Here is a rendering of what the initial plan for the Mills Crossing Project would have looked like. Photo courtesy of the City of Rancho Cordova

RANCHO CORDOVA, CA (MPG) - The Rancho Cordova City Council on Sept. 2 discussed the future of the Mills Crossing Project, a mixed-use development designed to revitalize the city’s Folsom Boulevard corridor.

A presentation from Housing manager Stefan Heisler and senior civil engineer Kristine Courdy outlined four potential scenarios for the project’s implementation, each reflecting different levels of investment and development timelines.

The Mills Crossing Project, which received key entitlements in mid-2025, was designed to include a community commercial and health and wellness building, an arts center, retail spaces, public plazas and residential units. The goal has been to transform the Folsom Boulevard area into a modern, vibrant hub but the scale and cost of the project have prompted concerns from both the public and City Council members.

City Council was presented with four potential options, ranging from full project buildout to deferring the project entirely.

Scenario one, the full buildout, would cost an estimated $120 million. This option includes a medical office building, arts center and event hall, along with infrastructure work such as roads, utilities and parking, set for a groundbreaking in late 2026.

Scenario two suggests a scaled-back version of the project, costing $105 million, eliminating the event hall but retaining the medical office and arts center. A similar infrastructure plan would be included, with the same late 2026 groundbreaking.

Scenario three, the most cost-efficient at $10 million, would use only the $9.6 million available in Sacramento Area Council of Governments Green Means Go (SACOG GMG) grant funds. This scenario focuses on grading, utility installation and creating housing parcels, while deferring the development of community spaces and commercial components. Under this plan, the city would forfeit $7 million in Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program grant funding but the focus would shift toward residential development. The site work groundbreaking for this project would be in summer 2026.

Scenario four proposes putting the project on hold entirely and land-banking the entitled property. This would forfeit both the $7 million Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program and $9.6 million Green Means Go grant funds but would give the city time to reassess its strategy.

The council also heard public comments on the project’s future. Resident James Garcia expressed opposition to continuing the project in any form, advocating for scenario four, which would halt the project’s progress.

“I’m in favor of option four, pausing the whole entire thing,” Garcia said. “It’s a money pit and we’ve never been given a financial feasibility study. Everything was limited and I’d rather see the money gone than spend another $120 million.”

Helen Beshaw, another resident, echoed Garcia’s sentiments, emphasizing the project’s lack of support for existing community needs.

“You don’t build a street of dreams and hope people are going to come in,” Beshaw said. “Option four is the only way to go. Any of the other scenarios won’t help the people who currently live in that area.”

City Council members expressed mixed feelings about the future of Mills Crossing. Vice Mayor Garrett Gatewood voiced strong concerns about spending large sums on the project.

“I think we need to put it on pause,” Gatewood said. “When we first started, we were super excited but I don’t feel like we have the same energy anymore. I’m OK with giving back the grants because we’re not going to use it for what we want.”

Councilmember David Sander, Ph.D. stressed the need to refocus on the goal of revitalizing Folsom Boulevard.

“The theory was that if you invest enough in the infrastructure, private sector business would come along and invest,” Sander said. “But this project didn’t get us there and I can’t vote in favor of spending literally 20 years of savings on something that may not spark the change we wanted.”

Councilmember Joe Little was more open to scenario three, which emphasizes housing development but he cautioned against entirely abandoning the project.

“I’m hesitant about option four,” Little said. “It seems like it prevents anything from happening and just kicks the can down the road. I like scenario three, where we explore more housing uses. That’s probably the only thing we can get built there.”

Councilmember Linda Budge also supported scenario three, proposing that housing development be prioritized to attract future private investment.

“What if we focused on building the housing first and then perhaps others would come build things on the front of the boulevard?” Budge said.

Mayor Siri Pulipati, while preferring the full buildout in scenario one, acknowledged that the changing landscape of the project’s planning might make that option unfeasible.

“The key for this project is to revitalize Folsom Boulevard,” Pulipati said. “I would prefer scenario one but at this time, that doesn’t seem to be an option, given that we’ve started this 10 years ago and conditions have changed.”

After a lengthy discussion, City Council agreed to move forward with scenario three, with further deliberations planned for future implementation details. The focus will be on utilizing available grants to improve the site infrastructure and explore housing development opportunities, while keeping options open for other future developments.