite elitists may have "research" which supports urban living and says suburbanites are racist whities. However, any ass can come up with a study, and any ass can manipulate the results to prove whatever he wants. (I often wonder where wburg gets his information and conclusions - probably from sources that support his bias.) While I understand skepticism and cynicism are not proof the studies are crap, I still don't totally buy the notion that suburbs = bad & urban = good. To be fair, only a few posters here have made that claim. As a lover of true liberty, I want to see the free market decide what is bad and what is good.

(Ozone, you may begin to rant about how there is no such thing as a free market.....................wait for it.................NOW! The rest of us will just sit back an roll our eyes )

HOWEVER, I think it's a little simplistic to place the blame for problems building dense, urban development (residential and business) squarely on the shoulders of high taxes, fees, ordinances/laws, and regulations. Yes, all of those add to the development nightmare, and I agree they should be reduced (or totally removed), but you are wrong to discount market conditions. It is expensive to build urban and build up, because urban land is expensive, labor is expensive and materials are expensive. The cost of construction combined with maybe some developer/investor greed plays the largest role in the city's smallish (relative to other cities) private development. It's also important to consider the demand side of the equation: we just don't have the type of buyers (new, big business and rich condo/apartment tenants) to support inward and upward development right now.

You brought up the rail yard. Well, it's true, a dumbass, freedom-hating decision by the stupid butt-faces on the city council led to roadblocks for Mills Corp. 8-10 years ago. However, I don't place any blame on government for lack of development up to that point, and I don't blame government for lack of development since Thomas took the lead. Any reputable developer would decontaminate the soil before he builds on it - that takes time. Plus, it takes a long time to put together billions of dollars in development.

The following does not really speak to any of your points, econgrad, I just see an oppportunity to talk about land annexation:
It's not wrong for a community to resist outward growth/building - as long as that area of potential growth is not already part of the community (i.e., it has not been annexed...yet). I'm not sure how Natomas came to be, but I think the city had to annex it many years ago (????) - perhaps it should not have done so. Yes, the city got larger, but so did the adminstrative headache. Had Sacramento not added Natomas to the city limits, it may have led to more inward growth. (Of course, we may have ended up with The City of Natomas or just an unincorporated community with as many suburban nightmare homes. Who knows?) It's not wrong to limit the scope (land-wise) of our community's government. We should not be forced to pay for extra roads, police/fire and other stuff to service more suburbs if we do not want. Now, if the land in question is already within the limits of the community, then knock yourself out, Mr. Tsakopoulos.

[BrianSac]

Addressing the Wall:

May I ask where in NYC did you live? Upper Westside, Midtown, Lower Eastside, Queens, or the far ends of Long Island?...just curious because of your love for the suburbs.

Surprisingly, I agree with most of what you say. I can't see buying one of those L Street lofts or the 15th/L street building downtown because I think they are too expensive. When you buy a loft in Seattle, NYC or SF you are buying a truely urban environment as much as you are buying the loft. You just dont get that when you buy a loft in Sactown....they need to lower their prices. However, the lofts are probably an excellent investment over the long haul. Especially, considering they are one of kind in this huge suburb we live in.

Regarding greed: I was talking to a guy who put money down on the Sac Towers and six months later they increased the price by $200,000, so he withdrew from buying (all before Saca had his money crisis). I blame the whole planning proceses delaying all the projects from getting built. If they didnt have those endless meetings, half of those projects would have been able to get started before the economy went bad.

[Darn Good City]

Originally Posted by otnemarcaS

My friend works for Intel in Folsom and it also takes her 5 mins to get home in Folsom during rush hour traffic. Guess it's better to have her move to MT/DT and commute to Folsom so she can declare how urban she is and show how deplorable surburbs are (microchip engineering job be damned). Or she can convince Intel to move it's 6800 employee, 7 building, 214 acre campus into beautiful DT/MT Sacramento.

Reminds me of those apt building banners I see around town that says "If you lived here, you'd be home by now". Yeah, right, spare me.

Yes! She should suggest Intel relocate---they could probably fill their own skyscraper in Downtown, with residential units above. That would be awesome! Why waste 214 acres in the middle of nowhere when they could have a prominent vertical half-block downtown? Then the commute would just be an elevator ride, although calling in sick and then trying to sneak down the elevator past work would be difficult.

I'm not sure why you don't like to hear positive things about living and working near the core area, and why do you mention your friend's commute but not yours?

I totally don't fit in the wealthy hip urban category--I just like cities. And I've been in suburbs and in cities enough to know my preference---I like skyscrapers and dense areas. I made alot of choices specific to that, like not accepting a job in the suburb areas even though it would have paid more, and by living in a small house in an area that has some challenges so that I can afford to be within walking and bicycling distance to all of the places I go regularly, not just work, and so that my short commute to work is not in a car. Also, my experience is that cities are much more family-friendly than suburbs, and this is another priority for me. I'm pretty sure no one moves to MT/DT just for urban declaring rights on this forum.

The main thing missing in the MT/DT area is affordable dense housing. I would like to see a mid-rise "loft" that isn't all luxuried-up, where the units are just an open volume with exposed ducts and large operable windows and even Ikea kitchens if it could keep the costs down, balconies, and plain concrete floors. Most people I know just want to get into a space, and do not need the overpriced luxury appliances, granite countertops, and ridiculous valet services. Just walls around the bathroom, and otherwise open. Then they could add things as they had the money to do so, or not. It would be interesting to see if the cost of development on such a simplified building would pencil out for selling affordable units.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by Darn Good City

The main thing missing in the MT/DT area is affordable dense housing. I would like to see a mid-rise "loft" that isn't all luxuried-up, where the units are just an open volume with exposed ducts and large operable windows and even Ikea kitchens if it could keep the costs down, balconies, and plain concrete floors. Most people I know just want to get into a space, and do not need the overpriced luxury appliances, granite countertops, and ridiculous valet services. Just walls around the bathroom, and otherwise open. Then they could add things as they had the money to do so, or not. It would be interesting to see if the cost of development on such a simplified building would pencil out for selling affordable units.

I agree 100%. A true loft was never supposed to be expensive, rather it's an alternative so that one can have a lot of living space in a dense urban area, usually in a readapted warehouse building. R street comes close.

[otnemarcaS]

Originally Posted by Darn Good City

Yes! She should suggest Intel relocate---they could probably fill their own skyscraper in Downtown, with residential units above. That would be awesome! Why waste 214 acres in the middle of nowhere when they could have a prominent vertical half-block downtown? Then the commute would just be an elevator ride, although calling in sick and then trying to sneak down the elevator past work would be difficult.

You do know this is a huge research and development campus responsible for creating, testing, validating chips and chipset and not their world headquarters? It also had some manufacturing operations till that was moved to other plants. First, companies like that are looking for locations with room to grow. Intel started with 3 or 4 buildings and now has 7 as they expanded and hired more people. Be realistic about what a company can do in any city center. My reference to Intel is also about working for large manufacturing outfits. Stop looking at the blind sided thought that any company can just place their buildings downtown.

Originally Posted by Darn Good City

I'm not sure why you don't like to hear positive things about living and working near the core area, and why do you mention your friend's commute but not yours?

Not true. Pure assumptions. First I have mentioned my commute several times on this forum. Again, I live in North Natomas and commute about 12 mins to my job in South Natomas (only 'cos of all those traffic lights on Truxel else I'd make it to work in about 6 mins door to door).

Second, I don't dislike living or working near the urban core, I just dislike attitudes that berate others for making a personal choice to live away from the urban core. More power to you for turning down a job just to live in the urban core. Not everybody is willing to do that or can afford to do that. Job location has been one of my arguments for making the choice to live away from the city center. 1 out of 10 jobs in the area is located in the city center yet you think it is wise for people to still want to live in the urban core.

When I was looking to buy a house I got in line for the Towers, Aura, 1801 L and other high rise city center homes ..... till I saw the prices. MT/DT Sac is NOT yet a place where I felt those prices were justified, else I'd probably be living DT/MT myself. Additionally, I am not into living in 50, 60, 100 year old victorian homes or whatever. Not my cup of tea. I was looking to buy a brand new or recently built house. I lived in SF for 2 years (can't get more urban in Northern Calif) and even if I had to buy in that city it would be in one of the many new highrise condos going up. Same in Sac.

So, I am not against urban living just against the opinion that urban living in Sacramento is a one size fits all. More so with the attitude that denounces living elsewhere but Sac city center regardless of how vibrant or economically viable the place (or suburb) is. I want to see Sac's city center continue to develop and evolve into an entertainment, restaurant and cultural hub of activity. You can quote all the textbook answers to living the urban core but it still boils down to individual personal decisions that should not be denounced. And, yes, I do enjoy living in Natomas.

[SacTownKing916]

north natomas


Does anyone know when this project is going to start in Natomas off of the freeway. Thank You.

[innov8]

^ The Commerce Station passed the Planning Commission an April 17th and the
City Council on May 20th. I have not heard of any movement since.

[Cynikal]

I doubt they will be able to break ground before the flood restrictions are in place. That puts it out past 2011.

[SacUrbnPlnr]

Commerce Station doesn't necessarily need to break ground before December 31, after which the more restrictive floodplain designation takes effect. The developer would need to obtain all necessary construction permits, however, for any part of the project for which its wants to proceed with construction in 2009 or thereafter.

Hard to say how likely that is.

[econgrad]

Developers seek fee while Folsom council hesitates
By Cathy Locke - clocke@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 4, 2008

In an unusual reversal of roles, area developers urged the Folsom City Council to impose a regional transportation fee on new development, while council members worried that the fee could hinder economic recovery.

With the support of large landowners, the council last week became the second agency to endorse a regional fee program to help fund projects that would relieve traffic congestion along the Highway 50 corridor.

The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors voted in July to support the program as a participant in the Highway 50 Corridor Mobility Partnership.

"This is one of the few times you will see me in front of you saying, 'Hey, go ahead and approve a fee,' " said Nick Alexander, a representative of Carpenter Ranch, one of four landowners and development firms in the partnership.

The partnership was formed about three years ago to come up with a coordinated plan to reduce traffic congestion along Highway 50. It consists of El Dorado and Sacramento counties, the cities of Folsom and Rancho Cordova, and private landowners GenCorp, Elliott Homes, AKT Development and Carpenter Ranch.

The regional fee is ex- pected to generate about $169 million, or 40 percent of the estimated total cost of the initial projects. Folsom's total contribution is estimated to be about $39.5 million, according to a staff report. The fee would apply only to new development in the city's sphere of influence south of the freeway.

The first phase of the fee program would fund three road projects and a transit project:

• Auxiliary lanes along Highway 50 from Sunrise Boulevard to Scott Road.

• Widening of White Rock Road from two to four lanes from Silva Valley Parkway in El Dorado County to Sunrise Boulevard in Sacramento County.

• Modifications to the Hazel Avenue interchange and a new connection between Hazel Avenue and White Rock Road.

• Increasing light-rail frequency on the Gold Line east of Sunrise Boulevard from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes.

The estimated fee for a single-family residence in Folsom's sphere of influence would be $2,676. Retail rates are estimated at $4.36 per square foot; office rates, $3.08 per square foot; and industrial, $2.43 per square foot.

Staff members said the fees take into account that the city likely will have its own impact fee to fund portions of the projects, and that amount is deducted to avoid double charges.

Councilman Jeff Starsky said he was concerned that Folsom's fees would be the highest among jurisdictions in the partnership.

"I don't want our sphere of influence to be disadvantaged when we come out of the (economic) slump," he said.

Russ Davis of Elliott Homes said it was important to look not only at a single fee, but at total fees imposed on new development. Folsom's total fees would still be more competitive than those in neighboring communities, he said.

The regional fee is important, Davis said, because it would provide needed leverage to attract state and federal transportation dollars for the projects.

"The goal here was to try to come up with a solution that actually improves mobility on the Highway 50 corridor," he said.

Typically, jurisdictions look only at projects within their own boundaries, and "they don't always get improvements that make a difference," he said.

Staff members said a governing body must be created or selected to oversee the program before the fees can be collected.

Council members voted unanimously to support the regional fee program but said they saw no need to establish a new organization. They suggested assigning governance to the joint powers authority set up to develop a connector roadway from Elk Grove to western El Dorado Hills, or a similar body that oversees the Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor, formerly the Southern Pacific railroad right of way.

The Rancho Cordova City Council and Sacramento County Board of Supervisors have yet to consider the fee program.