City of Garden Grove, CA
Table of Contents
Understanding of the Assignment. ... i
Technical Approach.... .. 1
Project Understanding ..1
Project Objectives.. 1
Work Plan... 5
City Staff Support... 8
Project Disclaimer.. ..........8
Project Timeline. .9
Relevant Firm Experience and References ..10
Experience and Expertise .. ..10
Similar Studies .11
Sample Study.. 13
References 13
Project Team. 15
James Edison, JD, MPP, MA... 16
Carlos Villarreal, MPP 18
Company Ownership Description.. ..20
Firm Profile .20
Subconsultants .20
Project Management.. .21
Project Management Approach ..21
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Process .22
Consulting Fees........ Under Separate Cover
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study
W WILLDAN
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Understanding of the Assignment
October 8, 2025
Ms. Alexa Viramontes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Re: Technical Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Garden Grove Dear Ms. Viramontes:
Willdan Financial Services ("Willdan") is pleased to present this proposal to the City of San Garden Grove ("City") to conduct a comprehensive development impact fee study. 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 for the City.
Direct Recent and Ongoing Experience with the City of Garden Grove - Willdan collaborated with the City of Garden Grove on the previous Development Impact Fee Study. We are also currently working with City on the preparation of a Cost Allocation Plan. We understand the City's fees, service delivery processes and organizational structure, and retain the models and data from these previous efforts. The same team that worked previously with the City on the Development Impact Fee Study is assigned for this engagement, and will bring insight, for these is as sion understanding and expertise, at a level of cost-effectiveness that other firms lacking this experience cannot match, and that the City has come to expect from Willdan.
We will leverage our knowledge of the City, experience with the previous Study, and relationships with key staff to streamline and expedite our work and reduce questions, focusing less time on getting up to speed and data gathering, and more on meaningful analysis, so that City Staff can focus their time on direct City operations.
Project Understanding — Willdan completed the City of Garden Grove's prior Development Impact Fee Study, which involved an update to the existing transportation and park and recreation facilities, and the creation of a storm drain fee. The park and recreation facilities fee included a Quimby Fee Act component charged to development occurring within subdivisions. The analysis accounted for a moderate amount of growth within the City through the study's 2030 planning horizon, with much of the projected growth occurring as infill development. The project also included responses to concerns raised by the development community.
Unmatched experience implementing and defending fee programs — Willdan's impact fee staff has assisted more than 100 California government agencies with the creation and/or update of all fee types. Each project has required defensible documentation and thorough coordination of fee program changes for different agency departments and stakeholders within the business community. In many 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.
Willdan would also like to affirm our understanding of the recent Sheetz v. County of El Dorado Supreme Court decision and subsequent state court decision. The current status of Sheetz is that the state court has upheld the El Dorado County fee program as compliant with federal takings law. The upshot of Sheetz is an increase focus on nexus and proportionality, which have always been our watchwords.
T 951.587.3500 - 800.755.6864 | F 951.587.3510 • 888.326.6864 | 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 www.willdan.com Ms. Alexa Viramontes, Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Garden Grove
Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study
October 8, 2025 Page ii
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 municipality's existing infrastructure needs, 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 cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Buena Park, Brea, Irwindale, Claremont, Chino Hills, Pomona, Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, Indian Wells, Fontana, Hemet, Murrieta, Eastvale, Yucaipa, Barstow, Apple Valley, Palm Desert, Cudahy, Bell Gardens, and Bell. We are currently working on impact for the cities of San Gabriel, Azusa, and Temple City.
Our team is excited about this opportunity to serve the City of Garden once again. To discuss any aspect of our proposal, please contact Mr. James Edison; his contact information is provided in the table below.
Willdan Financial Services
Proposal Contact
James Edison, JD, MPP
Managing Principal
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200 | Temecula, CA 92590
Tel #: (510) 912-4687 | Fax #: (951) 587-3510
Email: [email protected]
As a Vice President of Willdan Financial Services, I am authorized to bind the firm to the terms of this proposal, as well as the subsequent agreement.
Sincerely,
Willdan Financial Services
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director
COMPREHENSVE NOVATE TRUSTED. W
City of Garden Grove, CA
Technical Approach
This section outlines Willdan Financial Services' ("Willdan") understanding of the City of Garden Grove's ("City") desire to update the Development impact ree study, as well as identity the project objectives and discusses the background regarding public tacilities tinancing in Calitornia. Also outlined is an overview ot our impact tee project approach.
Project Understanding
As part of the larger financial planning effort for the City's future development, 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 its current 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), including the new requirements enacted by Assembly Bill (AB) 602. The resulting fees will fund new development's share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs. In response to these objectives, the City has issued an RFP to prepare a Development Impact Study to update existing fees.
Listed below are the development impact fees that will likely be included in this study. • Park and Recreation Facilities • Storm Drain Facilities • Transportation Facilities • Parkway Trees
Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to update development impact fees pursuant to State law, and to assist the City in understanding additional infrastructure needs necessitated by future development. To accomplish this objective, this study will:
• Develop a list of impact fee categories that will meet the City's needs; • 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 and facilities master plans);
• Identify potential additional fees to address unmet future capital facilities needs; • 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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study
City of Garden Grove, CA
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.
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 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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 2
City of Garden Grove, CA
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.
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 = S/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 policy- based 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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 3
City of Garden Grove, CA
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.
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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 4
City of Garden Grove, 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:
• Previous studies;
• Changes in implementation resulting from AB 602;
• Changes in approach and nexus findings necessary to comply with AB 602; • 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;
• Potential fee zones or subareas to tailor the fee program or address other policy considerations; • 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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 5
City of Garden Grove, 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 or utility 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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 6
City of Garden Grove, CA
Task 6: Comparison Analysis
Objective: Provide a comparison of the current and proposed impact fees to those of comparable/surrounding jurisdictions in Orange County.
Description: Willdan will compare a total of five Orange 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.
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 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. The report will contain all required calculations and assumptions.
In addition. Willdan will provide the City with best practices regarding a range of policy decisions for consideration by the City Council, including incentives for affordable housing production and considerations of the impact of fees on development in the City.
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: We will provide up to four (4) bound copies of the draft report, one (1) unbound copy, one (1) Microsoft Word copy; and up to eight (8) bound copies of the final report.
Task 8: 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 ten in-person meetings and presentations throughout the City's engagement. Phone conferences are not considered meetings for the purposes of this scope.
Willdan's proposed meeting schedule is as follows:
1 Kick-off meeting with City Staff
5 Meetings with City Staff
2 meetings with Building Industry Association
1 City Council briefing
1 City Council presentation
Willdan has followed the requirements of the RFP and provided a cost quote based on in person meetings. In Willdan's experience several of the staff meetings could be conducted virtually, which would result in some cost savings. However, Willdan is happy to meet in person. In fact, staff prefer it, but we are cognizant that it is more expensive because it requires more time.
Optional: Optional additional stakeholder and Council meetings may be requested by the City.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 7
City of Garden Grove, CA
City Staff Support
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City staff. We suggest that the City of Garden Grove 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:
1) Coordinate responses to requests for information;
2) Coordinate review of work products; and
3) Help resolve policy issues.
Willdan will endeavor to minimize the impact on City staff in the completion of this project. We will ask for responses to initial information requests in a timely manner. If there are delays on the part of the City, we will contact the City's project manager to steer the project back on track. We will keep the City's project manager informed of data or feedback we need to keep the project on schedule.
Project Disclaimer
Willdan is a registered municipal advisory firm with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), as such the City of Garden Grove represents, acknowledges, and agrees that Willdan is not acting as a "municipal advisor" (as defined by the SEC), to the City, in any capacity as it relates to the project proposed in this Development Impact Fee Study RFP.
(i) The City uses, or may use, the services of one or more municipal advisors registered with the SEC to advise it in connection with municipal financial products and the issuance of municipal securities; (i) The City is not looking to Willdan to provide, and the 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, cash- flow 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 ter 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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 8
City of Garden Grove, CA
Project Timeline
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.
City of Garden Grove
Development Impact Fee Study
Estimated Project Schedule
December January 2026 February March April May
Scope of Services 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19|26 2 9 16 23 2 9 16 23 30 13 20 27 4 18 25 Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues 381 Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth 962 Task 3: Deterine Facility Standards 83
Task 4: Detemine Facilities Needs and Costs 384
Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Altematives 265
Task 6: Comparison 136
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report 87
Task 8: Meetings CM CM BIA CC BIA [CM| cc
Deliverables:
g61: Infomation Request, Meeting Agenda, Revised Schedule, Summary of 267: Administrative/Public Draft Reports), Final Nexus Report, Slide Presentation 962: Development Growth Projections (table fomat) CM: Kick-off Meeting 963: Project List CM: Meeting with City Staff
964: Cost Estimates for Identified Facilities BIA: Building Industry Association Meeting 965: Fee Comparison CC: City Council Meeting
986: Draft Fee Tables & Text
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 9
City of Garden Grove, CA
Relevant Firm Experience and References
Experience and Expertise
In the past five years Willdan has conducted
Willdan has been preparing impact fee nexus studies over 125 Impact Fee Studies since the passage of the Mitigation Fee Act. Our
commitment to public agencies and public solutions 50+
has helped us develop the broad finance expertise that
1964 Offices
will be utilized to support the City's Development Nationwide Founded in 1964
Impact Fee Study. Willdan has worked on virtually
every aspect of municipal finance, including fiscal and economic impact studies related to development and 800+ re-organization, the financing of infrastructure and
services through special district or supplemental taxes, Municipal/Government Client and even working under contract as a department head
of an entire municipality. This experience has provided Experience
Willdan team members with deep insight into the across 25 Years sources of municipal revenue and the costs of services. 7 States of Development
Impact Fee Experience
Managing Principal James A. Edison and his team
have worked with public agencies on many community
development projects, including the full range of 125+
analysis related to feasibility, economic and fiscal
impacts, infrastructure finance, and negotiations with
Completed Studies
private developers. Willdan is thoroughly familiar with both the Act and with the technical and policy issues
surrounding impact fees. DIVERSE
STAFF Project Financial Community Economic
Managers Consultants Engagement Developers
Experts
Unique Qualifications
Willdan is uniquely qualified to assist the City of Garden Grove 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 Garden Grove 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.
The team presented within this proposal has
Proven Professionals worked collectively on numerous projects, The Team's quality is often as important as the consulting firm's similar to the one being requested in the reputation. Willdan is known for its personal, customized service. City's RFP, including the City of Our team will work with the City's professional staff to provide Garden Grove; an established work practice the long-term service, that is our prime goal. between the team members has been forged, this proven long-standing system
Project Availability has benefited our clients.
Willdan's Financial Consulting Services group is composed of a team of over 30 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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 10
City of Garden Grove, CA
Similar Studies
The following table lists Willdan's development impact fee clientele that have utilized our services.
Willdan Financial Services
Development Impact Fee Experience
Partial Client List
City of Alameda, CA City of Pacifica, CA
City of Arcadia, CA City of Patterson, CA
City of Arroyo Grande, CA City of Parkland, FL
City of Artesia, CA City of Pismo Beach, CA
City of Atwater City of Pittsburg, CA
City of Azusa, CA City of Pleasant Hill, CA
City of Bakersfield, CA City of Rancho Mirage, CA
City of Barstow, CA City of Redwood City, CA
City of Bell, CA City of Rialto, CA
City of Bell Gardens, CA City of Richmond, CA
City of Bellflower, CA City of Rio Rancho, NM
City of Brea, CA City of Riverbank, CA
City of Buena Park, CA City of Rolling Hills Estates, CA City of Calimesa, CA City of Rosemead, CA
City of Carpinteria, CA City of San Carlos, CA
City of Chino Hills, CA City of San Fernando, CA
City of Claremont, CA City of San Gabriel, CA
City of Clovis, CA City of San Jacinto, CA
City of Coachella, CA City of San Marcos, CA
City of Commerce, CA City of San Ramon, CA
City of Compton, CA City of Santa Clara, CA
City of Corona, CA City of Sebastopol, CA
City of Covina, CA City of Selma, CA
City of Cudahy, CA City of Sierra Madre, CA
City of Dixon, CA City of Soledad, CA
City of Dublin, CA City of South Gate, CA
City of Eastvale, CA City of South Pasadena, CA
City of El Monte, CA City of South San Francisco, CA
City of El Segundo, CA City of St. Helena, CA
City of Emeryville, CA City of Tehachapi, CA
City of Fillmore, CA City of Temple City, CA
City of Fontana City of Thousand Oaks, CA
City of Fountain Valley, CA City of Tracy, CA
City of Fremont, CA City of Upland, CA
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 11
City of Garden Grove, CA
Willdan Financial Services
Development Impact Fee Experience
Partial Client List
City of Garden Grove, CA City of Visalia, CA
City of Gilroy, CA City of Wasco, CA
City of Gonzales, CA City of Yucaipa, CA
City of Goose Creek, SC Coachella Valley Association of Governments, CA City of Guadalupe, CA Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Greenfield, CA County of Clay, FL
City of Grover Beach, CA County of Kern, CA
City of Hawthorne, CA County of Kings, CA
City of Healdsburg, CA County of Los Angeles, CA
City of Hemet, CA County of Madera, CA
City of Hercules, CA County of Merced, CA
City of Hollister, CA County of Placer, CA
City of Huntington Beach, CA County of Riverside, CA
City of Huntington Park, CA County of Sacramento, CA
City of Indian Wells, CA County of San Benito, CA
City of Irwindale, CA County of San Diego, CA
City of Irvine, CA County of San Joaquin, CA
City of Kingsburg, CA County of San Luis Obispo, CA
City of La Mesa, CA County of Santa Barbara, CA
City of La Verne, CA County of Solano, CA
City of Las Cruces, NM County of Sonoma, CA
City of Lake Elsinore, CA County of Stanislaus, CA
City of Lake Forest, CA County of Tulare, CA
City of Lawndale, CA County of Yolo, CA
City of Livermore, CA East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Long Beach, CA Kern Council of Governments, CA
City of McFarland, CA Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, CA City of Madera, CA Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, CA City of Manteca, CA San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District, CA City of Menifee, CA Stanislaus Council of Governments, CA City of Moreno Valley, CA Tehachapi Valley Rec. & Park District, CA City of Morgan Hill, CA Town of Apple Valley, CA
City of Mountain View, CA Town of Mead, CO
City of Murrieta, CA Town of Windsor, CA
City of Newport Beach, CA Tulare County Association of Governments, CA City of Oroville, CA Village of Taos Ski Valley, NM
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 12
City of Garden Grove, CA
Sample Study
Included in a separate envelope, is the Development Impact Fee Study completed for the City of Newport Beach.
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 Newport Beach, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan conducted a comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Newport Beach that aimed to establish new impact fees essential for the enhancement and sustainability of key community services, including Recreation, Police, Fire/Life Safety, and Water and Sewer facilities. This in-depth study adhered to the guidelines set forth by the Mitigation Fee Act, as well as recent legislative changes encapsulated in AB 516 and AB 602.
In conducting the study, a detailed evaluation of the City's current level of service was performed for each facility type, allowing for an understanding of existing capacities and areas in need of improvement. The analysis then transitioned to a proportional allocation of future resource requirements, effectively linking these needs to new developments based on anticipated increases in demand. The findings from the compliant study were compiled and presented to the City Council during a public hearing, where they were adopted unanimously.
Client Contact: Liz Westmoreland, AICP, Principal Planner 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel #: (949) 644-3234 | Email: [email protected] Project Team: James Edison, Principal-in-Charge | Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager City of Irvine, CA
Development Impact Fee Update
In 2024, Willdan was engaged to conduct a Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study to update fees in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. The study also took into consideration the effects of recent legislation, such as AB 516 and AB 602, to ensure that the fees are defensible and transparent.
The City sought to enhance its impact fee program to align with evolving growth projections, project costs, and facility standards. This initiative aimed to ensure that new developments contribute appropriately to funding essential facilities. Willdan took the lead in crafting a robust justification for the proposed fees based on clear and reasonable relationships, adhering to careful review standards. The team developed a schedule of well-defined maximum-justified fees tailored to various land use categories. Engaging stakeholders, Willdan fostered public support for the impact fee program and provided thorough documentation of all assumptions, methodologies, and outcomes, ensuring transparency and accountability throughout the process.
Client Contact: Grace Yoon-Taylor, Budget Office, Administrative Services 1 Civic Center Plaza, Irvine, CA 62606
Tel #: (949) 724-6243 | Email: [email protected] Proiect Team: James Edison, PIC/Project Manager | Carlos Villarreal, Lead Analyst W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 13
City of Garden Grove, CA
City of Moreno Valley, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan was retained to perform a comprehensive update to the City's impact fee program in 2020. Their program included a variety of facility fee categories including arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities. The nexus study justified fees that were significantly higher than the City's current fees, partially because the fees had not been comprehensively updated in some time. Willdan worked with City staff to recommend a phased approach to implementation, so that the City could increase their fees on a regular schedule providing developers with certainty specific to the fee amounts in the near future.
Upon completion of the comprehensive update, Willdan was retained again to create a fee to fund workforce development facilities and a public arts impact fee, which were both adopted by the City in late 2022.
Client Contact: Michael Lloyd, PE, Public Works Director 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92553
Tel #: (951) 413-3100 | Email: [email protected]
Project Team: James Edison, Principal-in-Charge | Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager City of Murrieta, CA
Comprehensive Impact Fee Study
Willdan was retained originally in 2013 to conduct a comprehensive update to the City's impact fees. The team was once again retained through competitive bid in 2023 to update the following fees: Law Enforcement, Fire Protection Streets and Minor Bridges, Traffic Signals, Storm Drainage, General Facilities, Bridge/Freeway/Ramps, Oper Space Acquisition, Park Land Facilities, Community Center, and Public Library.
Willdan developed a technically defensible fee justification based on the reasonable relationship and deferential review standards; provided a schedule of maximum-justified fees by land use category; engaged stakeholders to facilitate public support for the impact fee; and provided comprehensive documentation of all assumptions, methodologies, and results, including findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Client Contact: Javier Carcamo, Finance Manager
1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562
Tel #: (951) 461-6090 | Email: [email protected]
Project Team: James Edison, Principal-in-Charge | Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager 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.
Willdan was recently re-selected to provide an update to the study.
Client Contact: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Tel #: (805) 773-7010 | Email: [email protected]
Project Team: James Edison, Principal-in-Charge | Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 14
City of Garden Grove, 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.
City of Garden Grove
Project Team
Key Team Member Project Role Responsibility to the Engagement • Ensure client satisfaction, flow of communication, and management of the project
• Technical guidance
James Edison, JD, MPP
Principal-in-Charge • Project oversight
Managing Principal
• Quality assurance & control, and
• Meeting and presentation attendance
• Collect, interpret, and disseminate key data
• Day to day contact
Carlos Villarreal, MPP • Production of key elements of the analysis Project Manager
Principal Consultant • Model development
• Report preparation, and
• Meeting and presentation attendance
Staff Continuity
Mr. Edison has been assigned to serve as the City's principal-in-charge; he has been selected for this role due to his extensive experience, which includes the preparation and supervision of numerous fee studies, as well as his experience presenting to governing bodies, stakeholders, and industry groups.
Resumes
Resumes for Willdan's project team are presented on the following pages.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 15
City of Garden Grove, CA
James Edison, JD, MPP, MA
Principal-in-Charge
Mr. James Edison, Managing Principal, specializes in the nexus between public and private, with expertise in public-private 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 Education facilities. He has conducted numerous evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of specific Juris Doctorate, plans and consulted on a wide variety of land use planning topics related to community University of revitalization and the economic and fiscal impacts of development.
California, Berkeley,
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 Master of Public the use of individual instruments, and the interaction between those instruments and the needs Policy, Goldman of developers and project finance.
School of Public
Policy, University of
Select Related Experience
California, Berkeley City of Garden Grove, CA - Development Impact Fee: Mr. Edison was the project manager Bachelor of Arts, for the City of Garden Grove's most recent Development Impact Fee study update in 2016. magna cum laude, The project included updating the City's transportation and park and recreation facilities Harvard University fees, and the creation of a storm drain fee.
City of Newport Beach, CA -Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison was the principal- Professional
in-charge for the City's study that established fees for Recreation, Police, Fire/Life Safety, and Registrations
Water and Sewer facilities.
Member of State Bar,
California City of Moreno Valley, CA - Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison was the principal-in-charge for the City's comprehensive impact update. Fee categories included Affiliations arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation Council of
yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities.
Development Finance
Agencies 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 CFA Society of Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report, to ensure that new San Francisco
development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Willdan was recently re-selected, through competitive bid, to update the Impact Fees.
Congress for the
New Urbanism 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 Urban Land Institute
through buildout of the City's General Plan.
Seaside Institute City of Indian Wells, CA - Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison served as the principal- in-charge for the City Indian Wells' update to their development impact fees. The fee program International Economic was comprised of a variety of fee categories including transportation, public facilities, recreation, Development Council park, and storm drain.
City of Fountain Valley, CA - Development Impact Fee Update Study: Mr. Edison served as 26 Years' Experience the project manager for the City of Fountain Valley's update to their development impact fees.
Fees included the park impact fee, traffic improvement fee, transportation impact fee, utility infrastructure impact fee and general plan surcharge fee.
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 presented 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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 16
City of Garden Grove, CA
City of McFarland, CA - Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Edison was the principal-in-charge and J. Edison technical advisor on the update to the City's development impact fee program. The study included Resume Continued the following facility fee categories; general government, law enforcement, park and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, storm drain, and traffic.
City of Carpinteria, CA - Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison was the project manager for the City of Carpinteria's Development Impact Fee update study engagement. The study included updates to the following fees: 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.
City of Manteca, CA - Fire Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the capacity of project manager for the update of the City's fire services impact fee program.
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 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 principal- in-charge of an update to the City's existing nexus study, which included general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and stor drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder outreach.
City of Fremont, CA - Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team in the successful update of the impact fee programs for the City of Fremont. The effort included an update of the City's transportation impact fee program and capital improvement program.
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.
Stanislaus County Council of Governments, CA - Regional Transportation Fee Update:
Mr. Edison worked on an update of the County's transportation impact fee program. Key tasks included a revised capital improvement program and fee model, along with a public participation process that ensures buy-in from the communities of Stanislaus County and the County government itself.
County of Tulare, CA - Countywide Impact Fees: Mr. Edison served as project manager for a study that involved the creation of an impact fee program for the County. The study included a range of facilities such as public protection, library, and parks, as well as a transportation facilities impact fee with different fees calculated for two zones in the County.
County of San Benito, CA - Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison served as technical advisor to the County's Impact Fee Study. The study included updates to the following fees: capital improvements, road equipment, fire mitigation, and park and recreation.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 17
City of Garden Grove, CA
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 tor 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.
Select Related Experience
City of Garden Grove, CA - Development Impact Fee: Mr. Villarreal served as the lead Education
Master of Public Policy, consultant for Garden Grove's Development Impact Fee study update. The project Goldman School of included the transportation, and park and recreation facilities, and the creation of a storm Public Policy, drain fee.
University of California,
Berkeley City of Newport Beach, CA -Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager for a study that established development impact fees. The study outlined fees Bachelor of Arts, for Recreation, Police, Fire/Life Safety, and Water and Sewer facilities. The City Council adopted Geography, University the study unanimously.
of California, Los
City of Murrieta, CA - Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Angeles; Minor in Public Report Update: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager of the City's study to update their Policy and Urban Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report, to ensure that new Planning
development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Willdan was recently re-selected, Areas of Expertise through competitive bid, to update the Impact Fees.
Fiscal Impact Analyses City of Long Beach, CA - Park Impact Fee Update: Willdan assisted with an update to the Development Impact City's existing park impact fees, with Mr. Villarreal serving in the role of project manager. The Fees
project included updating demographic data and facility planning to properly update park facility Public Facilities standards. He used this information to then calculate impact fees for single family and multi-family Financing Plans residential dwelling units and prepare a nexus study documenting the revised fees and the GIS Analysis required legal findings under the Mitigation Fee Act.
County of Los Angeles/City of Santa Clarita, CA - Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Study:
20 Years' Experience Mr. Villarreal assisted with the development of an impact fee program to fund law enforcement facilities serving the City of Santa Clarita, and other Antelope Valley jurisdictions within the County of Los Angeles. The analysis involved the comparison of law enforcement facilities serving incorporated and unincorporated areas.
County of Riverside, CA - Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was 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.
City of Moreno Valley, CA - Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager for the City's comprehensive impact update. Fee categories included arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities. In 2022 the City added a public arts fee and workforce development facility fee.
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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 18
City of Garden Grove, CA
City of Carpinteria, CA - Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was the lead analyst C Villarreal to update the City of Carpinteria's impact fees, which included highways and bridges, streets and Resume Continued 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 San Benito, CA - Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: As project manager, Mr. equipment, fire mitigation, and park and recreation.
City of Oroville, CA - Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager for a study updating the City's development impact fee program, including parks, law enforcement, general government, fire suppression, and traffic facilities. The fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2015. The City engaged Willdan again to update the 2015 study, and Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager.
City of McFarland, CA - Development 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 intrastructure costs necessary to tacilitate expected development in the City through 2040. Ihe study included the tollowing tacility tee categories; general government, law entorcement, park and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, storm drain, and traffic. The fees were adopted by the City Council in 2020.
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.
County of Stanislaus, CA - Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for a study updating the County's existing impact fee program. The program includes a range of facilities, like public protection, library, and parks. The study also included a transportation facilities impact fee, with different fees calculated for two zones in the County.
Considerable stakeholder outreach was an integral component of this project.
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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 19
City of Garden Grove, CA
Company Ownership Description
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, S 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 1,770 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 lill
communities-including a team who will be committed
to contributing • their expertise throughout the
duration of the City of Garden Grove's Development
Impact Fee Study engagement.
Willdan has solved economic, engineering and energy challenges for local communities and delivered industry- leading 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 national firm and is one of the largest public sector economic and financial analysis consulting firms in the United States. 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 • User fee studies; analysis;
• District Administration Services;
• Cost allocation studies;
• Real estate economic analysis;
• Utility rate and cost of service studies;
• Property tax audits;
• Feasibility studies;
• Tax increment finance district foration and
• Municipal Advisory; amendment;
• Arbitrage and Continuing Disclosure Services; • Housing development and implementation • Economic development strategic plans; strategies; and • Debt issuance support • Long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling.
Subconsultants
Willdan will not require the assistance of a sub-consultant to conduct the scope of services noted with our work plan.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 20
City of Garden Grove, CA
Project Management
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 Garden Grove. In doing this, we will ensure the project stays on track and evolves, based upon current thinking and outside dynamics.
Project Management
Define the Plan Manage Review the Communicate
Project the Project the Project Project the Project
• Identify the project • Collaborate with • Manage the • Review all work • Communicate with scope, set the project team execution of the product and the client regarding objectives, list and client staff and project. deliverables. work status and potential agree upon progress.
constraints, timeline to meet • Direct existing and • Utilize structured document the estimated upcoming project quality assurance • Ensure client is in assumptions. project timeline. tasks. process involving receipt of regular up to three levels status updates.
• Define a course of • Assign workload • Control and of review at the action and develop functions to monitor work in peer level, project • Schedule regular an effective appropriately progress. manager level. conference calls to communication qualified staff to touch base.
plan. ensure milestones • Provide feedback • Procure executive are met, on time. to client and officer level review. - Inform client of • Provide a forum for project team. roadblocks, work
applying the team's • Pre-schedule outside of projected collective expertise quality control • Identify and scope. to solving difficult meetings with resolve deviances
analytical issues project team to from project
that arise in maintain the timeline.
complex projects. progressive motion
of the project.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 21
City of Garden Grove, 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;
Quality Assurance Analyst Prepares
2) Project Manager review; and Manager Review Deliverables 3) Final quality assurance 6
manager review.
Peer reviews involve one analyst Quality
Assurance Peer Review of
reviewing the work of another, Analyst Revises Data Deliverables based on PM Review Levels of
while project manager reviews are
Review
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 Project Manager Analyst Revises Data Reviews based on Peer Review
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
• 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;
Quality Assurance /
James Edison • Ensure efficient use of resources;
Control Process
• Establish a consistent and uniform approach to the services performed; and
• Implement appropriate quality control measures for each work task of the project.
• Contract deliverables;
• Specific quality control procedures;
• Special quality control emphasis;
James Edison:
Quality Control Plan
Carlos Villareal • Budget and manpower requirements;
• Overall project schedule and budget; and
• Project documentation requirements.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 22
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Consulting Fees
October 8, 2025
Ms. Alexa Viramontes
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Re: Fee Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Garden Grove Dear Ms. Viramontes:
Willdan Financial Services ("Willdan") is pleased to present the following cost proposal to the City of Garden Grove's ("City") to conduct a Development Impact Study. This submission reflects our understanding of the City's Request for Proposal (RFP).
Willdan is excited about this opportunity to serve the City. To discuss any aspect of our technical and/or cost proposal, 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
T 951.587.3500 - 800.755.6864 | F 951.587.3510 - 888.326.6864 | 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 www.willdan.com City of Garden Grove, CA
Not to Exceed Fixed Fee
Based upon the scope of work identified herein, Willdan proposes a fixed fee of $56,400 for the City's Development Impact Fee Study. The table below provides a breakdown of the proposed fee by task and team member.
City of Garden Grove
Development Impact Fee Study
Cost Proposal
J. Edison C. Villarreal
Principal-in- Project
Charge Manager Total
$ 300 $ 270 Hours Cost
Scope of Services
Task 1: Identify and Resolve Policy Issues 8.0 12.0 20.0 $ 5,640 Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth 6.0 10.0 16.0 4,500 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards 6.0 10.0 16.0 4,500 Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs 6.0 12.0 18.0 5,040 Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives 4.0 10.0 14.0 3,900 Task 6: Fee Comparison 4.0 8.0 12.0 3,360
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report 6.0 12.0 18.0 5,040 Task 8: Meetings 40.0 46.0 86.0 24,420
Total - Development Impact Fee Study 80.0 120.0 200.0 $56,400 Notes
Please note the following:
• The fee denoted above includes attendance at up to ten in-person meetings, including with City staff, stakeholders (including the Building Industry Association), and City Council.
Attendance at more than ten meetings and/or presentations will be billed at our current hourly rates, provided below, and actual expenses. Alternatively, if some of the included meetings are conducted virtually, Willdan can reduce the cost of the project to the City.
• 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.
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study
City of Garden Grove, 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 $310
Managing Principal James Edison $300
Principal Consultant Carlos Villarreal $270
Senior Project Manager $250
Project Manager $210
Senior Project Analyst $150
Senior Analyst $135
Analyst I| $120
Analyst I $110
W WILLDAN Development Impact Fee Study 2