City of Cotati
Development Impact Fee Study
T 800.755.6864 | F 951.587.3510 ▪ 888.326.6864 | 66 Franklin Street, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94607 | www.willdan.com i March 4, 2024
Mr. Damien O’Bid
City Manager
City of Cotati
201 W Sierra Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
Re: Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Cotati Dear Mr. O’Bid:
Per our recent discussions, please find attached, Willdan Financial Services’ (“Willdan”) proposal to conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Cotati (“City”). Willdan’s project approach helps to ensure the preparation of an impact fee study that will withstand technical challenges and public scrutiny. Given Willdan’s unmatched impact fee experience, we are particularly well positioned to serve the City and help achieve established long-term goals. Outlined below are the advantages and benefits that Willdan will provide to the City.
Unmatched experience implementing and defending fee programs. Willdan’s impact fee staff has assisted more than 100 California government agencies with the development and/or update of all fee types and is fortunate to be in a position that will provide a tremendous benefit to the City. Each project has required defensible documentation and thorough coordination of fee program changes for different agency departments and stakeholders within the business community. In some cases, Willdan has been required to negotiate fees with stakeholders and, on occasion, defend them in meetings and public forums.
We are particularly strong in advising our clients on the advantages and disadvantages of different fee schedule structures (citywide versus multiple-fee districts/zones; more versus fewer land-use categories; etc.) and methods of fee calculation that are based on the City’s and stakeholder priorities. Impact fees also need to be developed in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600) so that they are defensible and transparent. We are also current on the changes to fee programs and the adoption of nexus studies resulting from AB 602, which took effect in 2022.
Innovative Methodologies. As Willdan operates nationally, we possess unique experiences in numerous jurisdictions dealing with multiple challenges. Our ability to produce studies that accommodate various options and viewpoints ensures fair-minded and sensible projects. Our methodology and approach to impact fees has proven to be effective for Cities and Counties, the development community, and the public. Utilizing focus groups, with established guidelines, during the study, fully informs the development community and the public of the justification of the impact fees, and their positive effect on community growth.
Best-in-class impact fee team that can work immediately to prepare an impact fee program. The Willdan team begins a project by evaluating the agency’s existing fee program, if available, and current capital planning policies and funding programs. Not all capital projects are amenable to funding from impact fee programs, and we identify sources that complement fee revenues to fully fund the capital improvement program. The team’s Principal-in-Charge James Edison and Project Manager Carlos Villarreal are well respected by our clients for their skill in proactively organizing a clear, consensus-based project approach.
Successful project completion. Willdan has successfully completed many development impact fee studies, including most recently in the Alameda, Dublin, Fremont, Gilroy, Healdsburg, Mountain View, Pacifica, Richmond, Salinas, Santa Clara and South San Francisco, as well as the County of Sonoma, Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District and the Town of Windsor. These fee programs were approved by their respective Councils.
We are excited about this opportunity to use our skills and expertise to continue to serve the City of Cotati. To discuss any aspect of this submittal, please contact Managing Principal James Edison directly at (510) 912-4687, or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director
Development Impact Fee Study ii
City of Cotati, CA
Table of Contents
Scope of Services............................................................................................................................................................1 Project Understanding.......................................................................................................................................... 1 Work Plan............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Staff Support.......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Project Schedule ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Qualifications and Experience...............................................................................................................................12 Firm Profile .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Experience and Expertise .................................................................................................................................. 13 References........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Recent Studies .................................................................................................................................................... 15 Project Team...................................................................................................................................................................17 Key Staff Members.............................................................................................................................................. 17 Resumes .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 James Edison, JD, MPP ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Carlos Villarreal, MPP........................................................................................................................................... 19 Cost Schedule................................................................................................................................................................20 Development Impact Fee Study......................................................................................................................... 20 Hourly Rates ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 Development Impact Fee Study 1
City of Cotati, CA
Scope of Services
This section outlines Willdan Financial Services’ (“Willdan”) understanding of the City of Cotati’s (“City”) desire to conduct a development impact fee study, as well as identify the project objectives and discusses the background regarding public facilities financing in California. Also outlined is an overview of our impact fee project approach.
Project Understanding
As part of the larger financial planning effort for Cotati General Plan, the City seeks to understand what the financial impacts of foreseeable future development will have on the City’s public services and infrastructure, and to identify potential gaps in funding for those necessary improvements. The City desires to update impact fees to ensure a fair and reasonable fee structure, while meeting the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 et seq). The resulting fees will fund new development’s share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs.
Listed below are the development impact fees that will likely be included in this study:
▪ Parks and Recreation
▪ Traffic
▪ General Plan
▪ Water
▪ Sewer
Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to update development impact fees pursuant to State law. To accomplish this objective, this study will:
▪ Develop a technically defensible fee justification, based on the reasonable relationship and deferential review standards;
▪ Review and facility standards, capital facilities plans and costs, and development and growth assumptions; ▪ Provide a schedule of maximum-justified fees by land use category; and ▪ Provide comprehensive documentation of assumptions, methodologies, and results, including findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
1. The passage of a string of tax limitation measures starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
2. Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
3. Steep reductions in Federal and State assistance; and
4. Permanent shifting by the State of local tax resources to the State General Fund to offset deficit spending brought on by recessions.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and taxpayers onto new development.
This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees, also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners or registered voters and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit development jurisdiction-wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Approach and Methodology
Willdan’s methodology for calculating public facilities fees is both simple and flexible. Simplicity is important so that the development community and the public can easily understand the justification for the fee program. At the same time, we use our expertise to reasonably ensure that the program is technically defensible.
Development Impact Fee Study 2
City of Cotati, CA
Flexibility is important, so we can tailor our approach to the available data, and the agency’s policy objectives. Our understanding of the technical standards established by statutes and case law suggests that a range of approaches are technically defensible. Consequently, we can address policy objectives related to the fee program, such as economic development and affordable housing.
Flexibility also enables us to avoid excessive engineering costs associated with detailed facility planning. We calculate the maximum justifiable impact fee and provide flexibility for the agency to adopt fees up to that amount.
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in an impact fee study include:
▪ Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities; ▪ Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities; ▪ Determine facilities required to serve new development and their costs: Estimate the total amount and cost of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development; and ▪ Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the public facilities fee schedule.
We discuss key aspects of our approach to each of these steps in the subsections that follow.
Growth Projections
In most cases, we recommend use of long-range market-based projections of new development. By “long-range” we suggest 20 to 30 years to: capture the total demand often associated with major public facility investments; and support analysis of debt financing, if needed. In contrast to build out projections, market-based projections provide a more realistic estimate of development across all land uses. Build out projections typically overestimate commercial and industrial development because of the oversupply of these land uses relative to residential development.
Facility Standards
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (second bullet above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
Our approach recognizes three separate components of facility standards:
1. Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth. Examples include park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicles-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning;
2. Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities.
Our approach incorporates current facility design standards into the fee program to reflect the increasing construction cost of public facilities; and
3. Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), useful when disparate facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
Identifying New Development Facility Needs and Costs
We can take several different approaches to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development. Typically, this is a two-step process: 1) identify total facility needs; and 2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs. Total facility needs are often identified through a master facility planning process that typically takes place concurrent with or prior to conducting the fee study. Engineered facility plans are particularly important in the areas of traffic, water, sewer, and storm drain due to the specialized technical analysis required to identify facility needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: 1) the existing inventory method; 2) the planned facilities method; and 3) the system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
Development Impact Fee Study 3
City of Cotati, CA
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized as follows:
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities = $/unit of demand Existing Development Demand Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities = $/unit of demand New Development Demand This method is appropriate when specific planned facilities can be identified that only benefit new development.
Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This method is appropriate when planned facilities would not serve existing development. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used for the master facility plan.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the ratio of the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities = $/unit of demand Existing + New Development Demand This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that work together to achieve the desired level of service.
Police substations, civic centers, and regional parks are examples of similar facilities.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies. Often, facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policybased standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities, required to correct the deficiency, to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.
Calculating the Fee Schedule
At its simplest, the fee schedule uses the cost per unit of demand discussed in the last subsection to generate the fee schedule. This unit cost is multiplied by the demand associated with a new development project to calculate the fee for that project. The fee schedule uses different demand measures by land use category to provide a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the amount of the fee. We are familiar with a wide range of methods for identifying appropriate land use categories and demand measures depending on the study.
Development Impact Fee Study 4
City of Cotati, CA
Related Approach Issues
Funding and Financing Strategies
In our experience, one of the most common problems with impact fee programs and with many CIPs is that the program or plan is not financially constrained to anticipated revenues. The result is a “wish list” of projects that generate community expectations that often cannot be fulfilled. Our approach is to integrate the impact fee program into the local agency’s existing CIPs while encouraging those plans to be financially constrained to available resources. We clearly state the cost of correcting existing deficiencies, if any, to document the relationship between the fee program and the need for additional non-fee funding.
We can also address one of the most significant drawbacks of an impact fee program – the inability to support conventional public debt financing, so projects can be built before all fee revenues have been received. In collaboration with financial advisors and underwriters, we have developed specific underwriting criteria so that fees can be used to pay back borrowing if another source of credit exists. Typically, this approach involves the use of Certificates of Participation or revenue bonds that are calibrated so that they can be fully repaid using impact fee revenues.
Economic Development Concerns
The development community often is concerned that fees and other exactions will become too high for development to be financially feasible under current market conditions. Local agencies have several strategies to address this concern, including:
▪ Conducting an analysis of the total burden placed on development, by exactions, to see if feasibility may be compromised by the proposed fees;
▪ Gathering similar data on the total fee burden imposed by neighboring or competing jurisdictions; ▪ Developing a plan for phasing in the fees over several years to enable the real estate market to adjust; ▪ Providing options for developers to finance impact fees through assessments and other types of financing districts; and
▪ Imposing less than the maximum justified fee.
If less than the maximum justified fee is imposed, we will work with staff to identify alternative revenues sources for the CIP. The CIP should remain financially feasible to maintain realistic expectations among developers, policymakers, and the public.
Stakeholder Participation
Stakeholder participation throughout the study supports a successful adoption process. Our approach is to create consensus first, around the need for facilities based on agreed upon facility standards. Second, we seek consensus around a feasible funding strategy for these needs, leading to an appropriate role for impact fees.
Gaining consensus among various groups requires a balanced discussion of both economic development and community service objectives. Often, our approach includes formation of an advisory committee to promote outreach to and input from the development community and other stakeholders. We have extensive experience facilitating meetings to explain the program and gain input.
Program Implementation
Fee programs require a certain level of administrative support for successful implementation. Our final report will include recommendations for appropriate procedures, such as:
▪ Regularly updating development forecasts;
▪ Regularly updating fees for capital project cost inflation; ▪ Regularly updating capital facility needs based on changing demands; ▪ Developing procedures for developer credits and reimbursements; and ▪ Including an administrative charge in the fee program.
Development Impact Fee Study 5
City of Cotati, CA
Work Plan
Willdan will work with the City to update its impact fees consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and other relevant laws.
We want to ensure that our scope of services is responsive to the City’s needs and specific local circumstances. We will work with the City to revise our proposed scope based on input prior to approval of a contract, and as needed during the course of the study.
Task 1: Identify Policy Issues
Objective: Identify and discuss potential policy issues raised by the study. Kick-off meeting with staff to review data needs, policy issues, schedule and discuss potential additional fee categories.
Description: Review agency documents related to existing capital planning policies and funding programs including existing impact fees. Bring policy issues to City staff’s attention, as appropriate, during the project and seek guidance prior to proceeding. Potential policy issues include:
▪ Changes in implementation resulting from AB 602;
▪ Changes in approach and nexus findings necessary to comply with AB 602; ▪ Potential new impact fees for consideration
▪ Adequacy of General Plan and other public facility planning policies (e.g., level of service standards); impact fee ordinances and resolutions, and prior nexus studies; ▪ Availability of existing public facility master plans and CIPs to identify needed facilities; ▪ Types of facilities to be funded by each fee;
▪ Land use categories for imposition of fees;
▪ Nexus approach to determining facility standards;
▪ Nexus approach to allocating cost burden among land uses, including need for separate fee zones;
▪ Potential alternative funding sources, if needed;
▪ Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and
▪ Implementation concerns and strategies.
Deliverables: (1) Information requests; and (2) revised project scope and schedule (if needed).
Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth Objective: (1) Identify estimates of existing levels of development; and (2) identify a projection of future growth consistent with current planning policy.
Description: Identify base year for estimating existing levels of development and for calculating facility standards based on existing facility inventories (see Task 3). Include entitled development that would be exempt from fee program.
Consult with City staff to identify growth projections to a defined long-range planning horizon (10 to 30 years). Projections provide a basis for determining the facilities needed to accommodate growth (see Task 4). Consider projections from regional metropolitan planning agencies and other available sources - City staff to provide estimates and projections by zone if needed.
Develop approach for converting land use data to measure of facility demand. For example, identify population and employment density factors to convert population and employment estimates to dwelling units and building square footage.
Select appropriate approach for each impact fee based on:
▪ Available local data on facility demand by land use category; ▪ Approaches used by other agencies; and
▪ Support for other agency policy objectives.
Changes to estimates and projections during subsequent tasks could cause unanticipated effort and require an amendment to the scope of services and budget. Obtain approval of estimates and projections from City staff prior to proceeding.
Development Impact Fee Study 6
City of Cotati, CA
Task 3: Determine Facility Standards
Note: Conduct Tasks 3, 4, and 5 separately for each intended facility and fee type. Conduct tasks concurrently because of the effect of facility standards (Task 3), facility needs (Task 4), and alternative funding (Task 5) on the fee calculation.
Objective: Determine standards to identify facilities required to accommodate growth.
Description: Identify and evaluate possible facility standards depending upon the facility type, current facility inventory data, and available facility planning documents. Consider use of: (1) adopted policy standards (e.g., General Plan, master facility plans); (2) standards derived from existing facility inventories; or (3) standards derived from a list of planned facility projects. City staff to provide policies, inventories, and project lists. Willdan will work with the City to identify additional costs that might be eligible for funding by the DIF.
Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs
Objective: Identify the type, amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate growth and correct deficiencies, if any.
Description: Quantify total planned facilities based on growth projection from Task 2 and facility standards from Task 3. Express planned facilities in general quantities such as acres of parkland, or as a specific list of capital projects from a master facility plan.
Location of planned facilities may or may not be specified. If only a general description of planned facilities is available through the planning horizon, City staff to provide a list of specific capital projects for use of fee revenues during the short term (e.g., five years).
Distinguish between: (1) facilities needed to serve growth (that can be funded by impact fees); and (2) facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies (that cannot be funded by impact fees). Use one of three cost allocation methods (existing inventory, system plan, or planned facilities).
Gather planning-level data on new facilities costs based on lump sum project cost estimates, or unit costs and project quantities (acres, building square feet, lane miles, etc.). Consider recent City experience, local market data such as land transactions, and consultant team experience from prior projects. Inflate older cost estimates to base year using appropriate cost indices.
The revised facility costs will form the basis of the capital improvement program needed for compliance with AB 602.
This scope of work does not include additional engineering analysis, including traffic engineering, to identify total facility needs, existing deficiencies, or cost estimates. Any such engineering/design work can be provided under a separate contract with Willdan Engineering or a third party. However, Willdan can use rough descriptions and comparables to calculate a reasonable cost estimate sufficient for use in the DIF study.
Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives
Objective: Determine the extent of alternative (non-fee) funding available for new facilities.
Description: If impact fees are going to only partially fund a capital project, the Mitigation Fee Act requires the agency report on the anticipated source and timing of the additional funding every five years. There are two types of alternative funding sources that we will identify:
1. Funding from non-impact fee sources to correct existing deficiencies; and
2. Funding from new development other than impact fees that must be credited against new development’s impact fee contributions, possibly including taxes paid to finance facilities.
Identify anticipated alternative funding based on information from City staff or note that funds are still to be identified based on a list of probable funding alternatives. If fees will fund debt service include financing costs in the total cost of facilities.
Assume facilities to be funded predominantly on a pay-as-you-go basis. Scope does not include a cash flow analysis to analyze effect of timing of fee revenues on financing costs.
Development Impact Fee Study 7
City of Cotati, CA
Task 6: Fee Comparison Analysis
Objective: Provide a comparison of the current and proposed impact fees to those of comparable/surrounding jurisdictions in Sonoma County.
Description: Willdan will compare a total of four Sonoma County jurisdictions to be selected by the City.
Typically, Willdan prepares an analysis of fees charged to a series of prototype developments (such as residential, retail, etc.) to provide an “apples to apples” comparison, but the exact methodology will be determined in consultation with the City. This comparison will be limited to four other jurisdictions.
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report
Objective: Provide technically defensible fee report that comprehensively documents project assumptions, methodologies, and results.
Description: Generate fee schedule to apportion facility costs to individual development projects. Use facility costs per unit of demand multiplied by demand by land use category based on data developed in prior tasks.
Prepare draft report tables for City staff to review, that document each step of the analysis, including schedule of maximum justified fees by facility type land use category and all other requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Following one (1) round of comments from City staff on the quantitative analysis and fee schedules, prepare administrative draft report. Following one (1) round of comments on administrative draft, prepare public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public and elected officials. This public review draft will be presented and public stakeholder meetings and at a Council informational session.
Prepare final report, if necessary, based on comments received on the public draft report. If requested, post the report on our website for public access. Note that as of January 2022, the Nexus study is adopted separately from the fees, and with a 30-day notice.
Fees will be calculating residential land uses in compliance with AB 602.
Provide legal counsel with copies of fee resolutions and ordinances used by other jurisdictions.
Deliverables: If necessary, we will provide up to two (2) bound copies of the draft report, one (1) unbound copy, one (1) Microsoft Word copy; and up to two (2) bound copies of the final report.
Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool
Objective: Provide interactive tool that will ensure predictable and intuitive fees that are easily accessible and understandable to customers interested in calculating fees on their own for a particular type of project.
Description: Create impact fee calculator in Microsoft Excel that can be used by City staff and developers to calculate impact fees associated with a development project. The tool will have an input page that allows a user to identify project characteristics that drive the fee calculation. Results will be displayed by impact fee category and will be summarized in terms of the total amount due.
Deliverables: Microsoft Excel impact fee calculator model.
Task 9: Meetings
Objective: The project manager or other necessary Willdan staff will attend project meetings. A member of the Impact Fee project team will attend up to four (4) in-person meetings and presentations throughout the City’s engagement. Phone conferences are not considered meetings for the purposes of this scope.
Optional: Optional stakeholder and Council meetings may be requested by the City.
Development Impact Fee Study 8
City of Cotati, CA
Staff Support
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City of Cotati staff. We suggest that the City assign a key individual to represent the City as the project manager who can function as our primary contact. We anticipate that the City’s project manager will:
▪ Coordinate responses to requests for information;
▪ Coordinate review of work products; and
▪ Help resolve policy issues.
Willdan will rely on the validity and accuracy of the City’s data and documentation to complete the analysis. Willdan will rely on the data as being accurate without performing an independent verification of accuracy and will not be responsible for any errors that result from inaccurate data provided by the client or a third party.
Project Disclaimer
The City of Cotati further represents, acknowledges, and agrees that:
(i) The City uses the services of one or more municipal advisors registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to advise it in connection with municipal financial products and the issuance of municipal securities;
(ii) The City is not looking to Willdan to provide, and City shall not otherwise request or require Willdan to provide, any advice or recommendations with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities (including any advice or recommendations with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues);
(iii) The provisions of this proposal and the services to be provided hereunder as outlined in the scope of services are not intended (and shall not be construed) to constitute or include any municipal advisory services within the meaning of Section 15B of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder;
(iv) For the avoidance of doubt and without limiting the foregoing, in connection with any revenue projections, cashflow analyses, feasibility studies and/or other analyses Willdan may provide the City with respect to financial, economic or other matters relating to a prospective, new or existing issuance of municipal securities of the City, (A) any such projections, studies and analyses shall be based upon assumptions, opinions or views (including, without limitation, any assumptions related to revenue growth) established by the City, in conjunction with such of its municipal, financial, legal and other advisers as it deems appropriate; and (B) under no circumstances shall Willdan be asked to provide, nor shall it provide, any advice or recommendations or subjective assumptions, opinions or views with respect to the actual or proposed structure, terms, timing, pricing or other similar matters with respect to any municipal financial products or municipal securities issuances, including any revisions or amendments thereto; and
(v) Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, the City recognizes that interpretive guidance regarding municipal advisory activities is currently quite limited and is likely to evolve and develop during the term of the potential engagement and, to that end, the City will work with Willdan throughout the term of the potential Agreement to ensure that the Agreement and the services to be provided by Willdan hereunder, is interpreted by the parties, and if necessary amended, in a manner intended to ensure that the City is not asking Willdan to provide, and Willdan is not in fact providing or required to provide, any municipal advisory services.
Development Impact Fee Study 9
City of Cotati, CA
Project Schedule
Willdan anticipates time is of the essence for the City to begin this engagement. Typically, an impact fee study requires approximately six to seven months from notice to proceed to adoption. The proposed schedule can only be met with the cooperation of City staff. Delays in responding to our requests for data and review will result in corresponding delays to the project schedule. If that is the case, we will notify the City immediately of the possible impact on the schedule.
Scope of Services 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 1 15 22 29 2 9 16 23 30 Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues z1 Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth z2 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards z3
Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs z4
Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives z5
Task 6: Fee Comparison
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report z6
Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool
Task 9: Meetings z7
Deliverables:
z2: Development Growth Projections (table format) z6: Draft Fee Tables & Text z3: Project List z7: Administrative/Public Draft Report(s), Final Nexus Report, Slide Presentation z1: Information Request, Meeting Agenda, Revised
Schedule, Summary of Policy Decisions
z4: Cost Estimates for Identified Facilities
z5: Fee Comparison
City of Cotati
Development Impact Fee Study
Project Schedule
July August September October November December
Development Impact Fee Study 10
City of Cotati, CA
Quality Control Procedures
Project Management Approach
At Willdan, we utilize a Project Management Process/Approach that ensures projects are completed on time, within budget and most importantly yield results that match our clients’ expectations. We will document discussions leading to important policy decisions and/or the choice of critical assumptions used in constructing the analysis and model.
Following key stakeholder discussions, we will schedule a call to summarize findings and direction with City staff, to make certain that we are in agreement with stated objectives, and that feedback is incorporated as appropriate.
Through the process of providing regular updates and conducting status conference calls, potential issues will be highlighted, discussed, and resolved. Any deviances from the project timeline will be identified and plans will be developed for course corrections. If necessary, changes in approach or strategy will be discussed with City staff, to meet the needs of the City of Cotati. In doing this, we will ensure the project stays on track and evolves, based upon current thinking and outside dynamics.
Project Management
Define the
Project
Plan
the Project
Manage
the Project
Review the
Project
Communicate
the Project
▪ Identify the project
scope, set
objectives, list
potential
constraints,
document
assumptions.
▪ Define a course of
action and develop
an effective
communication
plan.
▪ Provide a forum for
applying the team’s
collective expertise
to solving difficult
analytical issues
that arise in
complex projects.
▪ Collaborate with
the project team
and client staff and
agree upon timeline
to meet the
estimated project
timeline.
▪ Assign workload
functions to
appropriately
qualified staff to
ensure milestones
are met, on time.
▪ Pre-schedule
quality control
meetings with
project team to
maintain the
progressive motion
of the project.
▪ Manage the
execution of the
project.
▪ Direct existing and
upcoming project
tasks.
▪ Control and
monitor work in
progress.
▪ Provide feedback
to client and
project team.
▪ Identify and
resolve deviances
from project
timeline.
▪ Review all work
product and
deliverables.
▪ Utilize structured
quality assurance
process involving
up to three levels
of review at the
peer level, project
manager level.
▪ Procure executive
officer level
review.
▪ Communicate with
the client regarding
work status and
progress.
▪ Ensure client is in
receipt of regular
status updates.
▪ Schedule regular
conference calls to
touch base.
▪ Inform client of
roadblocks, work
outside of projected
scope.
Development Impact Fee Study 11
City of Cotati, CA
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Process
Our quality control program is incorporated as a required element of Willdan’s day-to-day activities. There are three levels of reviews incorporated for our deliverables:
1) Peer review;
2) Project Manager review; and
3) Final quality assurance
manager review.
Peer reviews involve one analyst
reviewing the work of another,
while project manager reviews
are conducted prior to delivery to
the quality assurance manager.
The quality assurance manager
then performs a final review. This
assures that our final product has
been thoroughly evaluated for
potential errors; thus, providing
quality client deliverables, and
high levels of integrity and outcomes.
The primary mission of our quality control plan is to provide staff with the technical and managerial expertise to plan, organize, implement, and control the overall quality effort, thereby ensuring the completion of a quality project within the time and budget established.
Quality Assurance Goals
Goal Lead Task
Quality Assurance /
Control Process James Edison
▪ Establish a set of planned and systematic actions for maintaining a high level of quality in the professional services performed;
▪ Emphasize quality in every phase of work;
▪ Ensure efficient use of resources;
▪ Establish a consistent and uniform approach to the services performed; and
▪ Implement appropriate quality control measures for each work task of the project.
Quality Control Plan James Edison &
Carlos Villareal
▪ Contract deliverables;
▪ Specific quality control procedures;
▪ Special quality control emphasis;
▪ Budget and manpower requirements;
▪ Overall project schedule and budget; and
▪ Project documentation requirements.
Development Impact Fee Study 12
City of Cotati, CA
Qualifications and Experience
Firm Profile
Willdan Financial Services is an operating division
within Willdan Group, Inc. (WGI), which was
founded in 1964 as an engineering firm working
with local governments. Today, WGI is a publicly
traded company (WLDN). WGI, through its
divisions, provides professional technical and
consulting services that ensure the quality, value
and security of our nation’s infrastructure,
systems, facilities, and environment. The firm has
pursued two primary service objectives since its
inception—ensuring the success of its clients and
enhancing its surrounding communities.
A financially stable company, Willdan has
approximately 1,600 employees working in more
than a dozen states across the U.S. Our
employees include a number of nationally
recognized Subject Matter Experts for all areas
related to the broadest definition of connected
communities—including a team who will be
committed to contribute their expertise
throughout the duration of the City of Cotati’s
Comprehensive Development Impact Fee
Study engagement.
Willdan has solved economic, engineering and energy challenges for local communities and delivered industryleading solutions that have transformed government and commerce. Today, we are leading our clients into a future accelerated by a change in resources, infrastructure, technology, regulations, and industry trends.
Willdan Financial Services
Established on June 24, 1988, Willdan Financial Services is a California Corporation and a national firm. Since that time, we have helped over 800 public agencies successfully address a broad range of infrastructure challenges.
Our staff of over 80 professionals support our clients by conducting year-round workshops and on-site training to assist them in keeping current with the latest developments in our areas of expertise.
Willdan assists local public agencies by providing the following services:
Willdan Financial Services
Services
▪ Development impact fee establishment and
analysis;
▪ Cost allocation studies;
▪ Utility rate and cost of service studies;
▪ Real estate economic analysis;
▪ Feasibility studies;
▪ Municipal Advisory;
▪ Arbitrage and Continuing Disclosure Services;
▪ Economic development strategic plans;
▪ User fee studies;
▪ District Administration Services;
▪ Property tax audits;
▪ Tax increment finance district formation and
amendment;
▪ Housing development and implementation
strategies;
▪ Debt issuance support; and
▪ Long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling.
Development Impact Fee Study 13
City of Cotati, CA
Experience and Expertise
Willdan has been preparing impact fee nexus studies
since the passage of the Mitigation Fee Act. Our
commitment to public agencies and public solutions has
helped us develop the broad finance expertise that will be utilized to support the City’s Development Impact Fee Study. Willdan has worked on virtually every aspect of
municipal finance, including fiscal and economic impact studies related to development and re-organization, the financing of infrastructure and services through special district or supplemental taxes, and even working under
contract as a department head of an entire municipality.
This experience has provided Willdan team members
with deep insight into the sources of municipal revenue and the costs of services.
Managing Principal James A. Edison and his team have
worked with public agencies on many community
development projects, including the full range of analysis related to feasibility, economic and fiscal impacts,
infrastructure finance, and negotiations with private
developers. Willdan is thoroughly familiar with both the Act and with the technical and policy issues surrounding impact fees.
Unique Qualifications
Willdan is uniquely qualified to assist the City of Cotati with the proposed Development Impact Fee Study. The following are specific advantages that we will provide for the proposed engagement.
Project Dedication
Willdan has assembled a project team of subject matter experts within the Financial Consulting Services group, to conduct the City of Cotati Development Impact Fee Study engagement. This team has coordinated or participated in numerous public stakeholder and staff workshops regarding fees and cost of service-based charges.
Community Investment
Much of our success in developing impactful programs and studies is due to our experiences in meeting with citizen / stakeholder groups and elected officials. Our ability to explain technical information in a concise, understandable manner is a fundamental reason for our high degree of success. Willdan staff takes the time to include and inform the Community.
Proven Professionals
The Team’s quality is often as important as the consulting firm’s reputation. Willdan is known for its personal,
customized service. Our team will work with the City’s
professional staff to provide the long‐term service, that is our prime goal.
The team presented within this proposal has
worked collectively on numerous projects, such
as the one requested by the City of Cotati; an
established work practice between the team
members has been forged, this proven longstanding system has benefited our clients.
In the past five years Willdan has conducted
over 125 Impact Fee Studies
Development Impact Fee Study 14
City of Cotati, CA
References
Provided below are client references for projects completed by Willdan and the project team members proposed herein, which demonstrates our ability to provide the requested services. We are proud of our reputation for customer service and encourage you to contact our past clients regarding our commitment to excellence.
City of Pismo Beach, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan assisted the City of Pismo Beach with an update to their impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. This project was warranted due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the prior update, coupled with the adoption of new and revised public facility master plans that complemented the updated impact fees.
Prior to fee program adoption, Willdan held a stakeholder meeting to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.
Client Contact: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Tel #: (805) 773-7010 | Email: [email protected]
City of Fremont, CA
Comprehensive Impact Fee Update
Willdan’s impact fee staff has a long-standing relationship with the City of Fremont. In 2014/2015, Willdan successfully updated their impact fee programs, which included an update of the City’s transportation impact fee program and capital improvement program. The City retained Willdan again in 2020 to update their impact fee program and the project was completed during the second quarter of 2021.
Client Contact: Michelle Silva-Salinas, Public Works Business Manager 3300 Capitol Avenue, Fremont, CA 94538
Tel #: (510) 979-5705 | Email: [email protected] Town of Windsor, CA
Drainage Impact Fee Study
Willdan was retained to perform a comprehensive update to the City’s impact fee program in 2018. Windsor encompasses a little over 7 square miles and is approximately 20 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. All of the Town’s storm drains discharge into creeks that ultimately drain into the Russian River. The Town was seeking the assistance of a professional consultant to update the existing Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the impact fee study specific to the storm drainage system.
This study also included a burden/nexus analysis of new development, including a comparison of impact fees with surrounding and comparable jurisdictions.
Client Contact: Sandi Potter, PG, CEG, Deputy Director of Water & Environmental Management 8400 Windsor Road, Windsor, California 95492
Tel #: (707) 838-5329 | Email: [email protected] Development Impact Fee Study 15
City of Cotati, CA
Recent Studies
The following table lists Willdan’s development impact fee clientele that have utilized our services in the past five years.
Willdan Financial Services
Development Impact Fee Experience
Partial Client List
City of Alameda, CA City of Parkland, FL
City of Antioch, CA City of Petaluma, CA
City of Arcadia, CA City of Pismo Beach, CA
City of Artesia, CA City of Pittsburg, CA
City of Bakersfield, CA City of Pleasant Hill, CA
City of Banning, CA City of Pomona, CA
City of Bell Gardens, CA City of Rancho Mirage, CA
City of Bellflower, CA City of Redwood City, CA
City of Brea, CA City of Rialto, CA
City of Calexico, CA City of Richmond, CA
City of Calimesa, CA City of Rio Rancho, NM
City of Carpinteria, CA City of Riverbank, CA
City of Chino Hills, CA City of Rolling Hills Estates, CA City of Clovis, CA City of Rosemead, CA
City of Coachella, CA City of San Carlos, CA
City of Commerce, CA City of San Fernando, CA
City of Compton, CA City of San Jacinto, CA
City of Corona, CA City of San Marcos, CA
City of Covina, CA City of San Ramon, CA
City of Cudahy, CA City of Santa Clara, CA
City of Dixon, CA City of Sebastopol, CA
City of Dublin, CA City of Selma, CA
City of El Monte, CA City of Sierra Madre, CA
City of El Segundo, CA City of Soledad, CA
City of Emeryville, CA City of South Gate, CA
City of Fillmore, CA City of South San Francisco, CA
City of Fountain Valley, CA City of St. Helena, CA
City of Fremont, CA City of Tehachapi, CA
City of Garden Grove, CA City of Thousand Oaks, CA
City of Gilroy, CA City of Tracy, CA
City of Gonzales, CA City of Upland, CA
City of Goose Creek, SC City of Visalia, CA
City of Guadalupe, CA City of Wasco, CA
City of Greenfield, CA Coachella Valley Association of Governments, CA Development Impact Fee Study 16
City of Cotati, CA
Willdan Financial Services
Development Impact Fee Experience
Partial Client List
City of Grover Beach, CA Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Hawthorne, CA County of Clay, FL
City of Healdsburg, CA County of Kern, CA
City of Hercules, CA County of Kings, CA
City of Hollister, CA County of Los Angeles, CA
City of Huntington Beach, CA County of Madera, CA
City of Huntington Park, CA County of Merced, CA
City of Indian Wells, CA County of Placer, CA
City of Irwindale, CA County of Riverside, CA
City of Kingsburg, CA County of Sacramento, CA
City of La Mesa, CA County of San Benito, CA
City of La Verne, CA County of San Diego, CA
City of Las Cruces, NM County of San Joaquin, CA
City of Lake Elsinore, CA County of San Luis Obispo, CA City of Lake Forest, CA County of Santa Barbara, CA
City of Lancaster, CA County of Solano, CA
City of Lawndale, CA County of Sonoma, CA
City of Livermore, CA County of Stanislaus, CA
City of Long Beach, CA County of Tulare, CA
City of McFarland, CA County of Yolo, CA
City of Madera, CA East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Manteca, CA Kern Council of Governments, CA
City of Menifee, CA Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, CA City of Moreno Valley, CA Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, CA City of Morgan Hill, CA San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District, CA City of Mountain View, CA Stanislaus Council of Governments, CA City of Murrieta, CA Tehachapi Valley Rec. & Park District, CA City of Newport Beach, CA Town of Mead, CO
City of Oroville, CA Town of Windsor, CA
City of Pacifica, CA Tulare County Association of Governments, CA City of Patterson, CA Village of Taos Ski Valley, NM
Development Impact Fee Study 17
City of Cotati, CA
Project Team
Our management and supervision philosophy for the project team is very simple: staff every position in sufficient numbers with experienced personnel to deliver a superior product and convey results to decision makers in meetings, on time and on budget.
With that philosophy in mind, we have selected experienced professionals for the City’s engagement. We are confident that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill the desired work performance.
Key Staff Members
City of Cotati
Project Team
Key Team Member Project Role Responsibility to the Engagement James Edison, JD, MPP
Managing Principal Principal-in-Charge
▪ Ensure client satisfaction, flow of communication,
and management of the project
▪ Technical guidance
▪ Project oversight
▪ Quality assurance & control, and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance
Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Principal Consultant
Project Manager
▪ Collect, interpret, and disseminate key data
▪ Day to day contact
▪ Production of key elements of the analyses
▪ Model development
▪ Report preparation, and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance
Project Availability
Willdan’s Financial Consulting Services group is composed of a team of over 20 senior-level professional consultants.
While each member of the project team currently has work in progress with other clients, the workload is at a manageable level with sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the City specific to the schedule and budget for this engagement.
Resumes
Resumes for Willdan’s project team are presented on the following pages.
Development Impact Fee Study 18
City of Cotati, CA
Education
Juris Doctorate,
University of
California, Berkeley,
School of Law
Master of Public
Policy, Goldman
School of Public
Policy, University of
California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts,
magna cum laude,
Harvard University
Professional
Registrations
Member of State Bar,
California
Affiliations
Council of
Development Finance
Agencies
CFA Society of
San Francisco
Congress for the
New Urbanism
Urban Land Institute
Seaside Institute
International Economic
Development Council
26 Years’ Experience
James Edison, JD, MPP
Principal-in-Charge
Mr. James Edison specializes in the nexus between public and private, with expertise in publicprivate partnerships, and the benefits of economic development to municipalities and state, provincial, regional, and national governments. He possesses deep expertise in land use economics, with a specialty in finance and implementation, including fiscal impact and the public and private financing of infrastructure and development projects, both in the U.S. and internationally. Mr. Edison’s public-sector experience includes local and regional economic impact studies; fiscal impact evaluations; new government formation strategies; and the creation of impact fees, assessments, and special taxes to fund infrastructure and public facilities. He has conducted numerous evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of specific plans and consulted on a wide variety of land use planning topics related to community revitalization and the economic and fiscal impacts of development.
As a former bond attorney, Mr. Edison understands the legal underpinnings and technical requirements of public financing instruments and has advised both public and private clients on the use of individual instruments, and the interaction between those instruments and the needs of developers and project finance.
Related Experience
City of Pismo Beach, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the role of principal-in-charge of an update to the City’s impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.
City of Morgan Hill, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principalin-charge of an update to the City’s existing nexus study, which included general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder outreach.
City of Alameda, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team that updated the City of Alameda’s impact fee programs, as well as created a separate impact fee program for Alameda Point, the former Alameda Naval Air Station.
City of Santa Clara, CA – Parks Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal-in-charge of the City’s park impact fee update. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the cost of acquiring and improving public park land.
City of Cudahy, CA – Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team that helped the City analyze impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Cudahy through buildout of the City’s General Plan.
City of Fillmore, CA – North Fillmore Specific Plan Nexus Study: Mr. Edison is currently assisting the City with an analysis of development impact fees needed to finance public facilities necessary for the development of the North Filmore Specific Plan. Public facilities included in this analysis include water, sewer systems, recycled water, and streets.
County of Riverside, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the effort to establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries, and traffic. He prepared the technical and analytical documents necessary to calculate the fee and establish the necessary nexus to collect it, as well as presenting the fees during public hearings to the County Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, Mr.
Edison is currently leading an update to the County’s development impact fees for 2030.
City of Murrieta, CA – Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Update: Mr. Edison served as the principal-in-charge of the City’s study to update their Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report, to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth.
Development Impact Fee Study 19
City of Cotati, CA
Education
Master of Public
Policy, Goldman
School of Public
Policy, University of
California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts,
Geography, University
of California, Los
Angeles; Minor in
Public Policy and
Urban Planning
Areas of Expertise
Fiscal Impact Analyses
Development Impact
Fees
Public Facilities
Financing Plans
GIS Analysis
18 Years’ Experience
Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Project Manager
Mr. Carlos Villarreal, a Financial Consulting Group Principal Consultant, is proposed to serve in the role of project manager due to his experience documenting nexus findings for development impact fees, preparing capital improvement plans, facilitating stakeholder involvement, and analyzing the economic impacts of fee programs. He has supported adoption of fee programs funding a variety of facility types.
Related Experience
City of McFarland, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager updating the City’s development impact fee program. The study comprehensively updated the City’s fee program, incorporating new facility master planning and infrastructure costs necessary to facilitate expected development in the City through 2040. The study included the following facility fee categories; general government, law enforcement, park and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, storm drain, and traffic. The fees were adopted by the City Council in 2020.
County of San Benito, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: As project manager, Mr.
Villarreal assisted the County with the preparation of an updated and expanded impact fee program. The study included updates to the following fees: capital improvements, road equipment, fire mitigation, and park and recreation.
City of Soledad, CA – Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal managed the update of the City’s impact fee program, specifically changes in demographics, growth projections, project costs, and facility standards. In particular, the City had to revise its capital facilities needs to accommodate a much lower amount of growth than what was projected before 2007. The resulting fees funded new development’s share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs.
City of Morgan Hill, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as lead analyst assisting with an update to the City’s existing nexus study, including general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder outreach. The City engaged Willdan again to update the study and Mr.
Villarreal served in the role of project manager.
City of Cudahy, CA – Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager to help the City analyze impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Cudahy through buildout of the City’s General Plan.
City of Pismo Beach, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for the City’s impact fee project. The program included: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.
City of Carpinteria, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of lead analyst to update the City of Carpinteria’s impact fees, which included highways and bridges, streets and thoroughfares, traffic control, parking, storm drain, general government, aquatic, park and recreation, and open space. The City has engaged Willdan again to update their impact fees and Mr. Villarreal is serving in the role of project manager.
County of Riverside, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as the lead analyst in the effort to establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries, and traffic. He assisted in the preparation of the technical and analytical documents necessary to calculate the fees and establish the necessary nexus. Mr. Villarreal is once again serving on the project team to update the County’s impact fees through 2030.
Development Impact Fee Study 20
City of Cotati, CA
Cost Schedule
Development Impact Fee Study
Based upon the scope of work identified herein, Willdan proposes a not-to-exceed fixed fee of $42,000 for the City’s Development Impact Fee Study. This fee includes updates to existing fees and up to four new categories. The table below provides a breakdown of the proposed fee by task and team member.
Notes
Please note the following:
▪ The fee denoted above includes attendance at up to four in-person meetings with City staff, stakeholders, and City Council.
Attendance at more than four meetings and/or presentations will be billed at our current hourly rates, provided below, and actual expenses.
▪ Comprehensive written responses to resolve conflicts or preparation of more than one set of major revisions to the draft report, will be classified as Additional Services, and may require additional billing at hourly rates stated in the hourly rate schedule listed below. These additional fees shall only take effect once the fixed fee stated above has been exceeded.
▪ Our fixed fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project. ▪ We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed. ▪ City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs, travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency relating to City or relating to the project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan 's rates in effect at the time of such response.
▪ Optional/Additional Services beyond the listed Scope of Services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting rates. ▪ The fee mentioned above may be lower, should there be fewer additional fees.
J. Edison
Principal-in-Charge
C. Villarreal
Project Manager Total
$ 240 $ 210 Hours Cost
Scope of Services
Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues 8.0 12.0 20.0 $ 4,440 Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth 8.0 16.0 24.0 5,280 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards 8.0 16.0 24.0 5,280 Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs 4.0 16.0 20.0 4,320 Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives 4.0 16.0 20.0 4,320 Task 6: Fee Comparison 4.0 16.0 20.0 4,320
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report 6.0 16.0 22.0 4,800 Task 8: Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool 4.0 12.0 16.0 3,480 Task 9: Meetings 10.0 16.0 26.0 5,760
Total – Development Impact Fee Study 56.0 136.0 192.0 $ 42,000 City of Cotati
Development Impact Fee Study
Fee Proposal
Development Impact Fee Study 21
City of Cotati, CA
Hourly Rates
Provided below is Willdan’s hourly rate table identifying current hourly rates for additional or optional services.
Willdan Financial Services
Hourly Rate Schedule
Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Vice President/Director $250
Managing Principal James Edison $240
Principal Consultant Carlos Villarreal $210
Senior Project Manager $185
Project Manager $165
Senior Project Analyst $135
Senior Analyst $125
Analyst II $110
Analyst I $100
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300,
Oakland, California 94607
800.755.6864 | Fax: 888.326.6864
www.willdan.com