Richmond City Council
April 7, 2026

April 7, 2026
Economic Development
DATE: April 7, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Nannette Beacham, Director of Economic Development Jesson de Leon, Senior Business Assistance Officer
Junne Garcia, Management Analyst
Subject: Quarterly Status Update on Richmond Green-Blue New Deal Projects
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to receiving this update.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

October 1, 2024
July 1, 2025
December 2, 2025

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

This quarterly update provides the City Council with a
status report on active projects under Richmond’s GreenBlue New Deal (GBND), with a focus on the Top Five Priority Areas approved by the City Council. The report outlines progress to date and highlights ongoing efforts to align resources and strategic partnerships to advance job creation, climate resilience, and equity through these
initiatives.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a quarterly update report on the status of the Richmond Green-Blue New Deal projects - Economic
Development Department (Jesson de Leon 510-412-
2023/Junne Garcia 510-620-6524/Nannette Beacham
510-620-1306).

AGENDA
REPORT
517

April 7, 2026
BACKGROUND:

On October 1, 2024, City staff presented the Richmond Green-Blue New Deal (RGBND) Opportunities Report and its appendices to the City Council for initial review. In response to Council and community feedback, staff initiated an internal evaluation process to refine the implementation strategy and narrow the scope of projects to be prioritized over the next five years.

This process included a comprehensive review of all 24 proposed projects, surveys of internal departments, and input from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Workforce Development Board (WDB).

On July 1, 2025, the Top Five Priority Areas were presented to City Council and formally approved.

1. Port Upgrades & Offshore Wind Manufacturing

2. Building Electrification Retrofits & Green Accessory Dwellings

3. Brownfield Research and Innovation

4. Destination Downtown

5. Transition to Zero Emission Vehicles

QUARTERLY UPDATE
Below are their progress updates for the period of October through December 2025.

1. Port Upgrades & Offshore Wind Manufacturing
A. Assessment of Participation Options in Offshore Wind Industry  In December, the Richmond City Council adopted a resolution to accept and appropriate the California Energy Commission (CEC) funding award to the Port of Richmond a $750,000 grant under the Offshore Wind Energy Waterfront Facility Improvement Program (Agreement OSW-25-003) to advance the Port’s Offshore Wind Conceptual Planning Project. A contract with Moffatt & Nichol for conceptual planning and preliminary engineering services was also approved by City Council. The project will evaluate terminal capacity, identify potential offshore-wind staging and assembly areas, and support development of a future Port Master Plan for offshorewind-related uses. The Grant Agreement with CEC has not yet been finalized and is pending further action from CEC.

B. Build relationship with Blue Tech Companies and Industry  Port staff members will continue to participate in Offshore Wind conferences and committees to strengthen connections with Blue Tech companies and explore partnership opportunities with this sector.  Port staff members will continue to participate in working sessions with Energy Innovators Network and other regional groups to explore 518

April 7, 2026
collaboration opportunities and strengthen engagement with Blue Tech industry leaders.
 The Port continues to work on California Air Resources Board (CARB) At Berth Regulation compliance and is contracting with STAX Engineering to deploy an exhaust gas emissions control solution for ships that are calling at the Port of Richmond.

C. Assessment of Port Infrastructure
 The Port initiated a Comprehensive Conditions Assessment of the Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT)—conducted by Moffatt & Nichol. This study provides a prioritized list of projects, with associated cost ranges, enabling the Port to strategically plan infrastructure investments over the next decade that will be needed to expand the tenant base and attract new industries.

D. Workforce Development for Marine Trades
 Port staff members are planning a second annual Community Open House and Workforce Development Port Day to engage the community, raise awareness of maritime career pathways, and connect jobseekers with training and employment opportunities in the marine trades sector.  The Port will continue to participate in regional efforts, the Working Waterfront Coalition (WWC), and explore best practices and partnership opportunities for advancing marine trades workforce development.

2. Building Electrification Retrofits & Green Accessory Dwellings A. Green Accessory Dwelling Units.
 Pre-approved plans were completed in 2024, and City staff are currently reviewing the plan set with the consultant to update it in accordance with the 2025 California Building Code.

B. Richmond Wired for Success
 Employment and Training received a $500,000 grant from the California Workforce Development Board for Electrification training. City staff have completed the first cohort and are now placing graduates in internships.

One graduate intern is with the City of Richmond's Public Works in the electrical department. Other interns have been placed with local electric companies.

C. Electrification
 The City’s Environmental and Health Initiatives staff participated in and tabled at an Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) hosted community workshop, alongside partner organizations, to provide Richmond residents with information on available home electrification programs.
519

April 7, 2026
 The City submitted formal comments to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) advocating for the inclusion of additional Richmond SB 535 census tracts as designated SB 1221 Priority Decarbonization Zones. Senate Bill 1221 allows up to 30 pilot projects within the designated census tracts across California to help transition some neighborhoods from natural gas to cleaner, zero-emission energy options.  The City hosted no-cost solar enrollment workshops at City Hall through a partnership between the Environmental and Health Initiatives Division, GRID Alternatives and Richmond Rising (Transformative Climate Communities) to support resident participation in clean energy programs.  Environmental and Health Initiatives Division staff participated in an Advanced Energy Community Grant site tour with the California Energy Commission grant team, led by Zero Net Energy (ZNE)Alliance and Marin Clean Energy (MCE). The tour included visits to three participating Virtual Power Plant (VPP) sites: a multifamily property, a single-family residence, and a commercial business that installed EV charging equipment (EVSE) and battery storage. The residential site also featured upgraded electric appliances, including a heat pump water heater and electric stove.

3. Brownfield Research and Innovation
A. RichmondBUILD Environmental Job Training Program (RBEJTP)  The Employment and Training Division recently received $500,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The program will provide pathways to family‑ sustaining careers for residents most impacted by environmental contamination and economic inequities. The program looks to partner with the City of Richmond's Port and other municipal capital improvements that require hazardous materials handling, demolition/deconstruction in support of cleanup, and site preparation

4. Destination Downtown
A. (TCC Project) Small Business Beautification Pilot Program  The Program officially launched on December 29, 2025, and the online application is now available. Community outreach efforts are underway to inform businesses within the program area about this opportunity.

B. Macdonald Avenue Corridor Task Force
 The Task Force convened three official meetings, including a Downtown Richmond walking tour with Assemblymember Matt Haney (San Francisco) and representatives from Assemblymember Wicks’ office.  The Task Force commenced marketing and recruitment efforts to identify and onboard additional members.
 The Task Force issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consulting services to support the Economic Revitalization Strategy for Downtown Richmond and the Macdonald Avenue corridor.
520

April 7, 2026

5. Transition to Zero Emission Vehicles
A. Zero Emission Vehicle(ZEV) Transition Plan
 City staff, in coordination with consultants, enhanced the ZEV Fleet Transition and Infrastructure Coordination Tool to support implementationlevel budgeting, scenario modeling, infrastructure planning, and emissions tracking through an approved contract modification.
 The upgraded tool will guide FY 2026–27 CIP and operating budget integration, informing fleet replacement sequencing, infrastructure investments, funding strategy, and greenhouse gas reduction targets for Council consideration.

Phase 4 Implementation Strategy Update
City staff continue to advance development of the Phase 4 Implementation Strategy, which is focused on translating the five Council-approved priority project areas into actionable, implementation-ready scopes of work. These scopes are informed by prior technical assessments, community engagement input, and ongoing interdepartmental coordination to ensure alignment with Council policy direction and operational capacity.

The Implementation Strategy will establish clear project guidelines, sequencing recommendations, and a prioritization framework to support resource allocation and strategic decision-making. Each scope will integrate climate action goals, workforce development and inclusion strategies, economic equity considerations, and environmental sustainability objectives to ensure coordinated and comprehensive delivery.

Departmental leads and key external partners are being identified, and staff are evaluating potential funding sources, staffing needs, and budget requirements to support phased implementation and long-term program success. Upon completion, draft scopes of work and associated resource needs will be presented to the City Council for review, prioritization, and policy direction.

NEXT STEPS:

Providing this quarterly update to City Council was identified as a priority to ensure transparency, accountability, and continued alignment with Council-approved goals under the Richmond Green-Blue New Deal. City staff will present the next quarterly update to the City Council in the subsequent quarter to continue monitoring progress, implementation milestones, and emerging priorities.

SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

The RGBND initiative is rooted in Resolution 88-21 and builds upon Richmond’s Climate Action Plan, Economic Development Action Plan, Health in All Policies 521

April 7, 2026
Strategy, and Richmond Workforce Development Local Plan. The overarching goals include advancing a Just Transition and creating at least 1,000 new green-blue jobs to support a just, equitable, resilient, and sustainable future. Additionally, this is included in the City Council Goals and Priorities 6.1.b.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None.
522

April 7, 2026
Department
DATE: April 7, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Charles Gerard, Port Director
Lizeht Zepeda, Senior Business Assistance Officer
Kyle Lam, Management Analyst
Subject: Contract with T&R Riparian Restore for Weed Abatement FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed not-to-exceed amount of $69,785 for the initial one-year contract term is included within the
approved fiscal year 2025-2026 Port of Richmond
Operations and Maintenance budget. Two optional
one-year extensions, each in a not-to-exceed amount of
$69,785, will be budgeted accordingly in subsequent
fiscal year budgets (Account String: 40161080-400201).

This item has no impact on the General Fund.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Port of Richmond operates the Point Potrero Marine
Terminal (PPMT), which requires routine weed
abatement multiple times each year. Regular
maintenance is necessary to prevent damage to fencing,
pavement, and structural foundations, maintain
regulatory compliance, and ensure a safe and secure
operating environment at the Port.

AGENDA
REPORT
523

April 7, 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE a contract with T&R Riparian Restore for weed abatement and additional
services, for a one-year term in a not-to-exceed $69,785, with two one-year extension options at $69,785 per year for a total contract amount of $209,355 – Economic
Development Department (Charles Gerard 510-620-
6792).

DISCUSSION:

The Port of Richmond (Port) operates five City-owned terminals, including the Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT), the largest public terminal, which requires ongoing weed abatement. Weeds and other vegetation grow rapidly throughout the Port areas after the rainy season. A weed abatement maintenance contract is essential to protect roadway surfaces and asphalt-capped infrastructure, maintain safe conditions, and preserve the overall appearance at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal.

In July 2025, the Port of Richmond issued a Request for Proposals (RFP), for qualified contractors to provide weed abatement services across designated areas of the Point Potrero Marine Terminal. The RFP outlined the goal of maintaining safe access, visual appeal, and infrastructure protection throughout Port areas, including the Bay Trail corridors, sections of Canal Boulevard, marine tenant perimeters, fencing, and paved areas. Addendum number one to the RFP was issued to incorporate services to be performed three times per year instead of two times per year. Addendum number three to the RFP was issued to incorporate that in 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-15(a) prohibiting the use of pesticides in weed abatement activities, this resolution was uploaded to the RFP in the City’s procurement platform PlanetBids.

Additionally, the RFP referenced City Code RMC 9.48.010, which largely bans herbicides.

The Port received five proposals by the submission deadline (Attachment 1). Proposals were evaluated by three City staff members using the published evaluation criteria within the RFP: Quality of the Proposal, Approach & Understanding, Experience, References, and Proposed Costs (100 points possible).

Scoring/Evaluation Results:

Name Location Score
T&R Riparian Restore Colusa CA 87
A Plus Tree Vallejo, CA 85
New Image Landscape Company Fremont, CA 76
Lagestic LLC Oakland, CA Nonresponsive
Land Revision Petaluma, CA Nonresponsive
524

April 7, 2026
Based on the evaluation results, T&R Riparian Restore received the highest overall score (Attachment 2). They excelled in approach and understanding of the RFP and the firm’s proposal reflects extensive experience with municipal clients providing strong references, and they have the capacity to meet the Port’s service requirements. They proposed to provide additional services and service hours if needed. T&R Riparian Restore is a family-owned restoration company, specializing in protecting and expanding California's water ecosystems. With experience on large-scale habitat restoration, they provide services such as native planting, erosion control, invasive species weed management, and riparian restoration construction.

City staff recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a contract with T&R Riparian Restore for weed abatement and additional services for a one-year term in a not-to-exceed amount of $ 69,785, with two one-year extension options at $ 69,785 per year in the amount of $ $209,355 ; and that City Council execute any necessary amendments (Attachment 3 and 4)
SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

City Council Goals and Priorities – Strategic Goal Area 2.5: Revitalization of the Port.

This contract will advance the Port’s goal to refresh Port marine terminals while maintaining a clean accessible, visual appealing location for all to enjoy.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Bid Summary Report
Attachment 2 – Scoring/Evaluation Matrix
Attachment 3 – Contract
Attachment 4 – Resolution
525
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
526
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
527
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
528
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
529
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
530
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
531
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
532
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
533
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
534
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
535
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
536
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
537
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
538
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
539
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
540
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
541
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
542
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
543
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
544
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
545
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
546
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
547
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
548
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
549
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
550
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
551
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
552
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
553
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
554
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
555
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
556
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
557
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
558
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
559
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
560
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
561
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
562
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
563
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
564
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
565
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
566
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
567
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
568
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
569
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
570
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
571
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
572
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
573
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
574
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
575
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
576
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
577
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
578
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
579
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
580
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
581
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
582
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
583
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
584
City of Richmond
Weed Abatement Services for the Port of Richmond, bidding on 07/31/2025 4:30 PM (PDT)

Printed 07/22/2025
PlanetBids
585

WEED ABATEMENT
Submittal date
Contacts Total Bid Additional Services Rate
T&R Restore Ruben Reynoso rreynoso@trrestore Colusa $ 69,784.70 $ 974.55 New Image Landscape Company Alfonso Medina amedina@newimag Fremont $ 30,600.00 A Plus Tree Emily [email protected] $43,050.00 Lagestic LLC Zachary [email protected] ( didn’t provide total bid just unit costs) Land Revision n/a LandRevision@gma Petaluma ( didn’t provide total bid just unit costs) Evaluation Criteria
Maximum Points T&R Restore New Image Landscape
Company
A Plus Tree Lagestic LLC Land Revision
Quality of the Proposal
-Overall quality and professional appearance of the
proposal submitted, based upon the opinion of the
evaluators. 10 8.333333333 7.333333333 8.333333333 8.333333333 7.666666667 Approach & Understanding
- Quality of the proposed plan for completing the
landscaping services.
- Understanding of COR’s requirements. 25 22.66666667 19.66666667 20.66666667 22 19.33333333 Experience
- Demonstrated successful past performance experience
for similar scope and complexity 25 23.66666667 18.33333333 22.33333333 23.33333333 19.66666667 References
Positive references from previous clients and experience with Public Agencies 5 4 3 4.333333333 4 3.666666667
Proposed Costs
-Overall Cost competiveness
-Transparency of any additional charges or reimbursable expenses 35 28.33333333 27.33333333 29.33333333 19.66666667 20.66666667 Total 100 87 75.66666667 85 77.33333333 71
586
Reso. No. _____

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH T&R RIPARIAN RESTORE FOR WEED

ABATEMENT SERVICES AT THE POINT POTRERO MARINE TERMINAL WHEREAS, the City owns and operates terminals at the Port of Richmond, including the Point Potrero Marine Terminal; and
WHEREAS, routine weed abatement and vegetation management services are necessary to protect infrastructure, maintain regulatory compliance, and ensure safe and secure Port operations; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Request for Proposals in July 2025 to solicit qualified contractors to perform weed abatement services at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal; and WHEREAS, five proposals were received and evaluated by a panel of City staff in accordance with the evaluation criteria established in the Request for Proposals; and WHEREAS, T&R Riparian Restore received the highest overall evaluation score and was determined to be the most qualified firm to provide the requested services; and WHEREAS, funding in the amount of $69,785 is available in the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Port Operations and Maintenance Budget Fund.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND:

1. The City Council hereby approves a contract with T&R Riparian Restore for weed abatement and related maintenance services at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal for a one-year term in an amount not to exceed $69,785; and

2. The City Council hereby authorizes two optional one-year extensions, each in an amount not to exceed $69,785, subject to available funding; and

3. The City Council hereby authorizes any necessary amendments consistent with this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves and adopts a contract with T&R Riparian Restore for weed abatement and related maintenance services. ******************
***THE CLERK’S OFFICE WILL COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW**** I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on Mmmm dd, yyyy, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
587
Reso. No. _____

Mayor
Approved as to form:

City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.

City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on Mmmm dd, yyyy.
_______________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
588

CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: City Project Manager:

City Project Manager E-mail: City Project Manager Phone No:

Vendor No: Contract No:

Description of Services:

The parties to this STANDARD CONTRACT do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract are the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation (“the City”), and the following named Contractor:

Contractor Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No:
☐ A California corporation, ☐ limited liability corporation ☐ general partnership, ☐ limited partnership, ☐ individual, ☐ non-profit corporation, ☐ individual dba as [specify:] ____________________ ☐ other [specify:] _______________________________

2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is _______________________ and terminates _________________ unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.

3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $______________ (“Contract Payment Limit”) unless a Contract Amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager. If this amount includes a contingency, Contractor acknowledges that any use of such contingency shall be for work beyond the original scope of services and requires prior written authorization by the City. If noted below, Compensation for work done under this Contract, shall not exceed as follows:

FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________

4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor agrees to perform all work at its own cost and expense, to furnish all labor, tools, equipment, materials, except as otherwise specified, in accordance with the Service Plan set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

5. City Obligations. City shall make payments to the Contractor in accordance with the Payment Provisions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Economic Development/Port Lizeht Zepeda [email protected] (510) 620-6653 Weed abatement and other related services for the Port of Richmond T&R Riparian Restore 446 Market Street Colusa CA 95932 Ruben Reynoso (530) 682-9299 [email protected] April 7, 2026 April 7, 2027 69,784.70 589

6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C), attached hereto and incorporated herein.

7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

10. Sanctuary City Compliance Statement. This Contract is subject to the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement (Exhibit G), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

11. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation [BUSINESS NAME]
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice President should sign below)
By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ Title: ________________________ Title: __________________________ Date Signed: _________________ Date Signed: ___________________ I hereby certify that this Contract (* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer or Assistant has been approved by City Council Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant Secretary should or the City Manager. sign below)
By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ City Clerk Title: __________________________
Date Signed: ____________________
Approved as to form:
(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations Code Section By: _________________________ 313, if Contractor is a corporation or nonprofit organization, City Attorney this Contract (1) must be signed by (a) the Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice-President and (b) the
Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Treasurer, or
Secretary or Assistant Secretary)
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Exhibit G
T&R Riparian Restore
590
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE PLAN
Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the Project Manager (set forth in Exhibit B), perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below [or attach service plan if necessary]:

T&R Riparian Restore
Scope of work, fee proposal, and RFP attached.
591
Weed Abatement Services for
the Port of Richmond
RFP Submittal Packet
Prepared for:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
ATTN: Charles Gerard
Prepared by:

T&R Restore
446 Market Street
Colusa CA 95932
(530) 682-9299
July 2025
592
T&R Riparian Restore
446 Market Street
Colusa CA 95932
(530) 682-9299
Established 2021
T&R Restore No. of Employees = 12
For more information regarding our company please feel free to contact:

Ruben Reynoso, President/CEO
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: (530) 682-9299
593
Firm’s Experience/Methodology:

T&R Restore is built on a team of professionals with over 25 years of combined experience, effectively bringing together the skills and expertise necessary to manage projects that align with the scope outlined in this Request for Proposal. In just the past four years, our team has successfully delivered more than 30 comparable projects, including the Sacramento River Levee Erosion Control/Habitat Enhancement Project, CalTrans Weed Abatement Services, and Weed Abatement Services for the Glenn County Resource Conservation District.

These projects required a range of capabilities including environmental compliance, vegetation management including – mowing, hand weeding, string trimming, species identification, as well as the ability to maintain detailed daily field reports to ensure accurate documentation and accountability.

Our approach to ensuring all projects are successful and in full compliance includes the following key components:

Project Planning & Mobilization – Conduct thorough site assessments, review project requirements, and develop a detailed work plan to ensure proper resource allocation, scheduling, and compliance from the start.

Environmental Compliance – Adhere strictly to federal, state, and local regulations, ensuring all work meets environmental standards and permitting requirements. 594
Vegetation Management & Species Identification – Deploy experienced field teams trained to identify and manage target and protected species, ensuring selective and appropriate treatment methods.

Documentation & Reporting – Maintain detailed daily field reports, and photo documentation to provide transparent project tracking and accountability for clients.

Adaptability & Problem-Solving – Remain responsive to changing site conditions, as well as weather impacts by adjusting work plans and resources as needed.

Communication & Coordination – Provide weekly schedule updates to agency. 595
Weed Abatement Servies
Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Nevada, Placer,
Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties
T&R performed weed abatement services for the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) across numerous counties. These services were performed on an as-needed basis and included mowing, disking, hand trimming, as well as herbicide application for areas of varying sizes.

Compliance with all environmental and safety regulations.

Safe and legal removal and disposal of all vegetation debris, and litter. Daily field reporting and proper photo
documentation of all activities, weekly schedule updates were also provided to Caltrans for review and adjustments.

Project Reference:

Louis Bird, Associate Right of
Way Agent
California Dept. of Transportation
(916) 821-8380
[email protected]
Continued Experience & References
596
Sacramento River Levee Erosion
Control and Habitat Enhancement
Project
Brannan-Andrus Levee Maintenance District
Sacramento County
T&R was contracted to perform irrigation design and
installation, seeding and planting establishment, as well as three years of routine maintenance and management of the Sacramento River Levee Erosion Control and Habitat
Enhancement Project for the Brannan- Andrus Levee
Maintenance District located on the waterside slope of the Sacramento River, downstream of the City of Isleton,
Sacramento County, California.

The maintenance and management activities include routine hand pulling around native species, string trimming, levee mowing, and prescribed herbicide treatment events.

Adaptive measures have been taken to work around the everchanging water tides creating specific times to complete tasks. Due to site limitations, materials were required to be delivered and placed with water-based equipment, i.e.: boats and barges.

Project Reference:

Ryan Abood, Project Manager
Dutra Group
(916) 601-0080
[email protected]
597
Bob Nichols
Construction Manager

WSP USA
2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 400
Sacramento CA 95833
C: (916) 801-6347
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to extend my recommend for Ruben Reynoso for any future work in Habitat Restoration. I have worked with Ruben for two years with his position as the Senior Restoration Field Manager supervising the work performed for the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency - Southport Levee Improvement Project Floodplain Restoration.

This 6-year, $5mm project included 120 acres of floodplain and riparian restoration as part of the Southport Levee Improvement Project located in West Sacramento, CA. The work performed included:
developing actions and strategies appropriate to ecological site conditions; California native plant identification; site preparation; weed control; large woody material installation; irrigation design and installation as well as operations; tree, shrub, and herbaceous species planting; seeding native grasses; and plant establishment and maintenance.

Ruben’s role in managing the project led to a successful outcome due to his professionalism, and his experience in the field as well as his commitment to the project and its desired outcome. Ruben was easy to communicate with, knowledgeable, thorough, and preformed well over the general requirements of the project.

I believe in Ruben to be a very capable contractor and would have no reservations in recommending him for any future work in restoration. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding his past performance and project history.

Sincerely,
Bob Nichols, CCM
WSP, PM/CM Area Manager
598

446 Market Street, Colusa CA. 95932
License No. 1078716
July 31, 2025
Proposed Rates & Fees
Task Unit Unit $ TOTAL
Initial Site Assessment & Mapping of Area(s) 1 $2,834.95 $2,834.95 Site Inspection & Pre-Abatement Assessment 3 $1,991.73 $5,975.19 Mechanical & Manual Weed Removal 3 $8,482.83 $25,448.49 Perimeter & Fenceline Clearing 3 $3,561.62 $10,684.86
Storm Drain & Utility Area Clearing 3 $2,696.86 $8,090.57 Trash & Debris Removal 3 $2,673.34 $8,020.03
Final Clean-up & Site Walk with Port Staff 3 $2,098.98 $6,296.94 Service Reporting & Photo Documentation 3 $811.22 $2,433.67 TOTAL $69,784.70
Additional Services = price per hour for a 4-person labor crew if needed $974.55 Reimbursement Expenses Equal Cost + 15%
599

CITY OF RICHMOND
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement
The undersigned, an authorized agent of (hereafter
"Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”). Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:
a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:
i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies; ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.
b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.

Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.

By executing this Statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 20 , at , California.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

Vendor SCCO Compliance Statement (Augt2020)
T&R Restore
31 July 25 Colusa
Ruben Reynoso President/CEO
07/31/25
T&R Restore
600
Disclosure Statement for Limited Liability Companies
This Statement Shall be included with all Bid and Proposal Submissions Is your Business a Limited Liability Company (LLC)? YES NO If you answered YES, please provide the City with the names and business addresses of any and all shareholders, directors, officers, members, managers, other authorized persons, partners, and “Beneficial Owners” of the applying LLC. A Beneficial Owner is any person or entity who: (1) exercises substantial control over the applying LLC; (2) owns 25% or more of the interest in the applying LLC; or (3) receives substantial economic benefits from the assets of the applying LLC.

If any LLC shareholder, director, officer, member, manager, other authorized person, partner, or Beneficial Owner is itself an LLC or other business entity, the names and business addresses must also be provided for any and all shareholders, directors, officers, members, managers, other authorized persons, partners, and Beneficial Owners of that LLC or other business entity all the way up through each entity in the organizational chart until ultimate ownership by individual people is disclosed.

Name: _____________________
Title: _____________________
Address:__________________________________________
Name: _____________________
Title: _____________________
Address:__________________________________________
Name: _____________________
Title: _____________________
Address:__________________________________________
☐ Check this box if additional ownership information is attached to this Disclosure Statement.

In signing this Disclosure Statement, I represent that the information submitted in this Disclosure Statement, and any attachments, is true and correct.

Signature: _____________________
Printed Name: _____________________
Title: _____________________
Date: _____________________
x
Ruben Reynoso
President/CEO
07/31/2025
601
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT PROVISIONS

1. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:
a. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated in the manner set forth herein.
b. All payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photocopying, meals and travel, etc.). Invoices shall be adequately detailed, based on accurate records, and be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. Contractor may be required to provide back-up material upon request. c. All City vendors receiving new contracts shall sign up to receive electronic payments through the City’s Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) payments service/provider.

2. SUBMISSION OF INVOICES:

Contractor shall submit timely invoices by email to
[email protected] and/or to the following address:

Attention: City of Richmond Finance/Account Payable
Project Manager: _______________________
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804

3. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City Project Manager, _______________________, before payments shall be authorized.
a. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days after completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.
b. All appropriate permits, certificates, and licenses, including a City business license shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of this Contract before any payment is authorized.

4. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract is executed by the City. The insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be maintained by Contractor for the duration of this Contract and must be in place before any payment is authorized.

Lizeht Zepeda Lizeht Zepeda T&R Riparian Restore
602
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT C

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES

1. All required written notices shall be delivered: (i) by hand; or (ii) sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service; or (iii) sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective address listed in this Section.

2. Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of:
actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused; or three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above (Sundays and City holidays excepted).

3. Either party may, at any time, change its notice address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party three (3) days prior written notice of the new address.

4. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to the City shall be addressed to the City at:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Email: ________________________________________________

5. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at:

Attn:

Email: ________________________________________________ Lizeht Zepeda [email protected]&R Riparian Restore T&R Riparian Restore 446 Market Street Colusa CA 95932 [email protected] 603
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:

Contractor hereby declares that Contractor is engaged as an independent business and Contractor agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor.

The manner and means of conducting the services and tasks are under the control of Contractor except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Contract. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Contractor’s services. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from any compensation due to Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.

2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:

Contractor and the City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Contract.

3. STANDARD OF CARE:

Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service Contractors, as applicable, in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City.

4. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):

Contractor assumes all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.

5. NON-DISCRIMINATION:

Consistent with the City’s policy and state and federal law that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Contractor and its employees, contractors, and agents shall not harass or discriminate against any job applicant, City employee, or any other person on the basis of any kind of any statutorily (federal, state or local) protected class, including but not limited to: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, T&R Riparian Restore
604
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
disability (both mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, medical condition (e.g. cancer), genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, political affiliation, military and veteran status or legitimate union activities. Contractor agrees that any violation of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.

6. CITY PROPERTY:
a. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, applicable plans, drawings, calculation, data, specification, video, graphic, or any other material or document produced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the City. b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 11 below, indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data. c. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval of the City Manager or their designee. d. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City Manager or their designee may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services and tasks required under this Contract.

7. RECORDS:
a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services, tasks, work, documents and data in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Contractor’s performance under the Contract, as well as maintain books and records related to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of the services and tasks under this Contract (collectively the “Records”).
b. All Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the Records to the representatives of the City or its designees during regular business hours upon reasonable prior notice. The City has the right to examine and audit the Records, and to make copies or transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all proceedings and activities related to this Contract. Such Records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained by Contractor for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment.

T&R Riparian Restore
605
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. If supplemental examination or audit of the Records is necessary due to concerns raised by the City’s preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City’s supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of this Contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.

8. PERMITS AND LICENSES:

Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City business license, required in connection with the performance of the services and tasks hereunder.

The failure to obtain such permits and licenses shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.

9. TERMINATION:
a. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder immediately upon transmission of written notice to Contractor as provided in Exhibit C “Authorized Representatives and Notices”.
b. Termination in the Event of Default. Should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Contract, City may immediately terminate this Contract by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination. Contractor shall be compensated as provided in Exhibit B; provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, if any, sustained by City by virtue of Contractor's breach of this Contract. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest (as defined under any federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation, or at common law) with respect to this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges, represents and warrants that no City official or employee has any economic interest, as defined in Title 2, California Code of Regulations §§ 18703.1 through 18703.5, with Contractor that would invalidate this Contract. Contractor acknowledges that in the event that Contractor shall be found by any judicial or administrative body to have any conflict of interest (as defined above) with respect to this Contract, all consideration received under T&R Riparian Restore
606
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.

11. HOLD HARMLESS:
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, obligations, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses whatsoever, including attorney’s fees and costs of litigation (“Claims”), arising from or in any manner connected to Contractor’s performance of its obligations under this Contract or failure to comply with any of its obligations under this Contract or out of the operations conducted by Contractor even if the City is found to have been negligent. If the Claims filed against Indemnitees allege negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct on the part of Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct is not found on the part of Contractor. Contractor shall not have any obligations to indemnify Indemnitees if the loss or damage is found to have resulted solely from the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract. b. This indemnification obligation shall survive this Contract and shall not be limited by any term of any insurance policy required under this Contract; provided however, that if this Contract is for design professional services, this indemnity provision is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional (as defined in California Civil Code section 2782.8).

12. LIMITATIONS UPON SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT:
a. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee.
b. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Contract, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of the City Manager. Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to transfer to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the desired transfer.

The City Manager or their designee may consent or reject such request in their sole and absolute discretion. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for T&R Riparian Restore
607
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
money against the City under this Contract may be assigned by Contractor to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. c. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor (if applicable), or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member if Contractor is a partnership or jointventure or syndicate, which shall result in a change of control of Contractor, shall be deemed an assignment. For this purpose, control shall mean fifty percent or more of the voting power or twenty-five percent or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture.
d. Only those persons and/or businesses whose names and resumés are attached to this Contract shall be used in the performance of this Contract. However, if after the start of this Contract, Contractor wishes to use sub-contractors, at no additional costs to the City, then Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to add subcontractors including the names of the sub-contractors and the reasons for the request to the City Manager at least five (5) days in advance. The City Manager may consent or reject such requests in their sole and absolute discretion. e. Each sub-contractor shall be required to furnish proof of workers’ compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance (as applicable) in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor.
f. In addition, any tasks or services performed by sub-contractors shall be subject to each provision of this Contract. Contractor shall include the following language in their Contract with any sub-contractor: “Sub-Contractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to the City.”
g. The requirements in this Section 12 shall not apply to persons who are merely providing materials, supplies, data or information that Contractor then analyzes and incorporates into its work product.

13. SAFETY:
a. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of all vehicles owned or operated by Contractor, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the services and tasks under this Contract.

Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any of subcontractor's employees This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. In addition, Contractor will comply with all safety provisions in conformance with U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Act, any equivalent state law, and all other applicable T&R Riparian Restore
608
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, codes, and any regulations that may be detailed in other parts of the Contract. Where any of these are in conflict, the more stringent requirements will be followed. Contractor’s failure to thoroughly familiarize itself with the aforementioned safety provisions will not relieve it from compliance with the obligations and penalties set forth herein.
b. Contractor will immediately notify the City (in no event less than 24 hours) of any incident of death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage that occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract. Contractor will promptly submit to the City a written report of all incidents that occur in connection with this Contract. This report must include the following information: (i) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); (ii) name and address of Contractor’s employee(s) involved in the incident; (iii) name and address of Contractor’s liability insurance carrier; (iv) a detailed description of the incident; and (v) a police report.
c. Contractor acknowledges that the City shall have the right to impose, at the City’s sole discretion, requirements that it deems are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City employees, residents, and visitors. Contractor agrees to comply with all such requirements, including, but not limited to, mandatory vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. masks), physical distancing, and health screenings.

Contractor also agrees to make available to the City, at the City’s request, records to demonstrate Contractor’s compliance with this Section.

14. INSURANCE:

Insurance requirements are set forth in Exhibit F to this Contract. Contractor shall abide by the insurance requirements set forth in said Exhibit F.

15. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS:
a. During the term of this Contract, Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future state and federal laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Richmond which affect the manner in which the services or tasks are to be performed by Contractor, as well as all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, state and federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50,

2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable.
b. Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor is required to provide the City with documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall notify each of its affected employees with regards to the wages that are required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance as prescribed in § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code.

T&R Riparian Restore
609
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or sub-Contractor under an agreement or sub-agreement with the City for public works, goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential sub-contractor. d. Contractor acknowledges that the City’s Drug Free Workplace Policy, Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the City’s website at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/workplacepolicies.

Contractor agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of said policies.

16. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:

The Recitals and exhibits are a material part of this Contract and are expressly incorporated herein. This Contract represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only by written execution signed by both the City and Contractor.

17. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS:

In the event of a conflict between these General Conditions and those of any Exhibit or attachment hereto, these General Conditions shall prevail; provided, however, that any Special Condition as set forth in Exhibit E shall prevail over these General Conditions. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any two or more Exhibits or attachments hereto, those prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by the Contractor, and the terms and conditions preferred by the City shall prevail over those preferred by the Contractor.

18. FORCE MAJEURE:

Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of such an obligation is prevented or delayed by reason of acts of God, strikes, boycotts, lock-outs, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, failure of power, restrictive governmental laws and regulations enacted after the date of this Contract, riots, civil unrest, acts of terrorism, insurrection, war, declaration of a state or national emergency or other reasons of a like nature not within the reasonable control of such party.

19. CONFLICT OF LAW:

This Contract shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of T&R Riparian Restore
610
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
California without regard to any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Contract and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Contract (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Contract shall be filed with the courts of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.

20. CLAIMS:

Any claim by Contractor against City hereunder shall be subject to Government Code §§ 800 et seq. The claims presentation provisions of said Act are hereby modified such that the presentation of all claims hereunder to the City shall be waived if not made within six months after accrual of the cause of action.

21. INTERPRETATION:

This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.

22. WARRANTY:

If any product is be provided to the City as part of this Contract, Contractor warrants as follows: Contractor possesses good title to the product and the right to transfer the product to City; the product shall be delivered to the City free from any security interest or other lien; the product meets any specifications contained herein; the product shall be free from material defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of one (1) year from the date of delivery; and the product shall be fit for its intended purpose(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, consumable and maintenance items (such as light bulbs and batteries) shall be warranted for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of delivery. All repairs during the warranty period shall be promptly performed by Contractor, at Contractor's expense, including shipping.

23. SEVERABILITY:

In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.

24. AUTHORITY:

City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that they are duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, T&R Riparian Restore
611
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
and shall be personally liable to City if they are not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.

25. WAIVER:

The waiver by City of any breach of any term or provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. Inspections or approvals, or statements by any officer, agent or employee of the City relating to the Contractor’s performance, or payment therefore, or any combination of these acts, shall not relieve the Contractor’s obligation to fulfill this Contract as prescribed; nor shall the City be thereby stopped from bringing any action for damages or enforcement arising from any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Contract.

26. COUNTERPARTS:

This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts (including by fax, PDF, DocuSign, or other electronic means), each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

27. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE (SCCO):

The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G.

T&R Riparian Restore
612
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT E

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable, otherwise please state “NONE”):

T&R Riparian Restore
None.
613
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT F

INSURANCE PROVISIONS
☐ CHECK HERE IF RISK MANAGEMENT HAS APPROVED WAIVING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CONTRACT.

1. CERTIFICATES: Before the commencement of the terms of this Contract, and during the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, Contractor shall furnish the City’s Risk Manager with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with coverage requirements set forth by the City and incorporated herein.

Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor’s indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement:
“Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of Richmond.

Attention: Risk Manager.”
Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Contract all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Contract with an insurance company licensed to offer insurance business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII or Standard & Poor’s Rating (if rated) of at least BBB unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Contractor shall deliver updated insurance certificates to the City at the address set forth in Exhibit C prior to the expiration of the existing insurance certificate for the duration of the term of Contract.

Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.

2. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS: The City’s insurance requirements depend upon the type of service being provided and/or the provider. The City’s insurance requirements will fall into one of the following categories (unless otherwise provided by the City):

Consultants and Contractors – Type 1
Professional Services – Type 2
Environmental Risk/Hazardous Waste Material – Type 3
Lease of City Property – Type 4
Vendors, Suppliers, Small Grant Recipients & Nonprofit Organizations – Type 5 Transportation Providers – Type 6
Professional Services Pyrotechnics – Type 7
Cyber and I.T. Risks – Type 8
T&R Riparian Restore
614
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
The insurance requirements classification applicable to this Contract shall be attached to this Exhibit F and made a part hereof.

3. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in Contractor’s name or as an agent of Contractor and shall be compensated by Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.

4. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor’s insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Contractor. The coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Contract; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of the coverage carried by or available to Contractor; whichever is greater.

INSERT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CLASSIFICATION APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT: (IF NECESSARY, CONFIRM WITH RISK MANAGER)
T&R Riparian Restore
615
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services
Type 2 – Page 1 of 3
Revised: September 2011
In all instances where CONTRACTOR or its representatives will provide professional services (architects, engineers, construction management, counselors, medical professionals, hospitals, clinics, attorneys, consultants, accountants, etc.) to the City of Richmond (City), the City requires the following MINIMUM insurance requirements and limits.

CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, agreement, or other order for work, services or supplies, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONTRACTOR, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Maintenance of proper insurance coverage is a material element of the contract. Failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of contract.

CONTRACTOR agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide Commercial General Liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall look solely to its insurance for recovery.

CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY, on behalf of any insurer providing Commercial General Liability insurance to either CONTRACTOR or CITY with respect to the services of CONSULTANT herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

Original, signed certificates and original, separate policy endorsements, naming the City as an additional insured for general liability coverage, as well as a waiver of subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance, shall be received and approved by the City before any work may begin. However, failure to do so shall not operate as a waiver of these insurance requirements.

City reserves the right to modify or require additional coverages for specific risk exposures depending on scope of CONTRACTORS work.

Minimum coverage is detailed below. The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy. The minimum limits stated herein shall not serve to reduce the policy limits of coverage of CONTRACTOR.

Minimum Scope of Insurance – the following forms shall be provided and coverage shall be at least as broad as the following:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (ISO Occurrence Form CG 0001), and including coverage for bodily and personal injury, property damage, and products and completed operations (if applicable).

2. Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability coverage (ISO Form CA 0001, Code 1, Any Auto).

3. Original and Separate Additional Insured Endorsement for General Liability (ISO Form CG 20 10 11/85 or its equivalent) with primary and non-contributory language.

4. Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California including Employer’s Liability coverage.

5. Original and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance.

6. Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability Insurance appropriate to the CONTRACTOR’s profession (if required.)
Required Coverage Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability
Statutory limits as required by the State of California including $1 million Employers’ Liability per accident, per employee for bodily injury or disease.

If CONTRACTOR is self-insured, provide a certificate of Permission to SelfInsure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and SelfInsurance. If contractor is a sole proprietor (has no employees) than contractor must sign “Contractor Release of Liability” found at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

General Liability
(primary and excess limits
combined)
$2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If the policy includes a general aggregate, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this project, service or location or the minimum required aggregate limit shall be twice the per occurrence limit ($4 million aggregate limit).

Policy shall be endorsed to name the City of Richmond as an additional insured per the conditions detailed below.
616
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services
Type 2 – Page 2 of 3
Revised: September 2011
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

PROJECT COST REQUIRED LIMIT
$0 - $1 million $1 million p/o
$1 million - $5 million $2 million p/o
Over $5 million $5 million p/o

Professional Liability or Errors &
Omissions Liability –
Required for all professionals
including architects, engineers,
consultants, construction
management, counselors, medical
professionals, hospitals, clinics,
attorneys and accountants, & other
consultants as may be required by
the City.

Required Policy Conditions
Additional Insured Endorsement Applicable to General Liability coverage.

The City of Richmond, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured including bodily injury, deaths and property damage or destruction arising in any respect directly or indirectly in the performance of this contract.

ISO form CG 20 10 (11/85) or its equivalent is required. If the Contractor is supplying their product or providing a service then the endorsement must not exclude products and completed operations coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

Primary and Noncontributory The contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary coverage as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by the City is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.

Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement Form
Contractor’s insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for Workers’ Compensation Insurance during the life of this contract.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

Deductibles and Self-Insured
Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a financial guarantee in an amount equal to the deductible or self-insured retention guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

Contractor is responsible for satisfaction of the deductible and/or self-insured retention for each loss.

A. M. Best Rating A:VII or Better. If the A.M. Best Rating falls below the required rating, CONTRACTOR must replace coverage immediately and provide notice to City.

Umbrella/Excess Liability Policies
If an Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy is used to meet the liability limits, coverage shall be as broad as specified for underlying coverage’s and cover those insured in the underlying policies. 617
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services
Type 2 – Page 3 of 3
Revised: September 2011
Claims-Made Policies
If any insurance policy is written on a claims-made form: 1) the retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. 2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. 3) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

Subcontractors
CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish to the City for review and approval, separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

CONTRACTOR agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Richmond for any damage resulting to it from failure of either CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor to take out or maintain the required insurance policies. The fact that insurance is obtained by CONTRACTOR, and/or CONTRACTOR’s subcontractors, will not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of CONTRACTOR, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this contract. Damages recoverable by CITY from CONTRACTOR or any third party will not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage.

Verification of Coverage
All original certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work may begin.

The City of Richmond reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies including endorsements affecting the coverage at any time.

Original insurance certificates and required policy endorsements shall be mailed or delivered to the Designated Project Manager for the City of Richmond.

Insurance certificates and endorsements may be faxed to the Designated Project Manger. However, CONTRACTOR must mail the original certificates and endorsements to Designated Project Manager once faxed.

Continuous Coverage
CONTRACTOR shall maintain the required insurance for the life of the contract. Should the CONTRACTOR cease to have insurance as required during this time, all work by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to this agreement shall cease until insurance acceptable to the City is provided. In the event that CONTRACTOR fails to comply with the City’s insurance requirements, the City may take such action as it deems necessary to protect the City’s interests. Such action may include but is not limited to termination of the contract, withholding of payments, or other actions as the City deems appropriate.

If services or the scope of work extend beyond the expiration dates of the required insurance policies initially approved by the City, CONTRACTOR must provide updated certificates and endorsements indicating that the required coverage, terms and conditions are still in place. Renewal certificates and updated endorsements shall be mailed to the Designated Project Manager.

Cancellation
CONTRACTOR shall ensure that coverage shall not be cancelled, reduced or otherwise materially changed except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice has been given to the City.

Reporting Requirements
Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

Consistent with Public Policy
The insuring provisions, insofar as they may be judged to be against public policy shall be void and unenforceable only to the minimum extent necessary so that the remaining terms and provisions herein may be consistent with public policy and thus enforceable.
618
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT G

SANCTUARY CITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
The undersigned, (hereafter "Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”).

Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:
a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:
i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies;
ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.
b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.

Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.

By executing this statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

T&R Riparian Restore
619

April 7, 2026
Finance Department
DATE: April 7, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Emily Combs, Director of Finance
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Antonio Banuelos, Accounting Manager
Subject: Contract with Willdan Financial Services for the Traffic Impact Fee Study and Comprehensive User Fee Study
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed $59,230 expenditure is included within the approved fiscal year 2025-2026 General Fund NonDepartmental budget (Account String: 01917090- 400201).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City’s current fee structures require updating to
better reflect the actual cost of providing services and the impacts of new development. Regular updates and
comprehensive fee studies are necessary to ensure fees
remain accurate, transparent, and legally defensible,
while reducing reliance on the General Fund. To address these needs, the City must retain a qualified consultant to prepare updated Traffic Impact Fee and Comprehensive
User Fee studies that will support revisions to the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

AGENDA
REPORT
620

April 7, 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE a contract with Wildan Financial Services for preparation of the Traffic Impact Fee Study and
Comprehensive User Fee Study, in an amount not to
exceed $59,230, for the period of April 1, 2026, through June 30, 2028 – Finance Department (Emily
Combs/Mubeen Qader/Antonio Banuelos 510-620-6741).

DISCUSSION:

A Traffic Impact Fee Study establishes fees charged to new development to help fund transportation improvements needed to address increased traffic, such as roadway upgrades, intersections, and related infrastructure. These fees must be supported by a clear connection between the impacts of new development and the cost of improvements, in accordance with State law. A Comprehensive User Fee Study evaluates the cost of providing City services—such as permitting, inspections, and administrative processing—and recommends fee levels that more accurately reflect those costs. Together, these studies help ensure that new development contributes toward infrastructure needs and that users pay fees proportionate to the cost of services, rather than relying on limited General Fund resources.

While these studies are technical in nature, their findings form the basis for fees adopted by the City Council through resolutions and, where applicable, incorporated into the Municipal Code. Because costs, service levels, regulatory requirements, and development patterns change over time, these studies must be periodically updated to remain accurate, legally defensible, and aligned with current conditions.

For these reasons, the City requires the services of a qualified consulting firm with expertise in fee analysis, cost allocation, and nexus studies to conduct updated Traffic Impact Fee and Comprehensive User Fee Studies. The Finance Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for these services, which was posted on the City’s Bids Online system (Attachment 1). A total of 1,260 vendors were notified, and 16 vendors downloaded the RFP (Attachment 2).

Three proposals were received prior to the submission deadline and all were determined to be responsive and compliant. The proposals were submitted by DTA Public Finance, Inc., Matrix Consulting Group, and Wildan Financial Services. An evaluation panel reviewed and scored the proposals based on the selection criteria outlined in the RFP. While the top two firms received closely ranked scores, there was a notable gap between those firms and the third-ranked proposer. 1 - 40% 30 38 35 103 30 20 30 80 35 40 35 110
2 - 25% 15 25 22 62 15 25 23 63 25 25 23 73
3 - 10% 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 30
4 - 25% 10 10 18 38 10 10 15 35 25 25 25 75
100% 65 83 85 233 65 65 78 208 95 100 93 288
DTA Matrix Willdan
621

April 7, 2026
1 - Qualifications and Proposed Work Plan - 40%
2 - Experience and Past Performance - 25%
3 - References - 10%
4 - Fee Schedule - 25%
Cost Proposal
Comprehensive User Fee Study $33,910
Traffic Impact Fee Study $25,320
Total Cost $59,230
The scope of services will include preparation of technical reports and supporting analysis used to update the City’s Master Fee Schedule. These updates will help ensure that fees more accurately reflect the cost of providing City services and that new development appropriately contributes to infrastructure needs (Attachment 3).

Based on this evaluation, City staff recommend awarding a contract to Wildan Financial Services to conduct the City of Richmond’s Traffic Impact Fee Study and Comprehensive User Fee Study (Attachment 4).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Request For Proposals
Attachment 2 – Bid Summary Report
Attachment 3 - Wildan Financial Services Proposal
Attachment 4 - Contract Agreement
622

Request for Proposals
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies
Release Date: July 22, 2025
Deadline for Submittal
3:00 pm August 12, 2025
Contact: Antonio Banuelos, Accounting Manager
Email: [email protected]
Phone Number: 510-620-6741
City of Richmond
Finance Department
623

INTRODUCTION
The City of Richmond is requesting proposals from qualified firms to update the City’s User Fee and Traffic Impact Fees. This request for proposal (RFP) describes the project, the required scope of services, the consultant selection process, and the minimum information that must be included in the proposal. Failure to submit information in accordance with the RFP requirements and procedures may be cause for disqualification. The anticipated term of this contract will be for a period of three (3) years with an option to renew for an additional two years by means of a mutual agreement of both parties.

Vendors are required to read and understand all information contained within this entire Proposal package. By responding to this RFP, the vendor agrees to read and understand these documents.

ABOUT THE CITY
The City of Richmond was chartered as a city in 1909, and is located 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, directly across the San Francisco Bay. Richmond’s population is 103,828. The mission of the City of Richmond is as follows:

The City of Richmond provides services that enhance economic vitality, the environment and the quality of life of our community.

The City of Richmond provides a full range of municipal services including police and fire protection; construction and maintenance of highways, streets and infrastructure; library services; storm water and municipal sewer systems; operation of a wastewater treatment facility; and the administration of recreational activities and cultural events.

The City also operates the Richmond Memorial Convention Center and the Port of Richmond.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Scope of Services shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following project tasks described below. If the Consultant feels that additional tasks are warranted, they must be clearly identified in the proposal. Consultants responding to this RFP shall be prepared to deliver services and perform the work necessary to provide the services upon executing the Consultant Agreement. The project consists of furnishing all labor, materials, supervision, and travel necessary to complete the tasks outlined below. The City’s standard consulting agreement for services is attached as Attachment B to this RFP.

User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies
Prepare the User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, which may include the following elements. The User Fee Study component may include regulatory fees as well as your standard use fees. If the consultant feels that additional tasks are warranted, they must be clearly identified in the consultant’s proposal.
624

1) Work and meet with selected City staff to refine the project scope, purpose, uses and goals of the City’s User Fee Study to ensure that the study will be both accurate and appropriate to Richmond’s needs. Review the project schedule and answer any questions pertaining to the successful development of the study. 2) Meet with staff and conduct interviews as needed to gain an understanding of the City’s processes and operations. Conduct a review of the City’s existing fees, rates and charges to be evaluated (Attachment A).
3) Identify the total cost of providing each City service at the appropriate level and in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws, statutes, rules and regulations governing the collection of fees, rates, and charges by public agencies including, but not limited to, Proposition 26 and Proposition 218. 4) Compare service costs with existing recovery levels. This includes service areas where the City is currently charging, as well as recommended areas where the City should charge, in light of the City’s practices, or the practices of similar or neighboring cities.
5) Develop a list of development traffic impact fees charged by surrounding and similar cities in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. This comparison should highlight what is included in these fees and, to the extent practicable, make comparisons of similar types of fees. This survey includes descriptions of different cities’ processes for calculating traffic impact fee credits earned for a project or being able to be transferred from one project to another. 6) Convene two strategy sessions with the City Team to determine the project’s direction, including fee categories (new, existing, and/or whether to include other fees or other items of strategic importance identified by the City and/or consultant.
7) Recommend potential new fees and charges for services that the City currently provides but does not have fees and/or charges established. Recommendations should be based on practices by surrounding cities that may charge for similar services, industry best practices, or the consultant’s professional opinion. 8) Recommend appropriate fees and charges based on the analysis together with the appropriate subsidy percentage for those fees where full cost recovery may be unrealistic.
9) Prepare a report that identifies each fee service, its full cost, recommended and current cost recovery levels. The report should also identify the direct cost, the indirect cost, and the overhead cost for each service.
10)Prepare a report that identified the present fees, recommended fees, percentage change, cost recovery percentage, revenue impact and fee comparison with other California cities that are comparable to the City of Richmond. A survey comparison of rates and fees with similar cities is required. 11)Report on other matters that come to the Consultant’s attention in the course of the analysis that, in the Consultant’s professional opinion, the City should consider.
12)Provide a computer-based model in Microsoft Excel for adjusting these fees and charges for the City’s current and future needs and provide the City with an electronic copy of the final study, including related scheduled and cost documentation in a format that can be edited and updated by City staff to accommodate changes in the organization or changes in costs. The requirements of the model should allow for:
625

a. Additions, revisions, or removal of direct and overhead costs so that the full cost allocation plan can be easily adapted to a range of activities, both simple and complex.
b. The ability of the City to continuously update the model and full cost allocation plan from year to year as the organization changes. c. The addition of hypothetical service area information is for future service enhancements, and the ability to calculate the estimated costs of providing the service under consideration (i.e. ad-hoc analysis). 13)If requested, prepare and/or deliver presentations to the City Council to facilitate their understanding of the plan and its implications, and make necessary adjustments as requested.
14)Provide on-site training to enable staff to update fees on an annual basis. 15)While the City of Richmond seeks a contract covering both the User Fee Study and the Traffic Impact Fee Study, please note that the Traffic Impact Fee component may begin at a later date. City staff is currently conducting a Long Range Transportation Study, the results of which will inform the update to the Traffic Impact Fees.
16)Prepare a final fee study report and provide five bound copies, one unbound copy, and a single Microsoft Excel and PDF file of the User Fee Study that can be made available to City staff. Models, tables and graphs shall be provided in Microsoft Excel. Any Master Fee Schedule revisions developed shall also be made available to the City in Microsoft Excel and PDF formats, providing the ability to add, delete and/or update information as needed. 17)Consult with City staff, should the need arise, to defend the cost allocation plan as a result of audits or other challenges.

General Information
The Consultant may recommend other tasks that it deems appropriate to achieve the objectives set forth in this RFP. The City based on various factors, including budget constraints, may piecemeal the project by focusing on certain fees or departments or spreading out the project over several fiscal years.

PROPOSAL FORMAT GUIDELINES
The proposal should be concise, well organized, and demonstrate the proposer’s qualifications and experience applicable to the Project. The proposal shall be limited to 20 single-sided pages (8.5 inches x 11 inches), inclusive of graphics, forms, pictures, photographs, dividers, etcetera, but not of cost proposal, resumes, required forms, certifications, front and back covers, or letters of commitment from sub-consultants. The required font size is 12 point, with minimum left and right margins of one-inch, and top and bottom margins of 0.7 inches.

Each proposal will adhere to the following order and content of sections. Proposal should be straightforward, concise and provide “layman” explanations of technical terms 626

that are used. Emphasis should be concentrated on conforming to the RFP instructions, responding to the RFP requirements, and on providing a complete and clear description of the offer. Proposals, which appear unrealistic in the terms of technical commitments, lack of technical competence or are indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of this contract, may be rejected. The following proposal sections are to be included in the Vendor’s response:

A. Vendor Cover Letter
A cover letter, not to exceed three pages in length, should summarize key elements of the proposal and shall:
• Confirm that all elements of this RFP have been reviewed and understood;
• Include a statement of intent to perform the services as outlined; • Express company’s willingness to enter into an agreement under the terms and conditions prescribed by this RFP, insurance requirements (Attachment C) and in the sample Service Agreement (Attachment B); • Submit a written description and brief history of the company’s experiences, qualifications and successes in providing Impact Fee and User Fee Study services described herein. Please indicate the number of employees, client base and location of offices.
• Indicate the address and telephone number of the vendor’s office located nearest to Richmond, California and the office from which the project will be managed.
• Confirm that vendor has a minimum of three (3) years verifiable Impact Fee and User Fee Study experience
• Stipulate that the proposal price will be valid for a period of at least 180 days.
• Identify a single person for contact during the RFP review process; and • Cover letter shall be signed by an authorized official of the company.

B. Background and Project Summary Section
The Background and Project Summary Section should describe your understanding of the City, the work to be done, and the objectives to be accomplished. Refer to description of services for this RFP.

C. Methodology Section
Provide a detailed description of the approach and methodology to be used to accomplish the Scope of Services of this RFP. The Methodology Section should include:
1) An implementation plan that describes in detail (i) the methods, including controls by which your firm manages projects of the type sought by this RFP; (ii) methodology for soliciting and documenting views of internal and external stakeholders; (iii) and any other project management or implementation strategies or techniques that the respondent intends to 627

employ in carrying out the work.
2) Detailed description of efforts your firm will undertake to achieve client satisfaction and to satisfy the requirements of the "Scope of Services" section.
3) Detailed project schedule, identifying all tasks and deliverables to be performed, durations for each task, and overall time of completion. 4) Detailed description of specific tasks you will require from City staff.

Explain what the respective roles of City staff and your staff would be to complete the tasks specified in the Scope of Services.

D. Staffing
Describe proposed Project team organization, including identification and responsibilities of key personnel. Indicate role and responsibility of prime consultants and all sub-consultants. If applicable, indicate how local firms are being utilized to ensure a strong understanding of state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, policies, requirements, and permitting. Indicate the extent of the commitment of key personnel for the duration of the Project and furnish resumes of key personnel. Provide an indication of the staffing level for the Project. The City of Richmond’s evaluation of the proposal will consider the proposer’s entire team; therefore, no changes in the team composition will be allowed without prior written approval of the City of Richmond. Sub-consultant letters of commitment are required and must be submitted with the proposal.

Describe the experience of the proposer’s Project team in detail, including the team’s Project Manager, and other key staff members, on projects of similar size, capacity, and dollar value. For each similar project, include the client’s name and correct telephone number. It is the City of Richmond’s policy to interview proposers’ references as well as references identified by the City of Richmond.

E. Qualifications
The information requested in this section should describe the qualifications of the firm, key staff and sub‐contractors performing projects within the past five years that are similar in size and scope to demonstrate competence to perform these services. Information shall include:
1) Names of key staff that participated on named projects and their specific responsibilities with respect to this scope of service. 2) A summary of your firm’s demonstrated capability, including length of time that your firm has provided the services being requested in this Request for Proposal.
3) Provide at least three (3) references that received similar services from your firm. The City of Richmond reserves the right to contact any of the organizations or individuals listed. Information provided shall include:
a) Client Name and contact info
628

• Telephone & e-mail address
• Address
b) Description of services provided including contract amount c) Project start and end dates
F. Cost Information
Provide your fees for the proposed services. Fee quotes should be detailed by service. The fee should include preparation of the Traffic Impact Fee and User Fee Study. Outline billing and payment expectations, including timing and method of payment. Describe any remaining fees not already detailed above. Present a specific “not to exceed” fixed fee including associated fees (i.e. printing costs, attendance at meetings, travel).

G. Reporting
Please provide a brief description and examples of each standard report.

H. Value Added Services
Please provide any additional services of benefit not specifically required herein, which the Offeror offers to provide.

I. Contractor Assignment of Sub-Contract
The resulting contract shall not be assigned, transferred, or sublet, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of the City of Richmond. If Offerors intend to subcontract any portion of the resulting contract, they must describe their process for selecting such subcontractor(s) and the quality control measures that the Offeror will employ to ensure that any subcontractor complies with the provisions of Offeror’s contract with the City.

J. Exceptions to this Request for Proposals
The proposer shall state whether or not it takes exception(s) to this RFP, including but not limited to the City of Richmond’s Standard Services Agreement – RFP (Attachment B). If the proposer does take exception(s) to any portion of the RFP or contract, the specific portion to which exception(s) is taken must be identified by section number and explained. Requests for changes or additions to sections of City of Richmond’s Standard Services Agreement must be shown by requesting deletion of specific words and/or by providing new requested contract language. Requests for complete replacement of the City of Richmond’s Standard Services Agreement for another contract will not be granted. Failure to make exceptions to the RFP or Standard Services Agreement within the proposal will be deemed a waiver of any objection. Exceptions will be considered during the proposal evaluation process.
629

K. Statement of Impartiality and Disclosure
The nature of this Project requires an impartial unbiased approach on the part of the proposer’s team. This proposal shall include a statement declaring that the proposer’s and sub-consultants are not currently, and will not, during the performance of these services, participate in any other similar work involving a third-party with interests currently in conflict or likely to be in conflict with City of Richmond’s interests. Additionally, proposer is required to disclose any pending or active investigations or litigation that may affect the reputation or ability of the proposer to carry out the Project.

PROCESS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS
Questions Concerning Request for Proposals
All questions must be submitted via the electronic BidsOnline system on the Q&A tab by 5:00pm PST, on August 5, 2025. If the City finds it necessary to issue an addendum, prospective Offerors will receive e-mail notification of addendum.

Otherwise, answers to questions received will be provided on the Q&A tab and notification will be sent by August 6, 2025. It is the proposer’s responsibility to periodically check the BidsOnline website www.ci.richmond.ca.us/bids for any possible Addenda to the RFP that may have been posted.

Any party submitting a proposal shall not contact or lobby any City Council member, City official, employee (except those specified for contact) or agent regarding the RFP.

Any party attempting to influence or circumvent the RFP, bid submittal, and review process may have their proposal rejected for violating this provision of the RFP.

Interested parties may download copies of the above-mentioned proposal by visiting the City's web site, www.ci.richmond.ca.us/bids. To download RFP, new vendors will be required to register. Once the vendor downloads any documents relative to a solicitation, that vendor's name will appear on the Prospective Bidders list for that project and will receive any addenda or notifications relating to the RFP.

Submission of Proposals
The proposal and any required certification
ns shall be signed by an individual or individuals authorized to execute legal documents on behalf of the proposer.

Electronic Proposals shall be submitted via the City’s secure online bidding system. All required sections of the proposal must be submitted via the website. Contractor is solely responsible for “on time” submission of their electronic proposal. The Bid Management System will not accept late proposals and no exceptions shall be made. Contractors will receive an e-bid confirmation number with a time stamp from the Bid Management System indicating that their bid was submitted successfully. The City will only receive those proposals that were transmitted successfully.
630

The proposal must be received no later than 3:00 p.m., local time, on August 12, 2025.

The City of Richmond shall have the authority to waive minor irregularities and mistakes in this RFP.

GENERAL GUIDELINES
This RFP does not commit the City of Richmond to award a contract, to defray any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal pursuant to this RFP, or to procure or contract for work. The City of Richmond may reject a proposal without providing the reason(s) underlying the declination. A failure to award a contract to the proposer with the lowest cost proposal shall not constitute a valid cause of action against the City of Richmond. The City shall not be responsible for work done, even in good faith, prior to final approval of the proposed contract. The City may investigate the qualifications of any respondent under consideration, require confirmation of information furnished by the respondent, and require additional evidence or qualifications to perform the Services described in this RFP.

The City reserves the right to:

1. Reject any or all proposals.

2. Issue subsequent Requests for Proposal.

3. Postpone opening for its own convenience.

4. Remedy technical errors in the Request for Proposal process.

5. Negotiate with any, all, or none of the Respondents.

6. Solicit best and final offers from all or some of the Respondents.

7. Select one or more Respondents.

8. Accept other than the lowest proposed fees.

9. Waive informalities and irregularities in proposals.

Public Records
All proposals submitted in response to this RFP become the property of the City of Richmond and public records and, as such, may be subject to public review. Documents protected by law from public disclosure will not be disclosed by the City of Richmond if clearly marked with the word "confidential" on each applicable page. Trade secrets may be marked as confidential only to the extent they meet the requirements of California Government Code section 6254.7. Only information claimed to be a trade secret at the time of submittal to the City of Richmond and marked as "confidential" will be treated as a trade secret.

Insurance Requirements
631

The City of Richmond requires consultants doing business with it to obtain insurance, as shown in RFP (Attachment C). The required insurance certificates must comply with all requirements of the standards as shown and must be provided within fifteen (15) days of issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award and prior to the commencement of any work on the Project.

Business Licenses
The successful Contractor and all subcontractors used in the work will be required to hold or to obtain a City of Richmond business license for which the fee will not be waived.

Compliance with City Ordinances
The contractor and all subcontractors shall comply with the City of Richmond Nondiscrimination Clauses in City Contracts Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 2.28), Business Opportunity Ordinance (RMC Chapter 2.50), Local Employment Program Ordinance (RMC Chapter 2.56), Living Wage Ordinance (RMC Chapter 2.60) and Ordinance Banning the Requirement to Provide Information of Prior Criminal Convictions on all Employment Applications (“Ban the Box”) (RMC Chapter

2.65), which are incorporated into the Contract Documents by this reference.

Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance (SCCO)
The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 (Attachment E) prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”).

Proposers must submit the attached Sanctuary City Compliance Statement with their Proposal. (Attachment D)
Limited Liability Company Disclosure Statement (LLCS)
Resolution No. 86-21 (Attachment F), approved by City Council on July 6, 2021, requires disclosure of the identities of beneficial & responsible owners of Limited Liability Corporations (LLC). Proposers must submit the attached Disclosure Statement of Limited Liability Companies Form with their Proposal (Attachment G).

Collusion
By submitting a proposal, each respondent represents and warrants that its proposal is genuine and not false or collusive or made in the interest of, or on behalf of any person not named therein; that the respondent has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other person to submit a false proposal, or any other person to refrain from submitting a proposal; and that the respondent has not, in any manner, sought collusion to secure any improper advantage over any other person submitting a proposal. 632

Withdrawal of Proposals
A respondent may withdraw their proposal before the expiration of the time for submission of proposals by delivering to the Finance Department a written request for withdrawal signed by, or on behalf of, the respondent.

Ownership of Documents
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials produced for the Project shall be the sole and exclusive property of the City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part for the Project shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Respondent in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of the City. The City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced for this project.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS
All proposals shall be reviewed to verify that the Respondent has met the minimum requirements. Proposals that have not complied with requirements, do not meet minimum content and quality standards, or take unacceptable exceptions to the General Terms and Conditions of the Service Agreement, will be eliminated from further consideration.

Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by an evaluation committee comprised of City of Richmond personnel.

The top Proposals may then be invited to make a presentation to the evaluation panel in a City Office in Richmond, California, at no cost to the City. The selected proposal shall provide the most cost effective approach that meets the City’s requirements. The lowest price proposal will not necessarily be selected.

The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, or to make no award. The City also reserves the right to require modifications follow‐up with requests for additional information, including, but not limited to, follow‐up interviews. The City may request Best and Final offers based upon improved understanding of the offers or changed scope of service. The City will negotiate with that vendor to determine final pricing, and contract form. Because this proposal is negotiable, all pricing data will remain confidential until after award is made, and there will be no public opening and reading of Proposals.

Overall responsiveness to the RFP is an important factor in the evaluation process. The criteria upon which the evaluation of the proposals will be based include, but are not limited to, the following:

Qualifications and Proposed Work Plan – 40%
• Capability to perform the work within the designated time frame; • Description of proposed work plan for performing required services; 633

• Overall quality of statement of qualifications;
• Length of time in business.

Experience and Past Performance – 25%
• Past experience developing impact fee and user fee studies; • Qualifications and experience of key personnel dedicated to performing the scope of work.

References – 10%
• References from other agencies for which this type of work was done.

Fee Schedule – 25%
• Total cost for completing this project;
• Breakdown of cost categorized by staff positions;
• Inclusion of additional charges for sub-consultants services and reimbursable expenses.

Pre-Award Negotiations
After the proposals are opened, but prior to award, the City may elect to conduct negotiations with the highest ranked respondent for purposes of:
• Resolving minor differences and information
• Clarifying necessary details and responsibilities
• Emphasizing important issues and points
• Receiving assurances from respondents
• Cost/budget clarifications
If the City cannot successfully negotiate a contract with the highest ranked respondent, the City may begin negotiations with the second highest ranked respondent.

Selection may be made without further discussion, negotiations or Offeror’s presentations; therefore, Offeror shall offer the most favorable terms in response to this RFP. Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the scope of service to be provided and the ability to accomplish the tasks set forth. Offeror shall include information that will enable the City to determine the Offeror’s overall qualifications. The City reserves the right to request additional information or clarification on any matter included in the proposal response, to enable the City to arrive at the final award decision.

Award - When the Review Panel has completed its work, City staff will then recommend a firm to the City Manager and City Council for approval. The services provided by the successful bidder shall be governed by a Standard Services Agreement.
634

Attachments
A. Existing Rates
B. Standard Contract
C. Insurance Requirements
D. Sanctuary City Compliance Statement
E. Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18
F. Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) Resolution No. 86-21 G. Limited Liability Corporation Form
635
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
636
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
637
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
638
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
639
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
640
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
641
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
642
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
643
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
644
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
645
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
646
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
647
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
648
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
649
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
650
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
651
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
652
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
653
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
654
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
655
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
656
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
657
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
658
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
659
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
660
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
661
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
662
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
663
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
664
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
665
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
666
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
667
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
668
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
669
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
670
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
671
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
672
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
673
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
674
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
675
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
676
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
677
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
678
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
679
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
680
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
681
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
682
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
683
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
684
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
685
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
686
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
687
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
688
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
689
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
690
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
691
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
692
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
693
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
694
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
695
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
696
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
697
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
698
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
699
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
700
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
701
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
702
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
703
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
704
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
705
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
706
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
707
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
708
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
709
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
710
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
711
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
712
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
713
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
714
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
715
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
716
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
717
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
718
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
719
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
720
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
721
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
722
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
723
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
724
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
725
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
726
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
727
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
728
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
729
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
730
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
731
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
732
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
733
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
734
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
735
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
736
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
737
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
738
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
739
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
740
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
741
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
742
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
743
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
744
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
745
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
746
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
747
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
748
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
749
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
750
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
751
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
752
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
753
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
754
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
755
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
756
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
757
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
758
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
759
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
760
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
761
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
762
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
763
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
764
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
765
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
766
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
767
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
768
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
769
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
770
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
771
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
772
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
773
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
774
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
775
City of Richmond
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, bidding on 08/12/2025 3:00 PM (PDT)

Printed 03/10/2026
PlanetBids
776

CITY OF RICHMOND
Proposal
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies

CALIFORNIA
777
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study i City of Richmond, CA
Table of Contents
A. Cover Letter..................................................................................................................................................................... ii B. Background & Project Summary ...........................................................................................................................1 Project Understanding ................................................................................................................................................ 1 C. Methodology................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Project Approach ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Work Plans ................................................................................................................................................................... 8

2. Client Satisfaction Strategy ............................................................................................................................ 13

3. Project Schedules ............................................................................................................................................ 14

4. City Staff Support............................................................................................................................................. 14 D. Staffing..............................................................................................................................................................................15 Key Project Team Organizational Chart.................................................................................................................. 15 E. Qualifications.................................................................................................................................................................16 Firm Profile................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Willdan Financial Services........................................................................................................................................ 16 Firm Experience......................................................................................................................................................... 16 References.................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Similar Studies........................................................................................................................................................... 18 F. Cost Information..........................................................................................................................................................19 Rates for Additional Professional Services ............................................................................................................ 20 Notes........................................................................................................................................................................... 20 G. Reporting........................................................................................................................................................................20 H. Value-Added Services...............................................................................................................................................20 I. Subcontracting............................................................................................................................................................20 J. Exceptions......................................................................................................................................................................20 K. Impartiality and Disclosure....................................................................................................................................20 Forms.........................................................................................................................................................................................21 D – Sanctuary City Compliance ............................................................................................................................... 21 G – Disclosure for Limited Liability Corporation.................................................................................................... 22 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................................................23 Chris Fisher.................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Tony Thrasher ............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Priti Patel...................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Samantha Labitan........................................................................................................................................................ 26 James Edison, JD, MPP.............................................................................................................................................. 27 Carlos Villarreal, MPP.................................................................................................................................................. 28 Robert Quaid ............................................................................................................................................................... 29 778
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 ii A. Cover Letter
August 12, 2025
Mr. Antonio Banuelos
Accounting Manager
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Re: Proposal to Conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study for the City of Richmond
Dear Antonio:

In order to ensure the efficient use of limited financial resources, while maintaining high levels of service and responsiveness to City of Richmond (“City”) residents and businesses, it is critical for the City to ensure that fees for requested services reflect current practices, account for the true cost of providing City services, incorporate provision for overhead rates and costs related to indirect support, and ensure appropriate cost recovery, so that the revenues generated by fees cover the cost of those services to the greatest extent possible.

Having User Fees in place that maximize the recovery of the cost of providing services reduces the use of General Fund resources for these direct benefit activities, such as building permits or planning reviews, so that funds are available for other City Council priorities, such as public safety, or other services and programs for the benefit of the community at-large. City Staff, and ultimately the City Council, need a clear understanding of standards, service levels and the associated costs.

Just as importantly, Development Impact Fees should reflect current community planning and City policy objectives, both for planned development and the facilities necessary to accommodate it; so that growth pays its own way, community standards are maintained, and current residents and businesses are not negatively impacted. Impact fees also need to be developed in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act and with attention to the effects of new legislation such as AB 516 and AB 602, so that they are defensible and transparent.

Recognizing this, the City is soliciting a proposal for a Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study.

Following are specific advantages that Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) brings to the City for these studies:

Direct Recent Experience with the City of Richmond — Willdan has maintained a strong working history with the City of Richmond for many years, including support on several key financial initiatives. We assisted with the most recent development impact fee study and user fee studies, including ongoing support and updates through 2023 and 2024. We completed a Cost Allocation Plan and a subsequent update. We provided special tax consulting services for the formation of a Community Facilities District related to the Point Molate mixed-use development. We have assisted with the annual administration of assessments in the City for many years, and continue to provide services related to outstanding municipal bonds to meet SEC and IRS regulatory requirements.

These engagements have given us a solid understanding of the City’s internal processes, systems, financial goals, and local community; knowledge we will apply to ensure a smooth and successful completion of this project. Where possible, we will leverage our knowledge of the City and relationships with key staff to facilitate and expedite our data gathering and work, focusing less time on data gathering and more on analysis. This allows us to provide meaningful analysis and insight that other firms are unable to match, and our understanding of the City reduces questions and streamlines the process, allowing City Staff to focus their time on direct City operations.

Extensive Local Experience with Similar Projects and direct experience in Northern California — Willdan is the leading firm providing these types of studies in California. We have worked successfully with numerous cities like Richmond on Fee Study projects, with objectives very similar to those for this study, including recently El Cerrito and San Pablo. Twenty-six (26) years of experience working on similar efforts allows us to bring an unmatched understanding of City service models, processes and staffing and provide valuable perspective and insight from local cities’ approaches to fees and policies on fee setting and subsidies – which also helps us conduct meaningful and efficient fee comparisons. Recent studies include Cities of Hayward, Napa, Salinas, Mountain View, Fremont San Bruno, Petaluma San Anselmo, Pittsburg, and West Sacramento; and we are currently working with the Cities of East Palo Alto, Fairfield, Pleasant Hill, Healdsburg, Livermore, Santa Barbara, and Pismo Beach.

Our Cost Allocation methodologies and
models have been reviewed and approved
by Cognizant Agencies such as the US
Army and recently, the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development,
providing evidence of our thorough and
defensible approach to the development
of Cost Allocation strategies.
779
Mr. Antonio Banuelos, Accounting Manager
City of Richmond
Proposal to Conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study
and Traffic Impact Fee Study
August 12, 2025 | Page iii
Collaborative Approach, Commitment to Support and User-friendly Models and Reports — Willdan prides itself on working closely with City staff to develop and explain an approach that is targeted toward your specific objectives, This is a distinct advantage we will bring in our approach with the City of Richmond. A collaborative approach and dedicated support ensures we clearly understand your goals and challenges, and just as importantly, you understand and are comfortable with the process, assumptions, key drivers, and the results.

We create user-friendly Excel-based models that the City can retain and conduct our analysis and develop the model collaboratively with City staff. Rather than using an inflexible proprietary software program, we construct our models from the ground up, mirroring the City’s budget format wherever possible. As a result, the information contained in our models is easy for City staff to interpret, and the familiar software ensures ease of navigation.

Created directly from the models, our reports clearly and graphically illustrate full and recommended levels of cost recovery and projections of revenue for fee programs, break down the costs into direct and indirect overhead categories, and present the fee methodologies. Our models and project approach are geared toward delivering work on schedule and presenting results at public meetings and council workshops.

RFP Terms — Willdan has reviewed the City’s Request for Proposals in full and confirms our understanding of, and agreement to, the terms and conditions outlined therein.

Subconsultants — Due to the nature of the requested services and Willdan’s vast experience with the proposed scope of work, Willdan will not employ, contract with, or use the services of any subconsultants at any point during this engagement.

Firm Fees — Willdan acknowledges herein its willingness to maintain all specified fees and services for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days from the closing date of August 12, 2025 We are excited about this opportunity to once again serve the City of Richmond. To discuss any aspect of our proposal, please contact me; my contact information is provided in the table below.

Willdan Financial Services
Primary Contact
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200 | Temecula, CA 92590
Tel #: (951) 587-3500 | 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.

Respectfully,

WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director
Willdan will work with the City to
create new User Fee and Impact
Fee models that provides the
benefit of a fresh approach and
new perspectives.
780
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 1 City of Richmond, CA
B. Background & Project Summary
Project Understanding
As one of the only firms combining decades of experience in both User Fee Studies and Traffic Impact Fee Studies, we have the necessary expertise and experience under one roof, without the need for subconsultants. With our successful history developing, implementing, and updating both types of fee programs, Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is confident in our ability to meet the City’s objectives for this study. Key City issues and objectives that are addressed within our scope of services include the following:
▪ Meeting with City Staff to review existing regulatory and standard-use fee schedules and conducting interviews with key City Staff involved in providing end-user services to gather information necessary to understand the processes, operations, structure and staffing necessary for the City to provide services for which fees are charged; ▪ Reviewing the City’s Municipal Code and current fee schedule to make sure it reflects current needs of City staff and the community and ensuring the schedule is updated to include new fees for services provided where no fee currently exists, and to remove obsolete fees;
▪ Conducting analysis that clearly identifies the full (100%) cost of providing services for which fees are charged, and ensuring that there is a reasonable relationship between these costs, the services being provided, and the recipients of these services – all to support compliance with Prop 26 and Prop 218; ▪ Comparing costs of providing services with current cost recovery levels and evaluating and adjusting fees and charges to ensure they align with the cost of the services being provided by the City; ▪ Incorporating overhead allocations from the City’s Cost Allocation Plan so that the cost of service that is calculated for fee-related services includes the cost of indirect overhead support, in addition to the direct cost of providing services; ▪ Focusing on changes that may have occurred in the City’s staffing and cost structures since our last study, to ensure that future fees adequately recover anticipated costs;
▪ Working with City Staff to develop meaningful recommendations for fee setting and subsidies where charging fees that represent full cost recovery may not be reasonable for policy or political reasons; ▪ Conducting meaningful comparisons of high visibility fees with similar communities; and ▪ Preparing and presenting a comprehensive report that is easy to understand, clearly identifies services for which fees are charged, the cost of those services broken down into direct and indirect components, current and recommended cost recovery levels and fee amounts, and presenting the results in a way that is readily understood by decision makers.

The end products will include user-friendly Excel-based models, which City staff will retain. These models can be easily updated to add or remove services and/or costs, update budgets in future years, and determine the proper allocation of
expenditures and on-going service costs provided by the City.

Most importantly, we will ensure that the results and
recommendations are clear, understandable, defensible, and easy to implement.

We will meet directly with departmental representatives at the City at the outset to discuss the approach and process for the studies. Discussions will include ways to combine tasks and efforts to maximize efficiencies and ensure adherence to the specified timeline.

For the Comprehensive User Fee Study, Willdan completed the City’s most recent update in 2023. Building on that work, we will work directly with service-providing personnel to validate current processes, staffing, and service delivery procedures. Through close coordination with departments, we will identify direct staff costs (salaries and benefits), as well as appropriate overhead allocations at both the departmental and citywide level, to ensure an accurate and transparent calculation of full service costs.

For the Traffic Impact Fee Study, Willdan will begin by reviewing the City’s previous development impact fee work (portions of which may inform this effort) to assess changes in infrastructure needs and growth projections. We will coordinate with City staff in advance of the kick-off meeting to identify any initial policy direction, planned updates, or new fee categories under consideration. Our team will update demographics, review available facility plans, and help evaluate the current status of each applicable fee component. We will work collaboratively with the City to structure a program that ensures new development contributes its fair share toward transportation infrastructure while considering the broader impact of fees on project feasibility.

Rather than costly and inflexible proprietary
software, which can require expensive licensing
fees, Willdan builds models utilizing Excel, from
the ground up, employing the City’s budget as
the gauge. This model, which is then the City’s to
retain, gives City staff the control to make on-thefly adjustments and updates. 781
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 2 City of Richmond, CA
For a successful and effective engagement, it is important to have a thorough understanding of specific City policies and objectives. The structure and organization of the City and the relationships between the central and operating departments are also key concepts to incorporate into our analysis. We bring years of successful experience working directly with hundreds of cities throughout California.

Willdan possesses the resources, practical experience, creative thinking, and collaborative consulting skills necessary to complete this important project. Key distinct advantages that Willdan brings to the City include the following.

On-site Data Gathering
Our experience has taught us that working together, via face-to-face discussions, is the most efficient and thorough way to ensure that results are accurate, and that studies are completed in a timely manner, which again, is critical in this proposed engagement.

Consequently, through on-site interviews with your staff, Willdan will collect the majority of required data for studies. This method is better than the typical “time and motion surveys” that are provided to agency staff when studies like these are conducted. This process ensures that we gather the data we need in one coordinated step, rather than having to go through repeated follow-up and clarification.

This approach and the dedication of our staff will help ensure we meet the City’s timeline and objectives and provide important information to City staff and the Council as soon as possible.

Public Engagement
Our models and project approach are geared toward delivering our work on schedule and presenting our analysis results at public meetings and Council workshops. While we understand that the City Council and local business community may be generally supportive of increasing fees where necessary, it will be important to present recommendations to them in a way that clearly demonstrates the rationale and supporting analysis.

The Willdan Team is experienced at communicating complex analytical results in a manner that is easy to understand by non-finance-oriented individuals and facilitates discussion. Our proposed principal-in-charge for this engagement has coordinated or participated in numerous public and staff workshops regarding fees and cost of service-based charges. As previously mentioned, our objective is to provide useful, detailed information, and present recommendations to the City Council and public in a way that clearly demonstrates the rationale and supporting analysis. Our experience ensures that we can meet this objective.

User-friendly Models and Reports
Willdan prides itself on creating user-friendly Excel-based models that the City can retain and conducting our analysis and developing the models collaboratively with City staff. With City staff’s immediate input and collaboration, Willdan will design extremely flexible, intuitive Excel-based models. In the future, as the City assumes new responsibilities, modifies existing processes, and/or eliminates unnecessary services or programs, the models will be capable of adding or deleting funds, objects, departments, programs, staff positions, and activities. Willdan understands that issues facing the City are unique; consequently, we design our models to match your immediate and desired needs to ensure that end-results exceed staff expectations rather than using inflexible proprietary software.

These models are then the City’s to retain, after our services are completed, and allow for the creation of revenue projections, highlighting potential new revenues, and levels of subsidy.

A key element of these studies is presenting results and recommendations in a straightforward manner, which allows Council and staff to confidently make fee setting policy decisions and understand the impacts of those decisions. Rather than using an inflexible proprietary software program, we construct our models from the ground up, as previously discussed, mirroring the City’s budget format wherever possible.

As a result, the information contained in our models is easy for City staff to interpret, and the familiar software ensures ease of navigation. As the models are being designed and constructed, we will work together with City staff to determine the best and most effective features to include.

After the project is completed, we will provide training, so that staff can independently and efficiently evaluate the effects of changes in certain factors. Created directly from the models, our reports clearly and graphically illustrate the full cost recovery level of fee programs and provide projections of revenue from fee programs.

The model will be
developed to allow the City
to run “what-if” scenarios
to address possible
changes in staffing levels,
working hours, etc.
782
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 3 City of Richmond, CA
C. Methodology

1. Project Approach
The following describes our proposed approach, and work plan to prepare a Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study.

Comprehensive User Fee Study Methodology
To comprehensively update fees, the City should develop a comprehensive user fee schedule that accurately accounts for the true cost of providing services. Once the study is complete, the fee study model must be flexible so that the City can add, delete, and revise fees in the future. To meet this goal, we will bring our expertise and unique perspectives to your fee study by approaching the project with these three principles:
1) Defensibility
Our user fee projects have not been legally challenged since the inception of this practice area in our firm. We have accomplished this by closely working with legal counsel familiar with user fee studies, our engineering division and with agency staff. In this way, we can tailor the correct approach to ensure full cost recovery combined with a sound and reasonable basis for each user fee you implement.

While Proposition 218 does not directly apply to non-property-related fees, we employ principles from this important constitutional article to make certain that your user fee schedule is developed with fairness, equity, and proportionate cost recovery principles in mind. With the addition of Proposition 26, Willdan will review each analyzed user fee for compliance and appropriateness to ensure continued defensibility.
2) Project and Staff Time
The City must have a sound and technically defensible fee schedule to ensure costs are appropriately recovered, as applicants approach the City for its services. Our standards and approaches serve to get to the issues of your fee study quickly.

Starting with the project kick-off, we will make certain that your staff understands the purpose and scope of the study and its corresponding on-site departmental interview. As Willdan is able to communicate directly with the service providers, this face-to-face interaction provides valuable time estimates. 3) Responsiveness
We take great pride in providing responsive service to our client agencies. Frequent communication is critical to a successful user fee study experience. We will provide a list of data requirements in advance of the project kick-off. Due to this simple step, the introductory meeting can focus on the survey input process, answering questions, determining policy goals, and defining next steps in the project. We will follow up weekly with you at each step in the fee study process to make sure that staff “buys in” to the fee study approach and results.

Comprehensive User Fee Study Approach
Our approach to preparing the user fee study and documentation for Richmond includes:
▪ Close coordination with your staff to devise a consensus approach. Different programs and/or different service delivery methods will necessitate different approaches.
▪ We will discuss specific pros and cons with City staff as we determine which methods work best for each fee category; ▪ Strict adherence to key legal and policy issues with regard to user fees, including the percent of cost recovery that the City seeks to achieve. A user fee shall not be set higher than the reasonable cost of providing a fee-generating service.

Our approach provides you with a fee schedule that achieves maximum legal cost recovery while ensuring that each fee is supported by technically defensible documentation; and ▪ Technical analysis necessary to ensure State compliance, and to anticipate and resolve potential policy issues using a combination of industry standards as well as City specific methods.

As described below, there are two basic approaches to calculating user fees:

Approach 1: Case Study Method
This is also sometimes referred to as a cost build-up approach. Using a time and materials approach, the “Case Study Method” examines the tasks, steps and City staff involved in providing a particular ‘unit’ of service, such as a permit review, and then uses that information to develop estimates of the actual labor and material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user. It is often used when a service is provided on a regular basis, and staff and other costs associated with the service can be segregated from available budget data. 783
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 4 City of Richmond, CA
A typical case study fee model should comprise the following three general cost layers:
1) Central Services Overhead: This category may involve such costs as labor, services, and supplies that benefit more than one department, division, or project. The exact benefits to specific areas are impossible to ascribe to a single activity. Examples are purchasing, human resources, and liability insurance. As part of the comprehensive user fee study, these costs are calculated in the overhead cost review.
2) Department Overhead: This category may include expenses related to such items as office supplies, outside consultants, and membership dues. It may include management, supervision, and administrative support that are not provided to a direct feegenerating service. Typically, these items are charged, on an itemby-item basis, directly to the department, division, or project. 3) Personnel Costs: This category refers to direct salary and benefit costs of staff hours spent on providing a fee-generating service (e.g., on-site building inspector).

Approach 2: Average Cost Method
This is also sometimes referred to as a programmatic approach, because it looks at costs at a program level, and then allocates them to participants on an occurrence basis. By taking total service costs across a substantial sample period (a year) and dividing them by the total number of service units delivered over that same period, costs per unit of service is estimated.

This approach is useful when services or programs are provided in a more aggregate manner, where it might be difficult to identify a specific sequence of steps associated with one user or participant; or where it is not feasible to cost-effectively segregate costs associated with specific activities.

Traffic Impact Fee Study Methodology
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 to 66025). 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 are to be updated by this study.

Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to establish/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.
784
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 5 City of Richmond, CA
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.

Summary of Approach
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 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. 785
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 6 City of Richmond, 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 = $/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.

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 particular study. 786
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 7 City of Richmond, 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. 787
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 8 City of Richmond, CA
Work Plans
Our proposed work plan, described in detail by task, is provided below. We explain how each task will be accomplished and identify associated meetings and deliverables. We want to ensure our scopes provides quality and clarity and is responsive to the City’s needs and specific local circumstances. We will work in concert with the City to adjust the scopes as needed during the course of the study.

Comprehensive User Fee Study
Task 1: Initial Document Request
Objective: Initial due diligence; obtain study-related data.

Description: Prior to the kick-off meeting, we will obtain and review relevant documentation to further enhance our understanding of the services, fees, and rates to be studied. A written request for data will be sent to the City. Please note that Time Survey data is not part of this request and will be gathered during the on-site interviews described in Task 5.

We will request information and documentation on current fees and fee programs, activity levels, and budget and staffing information (to the extent not already available) related specifically to programs and activities which have associated fees, and for which the City has this level of detail.

Since this engagement does not include a separate Cost Allocation Plan, we will ask the City to provide detail, analysis and background regarding their methodology for allocating costs associated with the provision of indirect support services to their operating groups and functions. This will be a key step in ensuring that the total cost of service that we calculate, which serves as the basis for setting fees, includes the cost of overhead support, in addition to the direct cost of providing fee-based services.

Deliverables: Willdan: Submit information request to City.

City: Provide requested data to Willdan (prior to Task 3, Kick-off Meeting/Refine Scope). We will follow up with the City to confirm receipt of requested data and information and highlight data elements that are outstanding.

Task 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees Objective: Willdan will identify a schedule of fees and methodology for calculating the fees.

Description: Based on the results of the initial document request and independent research, incorporate into our model the existing fees provided by the City, to comprise the parameters of the fee study.

Meetings: It is possible that a conference call with the City may be necessary to discuss new fees to implement or existing fees that may no longer be required.

Deliverables: Willdan: One (1) draft list of current fees based on initial data provided (to be discussed and finalized during the kick-off call).

City: Review completed fee schedule with comments/revisions to be discussed during the kick-off meeting.

Task 3: Kick-off Conference Call / Refine Scope
Objective: Confirm scope, goals and objectives for the Comprehensive User Fee Study. Identify and discuss policy considerations typically associated with a User Fee Study, address gaps in data, and refine appropriate existing or new fee categories (based on Task 2).

Description: Verify our understanding of the City’s goals, the City’s cost-recovery policy for user fees, and to fill any gaps in data/information necessary for the project. It is important for the City and Willdan to identify and address any foreseeable problems and maintain open communication throughout the process.

This Task will also include up to two (2) strategy sessions with the City Team to clarify and confirm the project’s direction, including the fee categories to be included in the Study.

During this call, we will ask that the City identify a project manager who will serve as the primary contact for the project. The project manager shall have responsibility for ensuring that all available data is provided in a timely manner, thereby maintaining adherence to the project’s schedule.

Meetings: One (1) project kick-off call to initiate the entire project, discuss data needs, and address policy objectives and up to two (2) virtual strategy sessions to confirm Study direction.

Deliverables: Willdan: 1) Revised project scope and schedule (if needed); and 2) brief summary of policy decisions (if needed).

City: 1) Provide further data needs; and 2) determine/introduce City’s project manager.

Task 4: Develop Comprehensive User Fee Model/Incorporate Overhead Factors Objective: Develop and test model.

Description: This task involves the development of the model ultimately used to calculate the departmental fees, based on data and information gathered in previous tasks and in the Time Survey Interviews described in Task 5.

Key model inputs will include staff and allocated overhead costs per position, and relevant budget data on staffing, salaries and benefits. As mentioned in Task 1, since this engagement does not include completion 788
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 9 City of Richmond, CA
of a Cost Allocation Plan, information related to the City’s methodology for allocating indirect overhead costs will be obtained directly from the City and incorporated into the user fee model. We will request clarification and/or additional data if necessary. We will also update, as appropriate, available fee volumes (occurrences) and revenue generation.

The Fee Study model will provide an allocation of administrative and overhead costs to fee related activities, so that fees and billable rate schedules incorporate applicable costs. Furthermore, the fees and rates charged to customers will also reflect the cost of the services being provided, to the extent possible given policy and/or political considerations.

Furthermore, the fees and rates charged to customers will also reflect the cost of the services being provided, to the extent possible given policy and/or political considerations.

Deliverables: Willdan: One (1) user-friendly model in Microsoft Excel format, which, when finalized, City staff can use to calculate fee changes annually, or as often as deemed appropriate by the City Council.

Task 5: Staff Interviews and On-site Information Gathering Objective: Meet with City staff to complete Time Surveys and understand service delivery processes.

Description: In order to assist staff with the completion of the survey worksheets, we will schedule one (1.0) day of meetings with staff; however, the number of meetings needed may vary depending on the number of staff and departments involved.

The Willdan Team will conduct interviews with supervisors/managers, as well as other staff, as deemed appropriate and/or necessary, from each department involved in the user fee study to gain an understanding of the City’s processes and operations, determine the average time required by City staff to provide each of the services for which a fee is collected, and conduct a review of the City’s current fees to be evaluated.

We will also discuss opportunities to develop and implement fees for services that are provided, but for which no fee currently exists.

The fee model is designed so that full cost recovery fees are calculated immediately upon input of staff time. These full costs are also compared to current cost recovery levels. This will allow Willdan and City staff to conclude with a final meeting to review the draft full cost recovery fees and adjust any times as necessary once all information has been compiled and input into the fee model. We will schedule the interviews with staff to minimize any disruption to their normal workflow.

Meetings: One (1.0) business days of meetings/staff interviews. Depending upon circumstances and availability, we may discuss the option with City Staff of conducting these meetings via WebEx or Zoom. We use these tools very successfully and found them to be highly effective and efficient, particularly for follow-up questions and/or discussions.

Deliverables: Willdan and City: Time surveys and draft full cost recovery fees.

Task 6: Data Analysis and Final User Fee Schedule
Objective: Incorporate information obtained from on-site surveys to fully develop model.

Description: We will update the model, based on information received during the on-site surveys, to generate a comprehensive user fee schedule. In addition, it is very common that a supplemental data request may be necessary, based on new fees identified that the City is not currently collecting.

Where appropriate, we will suggest and discuss with staff alternate approaches to existing fee programs (i.e., building fees) and suggest potential areas where fees could be collected where they are not currently.

We will calculate and present the full cost recovery level for fees, both current and projected under the new fees, and revenue projections, given certain assumptions about the levels of subsidy for different fees.

Current levels of cost recovery will be compared to actual full costs calculated during the course of this study. Cost will be calculated at reasonable activity levels and include all appropriate direct and indirect costs and overhead. We will review fee programs for compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.

In developing the fee schedules for each division, we will make recommendations for new fees where appropriate, based on our experience with other cities.

Some areas for new fees may be due to changes in law (legalized cannabis), or for activities that the City finds itself performing regularly, but for which no fee is collected.

The user fee data analysis and model development may take three (3) to five (5) weeks with frequent correspondence with City staff to refine data inputs and assumption and discuss current cost recovery amounts, necessary to recover full cost and frequency activity.

Meetings: One (1) meeting, as necessary, to gather additional input, complete analysis and finalize fee schedule.

Please see the note in Task 5 regarding in-person meetings.

Deliverables: Final user fee model for City Council presentation and discussion.

Task 7: Common Fees Comparison
Objective: Examine selected user fees charged by up to five (5) comparable cities in Contra Costa County or other jurisdictions that are close in proximity or similar to the City of Richmond. 789
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 10 City of Richmond, CA
Description: We will access and use our knowledge of other jurisdictions to benchmark the City’s five (5) most common visible fees or highest yielding fees with comparable jurisdictions.

Fee schedules are rarely readily or directly comparable from agency to agency due to definitional and operational differences. For example, a grading permit in one jurisdiction may include the plan check service, while the same permit in another jurisdiction may not, resulting in similar sounding services with widely varying costs. For this reason, Willdan takes a selection of the City’s most commonly used and/or highest yielding fees.

The survey will contain the following, a comparison of common or similar fees and charges used by the City and other jurisdictions; current and proposed fees and charges unique to the City of Richmond; fees and charges used by other public entities not currently used in the City; and If possible, identify characteristics and processes unique to the City that account for significant variances in fees and charges used by other jurisdictions.

Deliverables: Willdan: Recommendations provided in Task 8 will incorporate the data gathered during our examination.

Task 8: Prepare and Present Draft Report
Objective: Prepare draft report.

Description: This task involves the preparation of the draft report that discusses the study’s background, the methodologies utilized in the study, and the results and presentation to various stakeholder groups. As noted below, meetings may occur during this or the next task as appropriate. The calculations used to generate the user fee study will be included textually, as well as in easy to understand tables. Individual fee summaries by department and a comprehensive fee schedule will be included.

The draft report will include the following:
▪ Key results and findings;
▪ The scope and approach for the analysis completed and presented in the report; ▪ Basic descriptions of each service;
▪ The full cost of each service at lowest reasonable activity level and current cost recovery levels; ▪ Costs broken down graphically into indirect and direct components, with a graphic display of the level of cost recovery;
▪ Current and proposed fee recommendations with associate levels of cost recovery; ▪ Projections of potential fee revenue and revenue impacts; ▪ Assessment of reasonableness of each City’s costs;
▪ Fee comparisons from Task 7;
▪ Review of reasonableness of current consultant cost structure (for Building Division services); ▪ As appropriate, recommend alternative methodologies for building permit fee calculation; and ▪ Summary and recommendations.

The objective of the report is to communicate the recommendation of appropriate fees, which include the appropriate subsidy percentage for those fees where full cost recovery may be unrealistic.

Meetings: One (1) conference call with City staff, to present draft results, address questions, and receive feedback.

Deliverables: Willdan: Draft report for City review and comment.

City: Review of draft report, with comments and edits.

Task 9: Revise Draft Report/Determine Cost Recovery Levels for Recommended Adoption Objective: Review of draft report and fee model.

Description: The goal of this task is to conduct an in-depth review of the draft report and model, incorporate feedback and changes as a result of previous discussions, and arrive at an optimum fee structure.

Often through the course of an engagement, City staff and management will volunteer insightful likes and dislikes regarding the existing fee structure. We listen to this feedback carefully because your staff members know the community best.

Comments usually revolve around issues of:
▪ Understandability;
▪ Fairness to applicants;
▪ Ease of calculation;
▪ Appropriate levels of cost recovery; and
▪ Full cost recovery hourly rates.

When adjusting fee recovery levels, we believe it is important to address these concerns.

Following one (1) round of comments and feedback from City staff on the draft report, we will prepare the final report for presentation to the City Council.

Meetings: One (1) online demonstration (WebEx) to review the report and model, with any revisions.

Deliverables: Draft report, revised draft /final report. 790
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 11 City of Richmond, CA
Task 10: Prepare and Present Final Report/Instruct Staff on Model Objective: Prepare and present final report to City Council. Instruct staff on the operation and use of the model for future modifications. The model will allow for annual updates to cost assumptions, ad hoc fee analyses for hypothetical or future services, and flexible edits to reflect organizational or staffing changes, consistent with the City’s expectations for long-term usability.

Description: This task is the culmination of the entire project. Based on staff comments received regarding the draft report, we will prepare the final report for presentation.

Meetings: One (1) meeting with City Council to present the results, adopt the updated fee schedule, and complete the first reading of the ordinance to update the City’s Municipal Code. We will also provide staff training on the operation and use of the model on the same day, during regular business hours.

Deliverables: Provide one (1) electronic PDF file copy of the final report and models; in addition to providing (2) bound copies to the City. Using Microsoft Word and Excel, an updateable electronic copy of the study and models, as well as related schedules, will also be provided on CD.

Traffic Impact Fee Study
Willdan will work with the City to update its Traffic Impact Fee in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), AB 602, and other applicable laws. Our approach is tailored to address the City’s specific needs and evolving local conditions.

We will ensure that the updated fee is legally defensible, data-driven, and reflects best practices for funding transportation infrastructure related to new development.

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 transportation planning and funding programs. 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 updates to fee zones or categories within the Traffic Impact Fee; ▪ Adequacy of General Plan and other transportation-related plans; ▪ 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 related to transportation demand.

Description: Willdan will identify a base year for estimating existing levels of development and for calculating transportation facility standards based on current inventories (see Task 3). The analysis will include entitled or under-construction development that may be exempt from the Traffic Impact Fee program.

Consult with City staff to identify growth projections over a long-range planning horizon (typically 10 to 30 years), which will form the basis for determining future transportation infrastructure needs (see Task 4).

We will consider growth projections from the City’s General Plan, regional agencies (e.g., MTC/ABAG), and any recent transportation planning documents. If necessary, City staff may provide growth estimates by zone or district. To convert land use projections into transportation demand, we will develop appropriate metrics (such as trip generation, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or square footage) to measure traffic impacts. Selection of methodology will be based on.

Select appropriate approach for each impact fee based on:
▪ Available local data on traffic generation by land use type; ▪ Approaches used in similar jurisdictions; and
▪ Support for other agency policy objectives.

Changes to projections during the course of the study may result in additional effort and would require prior City approval
791
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 12 City of Richmond, CA
Final growth estimates and assumptions will be confirmed with City staff before proceeding with subsequent tasks.

Task 3: Determine Facility Standards
Note: Conduct Tasks 3, 4, and 5 separately for each intended facility 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: Establish transportation facility standards needed to serve growth.

Description: Identify and evaluate possible facility standards depending upon the facility type, current facility inventory data, and available facility planning documents, including the long range transportation study currently in progress. Consider use of: (1) adopted policy standards (e.g., General Plan, master facility plans, and transportation plans); (2) standards derived from existing facility inventories; or (3) standards derived from a list of planned facility projects. Use metrics such as roadway level of service (LOS), vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thresholds, and multimodal infrastructure needs to inform appropriate facility standards. City staff to provide applicable policies, inventories, and project lists. Willdan will work with the City to identify additional transportation-related costs that may be eligible for funding under AB 602.

Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs
Objective: Identify type, amount, and cost of transportation improvements required to serve growth.

Description: Quantify total planned transportation facilities based on growth projections from Task 2 and facility standards from Task 3. Express planned improvements either as a specific list of transportation capital projects (e.g., intersection improvements, roadway widening, multimodal enhancements), or in general quantities such as lane miles or signalized intersections.

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).

Use one of three cost allocation methods (existing inventory, system plan, or planned facilities) to allocate costs. Gather planning-level data on transportation improvement costs using lump sum project estimates or unit costs and quantities (e.g., lane miles, signalized intersections).

Consider recent City experience, local market data (such as land and construction costs), and consultant team experience from prior projects. Inflate older cost estimates to the 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 detailed traffic engineering or new traffic studies. Any such services may be provided under a separate contract with Willdan Engineering or another third party. However, Willdan can use rough descriptions and comparables to calculate reasonable planning-level cost estimates sufficient for the Traffic Impact Fee study
Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives
Objective: Determine the extent of alternative (non-fee) funding available to support the Transportation Fee Program.

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 transportation improvements to be funded predominantly on a pay-as-you-go basis. This scope does not include a detailed financing cash flow analysis to evaluate the timing of fee revenues or financing costs.

Task 6: Fee Comparison
Objective: Compare proposed Richmond transportation fees with those of comparable/surrounding jurisdictions in neighboring and/or similarly sized municipalities.

Description: Willdan will compare Richmond’s proposed traffic impact fee with a total of four nearby or similarly sized cities, to be selected by the City.
792
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 13 City of Richmond, CA
Willdan will also identify any transportation-related fees imposed in those jurisdictions that are not currently charged in Richmond. The comparison will also include how fee credits are earned, tracked, and potentially transferred between projects, per RFP requirements
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report
Objective: Deliver a comprehensive, technically defensible, AB 602-compliant Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study.

Description: Generate a fee schedule to apportion transportation 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, documenting each step of the analysis, including a schedule of maximum justified fees by facility type and 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 an administrative draft report. Following one (1) round of comments on the administrative draft, prepare a public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public, and elected officials. This public review draft will be presented at stakeholder meetings and at a Council informational session.

Prepare the final report, if necessary, based on comments received on the public draft report. If requested, post the report on our website for public access. Include required 30-day notice language per AB 602, and 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: 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.

2. Client Satisfaction Strategy
As mentioned earlier, our team prioritizes responsiveness and clear communication to ensure a smooth and collaborative project experience. We begin by providing a detailed list of data needs ahead of the kick-off meeting, allowing that initial meeting to focus on objectives, policies, and next steps.

Throughout the study, we maintain weekly check-ins to keep City staff engaged, informed, and confident in the methodology and outcomes, ultimately supporting buy-in and successful project delivery.

Project Disclaimer
Willdan is a registered municipal advisory firm with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), as such the City of Richmond 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 User Fee and Impact Fee RFP. 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; (ii) 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 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 793
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 14 City of Richmond, CA

3. Project Schedules
Willdan understands time is of the essence for the City of Richmond to begin this engagement. The schedules can only be met with the prompt cooperation of City staff. Delays in responding to our requests for data, policy guidance, clarifications, other information and review will likely 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. It is also important to note that there are statutory requirements for a 60-day waiting period for the implementation of fees related to development, after they’ve been adopted by the City Council. Willdan understands that the Traffic Impact Fee Study may be delayed until the City’s Long Range Transportation Study is available.

Comprehensive User Fee Study
Traffic Impact Fee Study

4. City Staff Support
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City staff. We suggest that the City of Richmond 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.
794
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 15 City of Richmond, CA
D. Staffing
Our management and supervision of the project team is very simple: staff every position with experienced, capable personnel in sufficient numbers to deliver a superior product to the City, on time and on budget. With that philosophy in mind, we have selected experienced professionals for this engagement. We are confident that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill your desired work performance.

Key Project Team Organizational Chart
City of Richmond Project Team
Key Team Member Project Role Responsibility to the Engagement Chris Fisher
Vice President/Director
Principal-in-Charge
▪ Ensure client satisfaction, flow of communication,
and oversight of the project
▪ Technical guidance;
▪ Project oversight;
▪ Quality assurance & control; and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance.

Tony Thrasher
Principal Consultant
User Fee Study
Project Manager
▪ Task oversight;
▪ Model development;
▪ Produce key elements of the analyses;
▪ Responsible for project deliverables;
▪ Report preparation and evaluation; and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance.

Priti Patel
Senior Financial Analyst
User Fee Study
Senior Analyst
▪ Collect, interpret, and analyze key data;
▪ Assistance with model development;
▪ Peer review; and
▪ Report preparation.

Samantha Labitan
Senior Analyst
User Fee Study
Analytical Support
▪ Collect, interpret, and analyze key data;
▪ Assistance with model development;
▪ Peer review; and
▪ Report preparation.

James Edison, JD, MPP
Managing Principal
Traffic Impact Fee Study
Project Manager
▪ Ensure client satisfaction, flow of communication,
and management of the project;
▪ Technical guidance;
▪ Project oversight; and
▪ Quality assurance & control.

Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Principal Consultant
Traffic Impact Fee Study
Lead Consultant
▪ Collect, interpret, and disseminate key data;
▪ Report preparation; and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance
Robert Quaid
Principal Consultant
User Fee Study
Quality Assurance
▪ Third party reviewer; and
▪ Report evaluation.

Resumes
Detailed resumes for Willdan’s proposed project team are included in the Appendix for reference. 795
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 16 City of Richmond, CA
E. Qualifications
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 1,770 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 communities—seven of whom are committed to contribute their expertise throughout the duration of the City of Richmond’s Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic 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 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 1,500 public agencies successfully address a broad range of infrastructure challenges. Our staff of over 80 full-time employees 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
▪ User fee studies;
▪ 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;
▪ Development impact fee establishment and analysis;
▪ 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.

Firm Experience
Willdan has provided Development Impact Fee, User Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan services to municipal clients for 26 years; and has prepared comprehensive impact fee studies, user fee studies, as well as cost allocation plans, and OMB compliant cost allocation plans for clients throughout California, and the United States. Since 1998, we have developed the expertise to successfully integrate this service into the Financial Consulting Services group’s primary functions.

Willdan’s Financial Consulting Services staff has assisted well over 100 California government agencies with the development 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 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 and applicable regulations that comply with Propositions 26 and 218.

Our record of success within the industry provides assurance of the professionalism and capability we will bring to this engagement. A team composed of project managers and analysts develop and/or update user fee studies, cost allocation plans and development impact fees. Willdan has extensive experience with the range of fees charged in the region and the state, and the typical pros, cons, and challenges of each, both in implementation and management. Willdan will bring its expertise to the City’s process of considering financial, practical and policy issues in deciding on its future fee program. 796
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 17 City of Richmond, CA
References
Below are recent project descriptions, including client contact information, that are similar in nature to those requested by the City of Richmond engagement.

Combined Studies
City of Pismo Beach, CA
Development Impact Fee Study and Full & OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive User 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. Additionally, Willdan worked on a User Fee Study for the City.

Willdan has reviewed and analyzed existing user fee programs and made recommendations for updates and/or new fees based on this review, our experience, and consultation with City Staff. We developed a comprehensive cost of service model and analysis model that will calculate the full cost of services for which fees are charged and serve as the basis for fee-setting discussions.

Client Contact: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Tel #: (805) 773-7010 | Email: [email protected]
City of San Marcos, CA
Comprehensive User Fee Study, Full & OMB Cost Allocation Plan, Indirect Cost Rate Proposals, Development Impact Fee Update
Willdan was engaged by the City of San Marcos to complete a full and OMB compliant cost allocation plan and preparation of Indirect Cost Rate proposals. Our primary objective for the cost allocation study was to ensure that general government costs were fairly and equitably allocated to appropriate programs and funds, which are based on tailored and well thought out allocation factors. Models were created, which contained all City personnel and expenditures broken down into the ICRP tables that are needed for a report; once approved individual ICRP’s will be created for each department individually. The impact fee study centered upon the review and update of multiple fee categories, in addition to adding several new fee categories for the City. Willdan prepared the study and presented the results at several City Council workshops prior to a public hearing where the program was adopted in 2022.

Client Contact: Jeffrey Jorgenson, Accountant
3 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069
Tel #: (760) 744-1050, ext. 3123 | Email: [email protected] City of El Cerrito, CA
Community Development Department User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan Willdan was engaged in April 2017 to prepare a full cost allocation plan and Community Development Department User Fee Study for the City of El Cerrito; to determine the full costs incurred by the Community Development Department to support the various activities for which the City charges user fees, including the Building Division’s building permit issuance and inspection service, and to calculate Department fees that represent a reasonable estimate of the cost of providing services.

Due to the complexity and the breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fees, Willdan employed a variety of fee methodologies to identify the full costs of individual fee and program activities and to calculate fees accordingly. Utilizing the full CAP, the fee model was developed, after conducting full interviews and data gathering.

Since the completion of the original Community Development Department User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan, Willdan was selected in 2024 and is currently working on a Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan.

Client Contact: Claire Coleman, Budget / Financial Services Manager 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530
Tel. #: (510) 215-4365 | Email: [email protected] 797
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 18 City of Richmond, CA
Similar Studies
The following represents a highly condensed listing, restricted to Northern California agencies only.

Willdan Financial Services
5 Year Impact Fee and User Fee Study Experience
Agency Impact Fee Study User Fee Study
City of Alameda, CA ◆
City of Arroyo Grande, CA ◆ ◆
City of Atwater, CA ◆ ◆
City of Belmont, CA ◆
City of Blythe, CA ◆
City of Capitola, CA ◆
City of Emeryville, CA ◆
City of Encinitas, CA ◆
City of Fillmore, CA ◆ ◆
City of Fremont, CA ◆
City of Galt, CA ◆
City of Gilroy, CA ◆ ◆
City of Hayward, CA ◆ ◆
City of Hughson, CA ◆ ◆
City of Hollister, CA ◆ ◆
City of La Mesa, CA ◆
City of Laguna Hills, CA ◆ ◆
City of Lake Elsinore, CA ◆ ◆
City of Lindsay, CA ◆
City of Los Angeles, CA ◆
City of McFarland, CA ◆
City of Morgan Hill, CA ◆
City of Mountain View, CA ◆
City of Napa, CA ◆
City of Oroville, CA ◆
City of Patterson, CA ◆
City of Petaluma, CA ◆ ◆
City of Pismo Beach, CA ◆ ◆
City of Pittsburg, CA ◆ ◆
City of Richmond, CA ◆ ◆
City of St. Helena, CA ◆ ◆
City of Salinas, CA ◆ ◆
City of San Bruno, CA ◆
City of South San Francisco, CA ◆
City of Twenty-Nine Palms, CA ◆ ◆
City of Watsonville, CA ◆
County of San Benito, CA ◆ ◆
Town of Los Altos Hills, CA ◆ ◆
Town of San Anselmo, CA ◆
798
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 19 City of Richmond, CA
F. Cost Information
Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) proposes a fixed fee of $59,230 for the Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study.

Comprehensive User Fee Study
Willdan Financial Services proposes a fixed fee of $33,910 for the Comprehensive User Fee Study.

Traffic Impact Fee Study
Willdan Financial Services proposes a fixed fee of $25,320 for the Traffic Impact Fee Study.

Traffic Impact Fee Review Notes:
▪ The fee denoted above includes attendance at four in-person meetings with City staff, stakeholders, and City Council. ▪ Attendance at more than four meetings will be billed at the per meeting fee. Attendance at additional on-site meetings or presentations will be $2,000 per meeting; attendance at additional remote meetings or presentations will be $1,000 per meeting.
▪ 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.
799
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 20 City of Richmond, CA
Rates for Additional Professional Services
Our current hourly rates are listed below.

Willdan Financial Services
Hourly Rate Schedule
Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Vice President / Director Chris Fisher $310
Managing Principal James Edison $300
Principal Consultant
Tony Thrasher
Carlos Villarreal
Bob Quaid
$270
Senior Project Manager $250
Project Manager Priti Patel $210
Senior Project Analyst $150
Senior Analyst Samantha Labitan $135
Analyst II $120
Analyst I $110
Notes
▪ Our fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project. ▪ We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed. ▪ Additional services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting rates.
▪ 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.
▪ If the City wishes for Willdan to attend additional in-person meetings, the fee is $2,000 per meeting. ▪ The cost of preparing the user fee study can be included in the resulting new user fee schedule. Therefore, over time, the City can recover the initial outlay of funds that was required to complete the studies. ▪ 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.

G. Reporting
Willdan will provide clear and comprehensive reporting throughout the project, including an editable Excel model, draft and final study reports, and any supporting tables or graphics. We will also prepare presentation materials to support City staff in communicating the findings to Council or stakeholders. A sample report will be included as a separate document for reference.

H. Value-Added Services
At no additional cost, Willdan offers supplemental services such as a CPI adjustment guide for future updates, a customized Excel-based update tool, and staff training materials to support annual fee maintenance and long-term implementation.

I. Subcontracting
Due to the nature of the requested services and Willdan’s vast experience with the proposed scope of work, Willdan will not employ, contract with, or use the services of any subcontractors at any point during this engagement.

J. Exceptions
Willdan takes no exceptions to the RFP or the City’s Standard Services Agreement.

K. Impartiality and Disclosure
Willdan affirms that there are no conflicts of interest related to this engagement, and we are not involved in any active or pending investigations or litigation that would impact our ability to perform this work. 800
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 21 City of Richmond, CA
Forms
D – Sanctuary City Compliance
801
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 22 City of Richmond, CA
G – Disclosure for Limited Liability Corporation
802
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 23 City of Richmond, CA
Education
San Francisco State
University, Bachelor
of Science, Finance
Areas of Expertise
Cost of Service
Analyses
Multi-disciplinary
Team Management
Special District
Formations
Client Presentations
Proposition 218
Affiliations
California Society of
Municipal Finance
Officers
Municipal
Management
Association of
Northern California
California Municipal
Treasurers
Association
25 Years’ Experience
Appendix
Chris Fisher
Principal-in-Charge
Mr. Chris Fisher, Vice President / Director of Willdan’s Financial Consulting Services group, will serve as Technical Advisor for the City of Richmond’s project. He will also share his extensive knowledge related to cost-of-service principles with members of the project team.

Mr. Fisher joined Willdan in April of 1999, and during that time has managed an array of financial consulting projects for public agencies in California, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Florida, coordinating the activities of resources within Willdan, as well as those from other firms working on these projects. He is one of the firm’s leading experts for special district financing related to public infrastructure, maintenance, and services, including public safety.

Related Experience
Mr. Fisher was, or is currently serving as, the technical advisor for the following select multi-disciplined cost of service fee studies (Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study, and Development Impact Fee Study) engagements; this is due to his extensive experience managing multi-disciplinary teams, his primary responsibilities include planning, overseeing, supporting, and coordinating the project team, and maintaining client contact and satisfaction through all phases of the studies. ▪ City of Arroyo Grande, CA ▪ City of Bellflower, CA
▪ City of Chino Hills, CA ▪ City of Compton, CA
▪ City of Cudahy, CA ▪ City of Fillmore, CA
▪ City of El Monte, CA ▪ City of Hayward, CA
▪ City of Hughson, CA ▪ City of Gilroy, CA
▪ City of Laguna Hills, CA ▪ City of Irwindale, CA
▪ City of Murrieta, CA ▪ City of Lake Elsinore, CA
▪ City of Pittsburg, CA ▪ City of Petaluma, CA
▪ City of Richmond, CA ▪ City of Pomona, CA
▪ City of Pismo Beach, CA ▪ City of St. Helena, CA
▪ City of San Bruno, CA ▪ City of San Fernando, CA
▪ City of San Jacinto, CA ▪ City of San Marcos
▪ City of Santa Paula, CA ▪ City of Twenty-Nine Palms, CA ▪ County of San Benito, CA ▪ Town of Los Altos Hills, CA City of West Hollywood, CA — Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan:

Mr. Fisher is the principal-in-charge for the City’s Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan engagement, managing the overall execution of the project, providing technical guidance and quality control.

City of Burbank, CA — Comprehensive Citywide User Fees and Charges Study: Mr. Fisher oversaw the City’s recently completed Citywide User Fees and Charges Study.

City of Pomona, CA – Master Fee Schedule Update: Mr. Fisher was the principal-in-charge for the City’s master fee schedule update and update of the development impact fees. Mr. Fisher provided quality control and served as the primary contact with the City.

City of Murrieta, CA — Cost Allocation & OMB Compliant Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Mr. Fisher served as the project manager on the City’s fee study. The primary objective for the cost allocation study was to ensure that general government costs were fairly and equitably allocated to appropriate programs and funds. The City recently re-engaged Willdan to conduct an update to the Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study.

City of Irvine, CA — OMB Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Willdan completed a cost allocation plan and user fee study for the City of Irvine. Mr. Fisher managed and provided quality assurance to this project, ensuring the accuracy of the models, as well as the final reports. He also presented the results to the City’s Finance Commission and to the City Council. 803
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 24 City of Richmond, CA
Education
Bachelor of Science
in Economics;
California State
Polytechnic
University, Pomona
Areas of Expertise
Cost Allocation
Plans
Fiscal Analysis for
User Fees and
Rates
District
Administration
Services
Utility Rate Studies
14 Years’ Experience
Tony Thrasher
Project Manager – User Fee Study
Due to his cost allocation and user fee analyses experience, Mr. Tony Thrasher has been selected to serve as Project Manager for the User Fee Study engagement. Mr. Thrasher is a Principal Consultant within the Financial Consulting Services group, whereby his responsibilities include managing projects and conducting fiscal analyses for cost allocation plans, user fees, and utility rate studies.

Mr. Thrasher’s prior employment was as a financial analyst working in bond, equity, and mortgagebacked security markets for Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, and Deutsche Bank. His experience includes portfolio accounting, differential analysis, and forecasting.

Related Experience
City of West Hollywood, CA — Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan:

As the project manager for City’s Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan engagement, Mr. Thrasher is overseeing the project analysts and is heavily involved in the analysis, development of models, preparation of reports and delivery of results.

City of Burbank, CA — Comprehensive Citywide User Fees and Charges Study: Mr. Thrasher was the project manager for the City’s recently completed study, He directed the preparation of the model and reports and was responsible for the delivery of results to the City.

City of San Fernando, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Mr.

Thrasher was the project manager for the City’s cost allocation plan, OMB compliant plan and comprehensive user fee study engagement. Willdan has recently, through a competitive bid, been re-selected to update the cost allocation plan.

City of Chino Hills, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher is the project manager for the City’s Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study. He is working directly with the City contact throughout the engagement.

City of Pomona, CA – Master Fee Schedule Update: Mr. Thrasher served as the project manager for the master fee schedule update portion of the City of Pomona’s engagement, which also included an update of the development impact fees. Mr. Thrasher was responsible for the development of models and reports and coordinating analytical support.

City of Irvine, CA — OMB Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Serving as the project’s analyst, Mr. Thrasher provided analytical support; and designed micro-level allocation models to ensure full-cost recovery for public safety, public works, community development, community services, and administrative departments.

City of Indian Wells, CA — User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project manager for the City’s Administrative, Building, Planning and Public Works Departments. The study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and calculation of individual service costs cost recovery levels.

City of Palm Desert, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:

Mr. Thrasher is currently serving as the technical project manager for the City’s full cost allocation plan and user fee study. He is directly responsible for the creation of both models for the study, gathering and verification of the data, managing the analysts working to support him and presenting results to the City.

City of San Marcos, CA — Cost Allocation Plan, Indirect Cost Rate Proposals and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher is the project manager for the City of San Marcos’ full and OMB compliant cost allocation plan, preparation of Indirect Cost Rate proposals, and Comprehensive User Fee Study engagement. He is the primary in developing the model, which contains all City personnel and expenditures broken down into the ICRP tables.

City of Mission Viejo, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher was assigned to work with the City on this project, providing analytical support, gathering data, working with staff to make refinements, and developing cost allocation and fee models to ensure full-cost recovery for building and safety, planning, community development, and public works departments. 804
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 25 City of Richmond, CA
Education
Bachelor of Arts;
Business
Management,
Information Systems
and
International
Business,
University of
Cincinnati
Areas of Expertise
Cost Allocation
Plans
User Fee Studies
Proposition 218
10 Years’ Experience
Priti Patel
Senior Analyst – User Fee Study
Ms. Priti Patel is a Project Manager within the Financial Consulting Services group, whereby she supports project managers in conducting utility rate analyses, fee studies, cost allocation plans, monitoring Proposition 218 compliance, and forming special districts.

Coordinating and conducting activities associated with Cost Allocation Plans and User Fee Studies, including database integration and manipulation, revenue and expenditure analyses, and documentation preparation are just some of Ms. Patel’s duties. With these duties, she interacts with clients on a regular basis.

Ms. Patel joined Willdan as an analyst with the District Administration Group, while with DAS she performed research and analysis needed for local government financial issues related to district administration, including document data entry and updating, database management, research and report preparation. She also provided general information on questions pertaining to Assessment Districts and special taxes (such as Mello-Roos Pools), as well as the status of property delinquencies.

Related Experience
City of West Hollywood, CA — Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan:

Ms. Patel is serving as the primary financial analyst for City of West Hollywood’s Fee Study engagement. Ms. Patel has been instrumental in collecting the necessary data and collaborating with the City and Willdan senior project team members in conducting the study, including development of the model, researching similar fees in comparable cities and preparation of reports.

City of Burbank, CA — Comprehensive Citywide User Fees and Charges Study: Ms. Patel provided analytical support and gathered budget and allocation basis data for this engagement. She also assisted in the development of the financial model.

City of San Fernando, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Ms. Patel provided support to senior team members in the preparation of the cost allocation plan, OMB compliant plan and comprehensive user fee study engagement.

City of Laguna Hills, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Ms. Patel provided analytical support in the preparation of a full cost allocation plan and fee study for the development of a master list of fees.

City of Chino Hills, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Providing analytical support in the preparation of a cost allocation plan and comprehensive fee study, Ms. Patel worked to identify and take into account direct and indirect costs, along with changes in staffing, structure, and service delivery methods. She is also assisting in the preparation of user-friendly Excelbased models that City staff can easily update in the future to determine the proper allocation of expenditures and ongoing full cost of City-provided services.

City of Fillmore, CA — Full Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Ms. Patel helped develop a cost allocation plan and model that fully allocated central overhead costs to appropriate operating departments, funds, and/or programs. She assisted in the completion of the model and report and worked directly with senior staff on their feedback and revisions.

City of National City, CA — Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study, and ISF Allocation Study: Ms. Patel provided analytical support in the preparation of this study, her primary duties included development of the models, finalizing model figures and results, and generating reports.

City of Yucaipa, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Provided analytical support in the preparation of a Cost Allocation Plan and OMB compliant cost allocation plan and comprehensive fee study for the development of a master list of fees. Ms. Patel worked to identify and take into account direct and indirect costs, along with changes in staffing, structure, and service delivery methods.

City of Pittsburg, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Ms. Patel was assigned to provide assistance to senior project team members on the City of Pittsburg Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study engagement. She will be a technical lead for the gathering of data, creation of the models and preparation of study reports and presentations. The City hired Willdan for the original study, and for two subsequent updates.
805
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 26 City of Richmond, CA
Samantha Labitan
Analytical Support – User Fee Study
Ms. Samantha Labitan is a Senior Analyst within Willdan’s Financial Consulting and District Administration Services groups. Ms. Labitan provides analytical support under the guidance of the project team. Her primary function is to support project managers and senior analysts with cost allocation plans and user fee studies. She specializes in analysis for a variety of clients, including cities, water districts, public utilities, and school districts.

She regularly speaks with individuals representing title companies, real estate agencies, and appraisal firms, together with staff from cities and counties. Willdan’s proprietary computer system allows him to readily access the owner’s name, the Assessor’s Parcel Number, existing and future taxes or assessments, and more; thus, enabling expedient service. Community Facilities Districts, Local Improvement Districts, Landscape and Lighting Districts, and County Service Areas are some of the special districts she administers.

Select Relevant Experience
City of Gilroy, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Ms. Labitan worked on the team for the City’s fee study project, providing analytical support, gathering data, working with staff to make refinements, and developing cost allocation and fee models to ensure fullcost recovery for building and safety, planning, community development, and public works departments.

City of Los Banos, CA — Full & OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Ms. Labitan provided analytical support to the project team for the City’s comprehensive fee study, full and OMB compliant cost allocation plan.

City of Richmond, CA — Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study: As analytical support, Ms.

Labitan provided assistance to the project team. Primary duties included gathering and verifying necessary data, finalizing model figures and generating reports.

City of Pismo Beach, CA — Comprehensive User Fee Study: Ms. Labitan is currently serving in the capacity of assistant analyst for the City’s comprehensive fee study.

City of Lynwood, CA — Cost Allocation Plan & OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Ms. Labitan provided support to the project team specific to the preparation of a comprehensive fee study, full and OMB compliant cost allocation plan. Ms. Labitan worked in tandem with the project managers to identify and account for direct and indirect costs, along with changes in staffing, structure, and service delivery methods. The City has recently hired Willdan to conduct updated studies.

City of West Hollywood, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: For this project, Ms. Labitan provided analytical support. Primary duties include gathering and verifying necessary data, finalizing model figures and generating reports.

City of San Fernando, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:

Ms. Labitan is currently providing support to senior team members in the preparation of a cost allocation plan, OMB compliant plan and comprehensive user fee study.

City of Blythe, CA — Full and OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan: Ms. Labitan served as the analyst in the preparation of a full and OMB compliant cost allocation plan, for the City of Blythe engagement.

City of El Centro, CA — Full & OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study:

Ms. Labitan served as the analyst in the preparation of a full & OMB compliant Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study, for the City of El Centro engagement.

City of Goleta, CA — Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Plan, and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Ms. Labitan provided analytical support to the project team for the City’s comprehensive fee study, full and OMB compliant cost allocation plan.

City of Brighton, CO — Cost Allocation & OMB Compliant Plan: Ms. Labitan is providing analytical support for the City’s cost allocation plan.

Education
University of
California, Santa
Barbara
Bachelor of Arts,
Mathematics
Areas of Expertise
Cost Allocation Plans
User Fee Studies
Benefit/Maintenance
Assessment Districts
Community Facilities
Districts
Local Improvement
Districts
7 Years’ Experience
806
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 27 City of Richmond, CA
Education
Juris Doctorate,
Boalt Hall School
of Law, University
of California,
Berkeley
Master of Public
Policy, Richard and
Rhoda 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
25 Years’ Experience
James Edison, JD, MPP
Project Manager – Traffic Impact Fee Study
Mr. James Edison, a Willdan Financial Services 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 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
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. Mr. Edison is the project manager on the County’s current impact fee update.

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 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 arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities.

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.

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 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 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 Pacifica, CA – Park Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as the City’s project manager to update their park fee to include new costs and to impose fees for home expansion/remodels, in addition to new development.

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.
807
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 28 City of Richmond, CA
Education
Master of Public
Policy, Richard and
Rhoda 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
Lead Consultant – Traffic Impact Fee Study
Mr. Villarreal is a Principal Consultant in the Financial Consulting Services group of Willdan Financial Services. He is proposed to serve in the role of lead analyst for the City of Richmond’s engagement 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, including, but not limited to transportation, parks, library, fire, law enforcement, and utilities.

Related Experience
City of Upland, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Conducted a study to update the City’s impact fee program, including general government, regional transportation, water, sewer, storm drain and park fees. Traffic fees were established within the San Bernardino Associated Governments’ (SANBAG) guidelines to provide a local funding source for improvements of regional significance.

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.

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 fee and establish the necessary nexus.

Mr. Villarreal is once again serving on the project team to update the County’s impact fees.

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.

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 fees were adopted by the City Council in 2020.

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.

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 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 has engaged Willdan again to update the 2015 study, and Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager.

City of Santa Clara, CA – Parks Fee Update: As assistant project manager to Mr. Edison, Mr.

Villarreal collected the necessary data to update the City’s park impact fee. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the cost of acquiring and improving public park land. 808
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 29 City of Richmond, CA
Education
Bachelor of
Science, University
of Southern
California
Areas of Expertise
Fiscal Analysis for
User Fees and
Rates
Cost Allocation
Plans
Acquisition Audit
Services
Statutory Financial
Reporting
Fund Audits
Quality Review of
Community
Facilities, Lighting
& Landscaping, and
Assessment
Districts
Affiliations
California Society
of Municipal
Finance Officers
California Society
of CPAs
40 Years’
Experience
Robert Quaid
Quality Assurance – Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study With his 40 years of extensive experience in public financing, Mr. Robert Quaid has been selected to provide quality assurance/quality control in the role of technical advisor. In his position as a Principal Consultant at Willdan, Mr. Quaid provides project management, procedural support, technical support, and quality review for Willdan’s District Administration group, as well as the Financial Services Consulting group specific to cost allocation plans, user fee studies, and special financial analysis.

Prior to joining Willdan, Mr. Quaid worked in the private industry of real estate accounting and finance.

He began his career with the public accounting firm formerly known as Haskins & Sells (currently known as “Deloitte & Touche”). His experience includes financial statement analyses, asset administration, computer conversion, and reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission for several public real estate partnerships. In 1979, Mr. Quaid became a licensed California CPA.

Related Experience
Cities of Fontana, Gardena and Hawthorne, CA — Cost Allocation Plan Projects: For each of these cities, Mr. Quaid served in the role of task manager for the development of an OMB A-87 compliant cost allocation plan model using Microsoft Excel. He was responsible for the preparation of the cost allocation plan report and trained City staff on how to use the cost allocation model.

City of Rialto, CA — Comprehensive User Fee Study: Project manager for the Comprehensive User Fee Study to develop a user fee model in Microsoft Excel and update fees for Planning, Engineering, Building, Public Works, Recreation, Police, Fire, City Clerk, Treasurer and Finance.

City of Cathedral City, CA — Comprehensive User Fee Study: Mr. Quaid served as project manager for a user fee study that required updating fees for Planning, Engineering, Building, Police, Fire, City Clerk, and Finance.

Mr. Quaid has provided Quality Assurance and Quality Control to multiple clients. Provided below are a few examples of clients in which services have been provided in the previous three years. ▪ City of Arcadia, CA
▪ City of Aurora, CO
▪ City of Cerritos, CA
▪ City of Claremont, CA
▪ City of Coalinga, CA
▪ City of DeSoto, TX
▪ City of El Cerrito, CA
▪ City of Fillmore, CA
▪ City of Galt, CA
▪ City of Hayward, CA
▪ City of Indian Wells, CA
▪ City of Missouri City, TX
▪ City of Monterey, CA
▪ City of Petaluma, CA
▪ City of Pomona, CA
▪ City of Richmond, CA
▪ City of Rocklin, CA
▪ City of St. Helena, CA
▪ County of San Benito, CA
▪ City of San Bruno, CA
▪ City of Salinas, CA
▪ City of Union City, CA
▪ City of Watsonville, CA
▪ City of Yucaipa, CA
809
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-4856
951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com
810

CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: City Project Manager:

City Project Manager E-mail: City Project Manager Phone No:

Vendor No: Contract No:

Description of Services:

The parties to this STANDARD CONTRACT do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract are the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation (“the City”), and the following named Contractor:

Contractor Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No:
☐ A California corporation, ☐ limited liability corporation ☐ general partnership, ☐ limited partnership, ☐ individual, ☐ non-profit corporation, ☐ individual dba as [specify:] ____________________ ☐ other [specify:] _______________________________

2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is _______________________ and terminates _________________ unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.

3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $______________ (“Contract Payment Limit”) unless a Contract Amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager. If this amount includes a contingency, Contractor acknowledges that any use of such contingency shall be for work beyond the original scope of services and requires prior written authorization by the City. If noted below, Compensation for work done under this Contract, shall not exceed as follows:

FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________

4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor agrees to perform all work at its own cost and expense, to furnish all labor, tools, equipment, materials, except as otherwise specified, in accordance with the Service Plan set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

5. City Obligations. City shall make payments to the Contractor in accordance with the Payment Provisions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Finance Department Antonio Banuelos [email protected] (510) 620-6741 2758 To Prepare Impact Fee and Userr Fee Study for the City of Richmond Willdan Financial Services 66 Franklin Street Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 James Edison (510) 788-8871 [email protected] 40000555 April 1, 2026 June 30, 2028 59,230.00 811

6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C), attached hereto and incorporated herein.

7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

10. Sanctuary City Compliance Statement. This Contract is subject to the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement (Exhibit G), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

11. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation [BUSINESS NAME]
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice President should sign below)
By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ Title: ________________________ Title: __________________________ Date Signed: _________________ Date Signed: ___________________ I hereby certify that this Contract (* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer or Assistant has been approved by City Council Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant Secretary should or the City Manager. sign below)
By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ City Clerk Title: __________________________
Date Signed: ____________________
Approved as to form:
(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations Code Section By: _________________________ 313, if Contractor is a corporation or nonprofit organization, City Attorney this Contract (1) must be signed by (a) the Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice-President and (b) the
Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Treasurer, or
Secretary or Assistant Secretary)
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Exhibit G
Willdan Financial Services
812
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE PLAN
Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the Project Manager (set forth in Exhibit B), perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below [or attach service plan if necessary]:

Willdan Financial Services
Contractor shall perform the services described in the Work Plans and shall be compensated as set forth in the Cost Information Sheet in the following pages, which is incorporated herein by reference to the Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study. 813
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 8 City of Richmond, CA
Work Plans
Our proposed work plan, described in detail by task, is provided below. We explain how each task will be accomplished and identify associated meetings and deliverables. We want to ensure our scopes provides quality and clarity and is responsive to the City’s needs and specific local circumstances. We will work in concert with the City to adjust the scopes as needed during the course of the study.

Comprehensive User Fee Study
Task 1: Initial Document Request
Objective: Initial due diligence; obtain study-related data.

Description: Prior to the kick-off meeting, we will obtain and review relevant documentation to further enhance our understanding of the services, fees, and rates to be studied. A written request for data will be sent to the City. Please note that Time Survey data is not part of this request and will be gathered during the on-site interviews described in Task 5.

We will request information and documentation on current fees and fee programs, activity levels, and budget and staffing information (to the extent not already available) related specifically to programs and activities which have associated fees, and for which the City has this level of detail.

Since this engagement does not include a separate Cost Allocation Plan, we will ask the City to provide detail, analysis and background regarding their methodology for allocating costs associated with the provision of indirect support services to their operating groups and functions. This will be a key step in ensuring that the total cost of service that we calculate, which serves as the basis for setting fees, includes the cost of overhead support, in addition to the direct cost of providing fee-based services.

Deliverables: Willdan: Submit information request to City.

City: Provide requested data to Willdan (prior to Task 3, Kick-off Meeting/Refine Scope). We will follow up with the City to confirm receipt of requested data and information and highlight data elements that are outstanding.

Task 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees Objective: Willdan will identify a schedule of fees and methodology for calculating the fees.

Description: Based on the results of the initial document request and independent research, incorporate into our model the existing fees provided by the City, to comprise the parameters of the fee study.

Meetings: It is possible that a conference call with the City may be necessary to discuss new fees to implement or existing fees that may no longer be required.

Deliverables: Willdan: One (1) draft list of current fees based on initial data provided (to be discussed and finalized during the kick-off call).

City: Review completed fee schedule with comments/revisions to be discussed during the kick-off meeting.

Task 3: Kick-off Conference Call / Refine Scope
Objective: Confirm scope, goals and objectives for the Comprehensive User Fee Study. Identify and discuss policy considerations typically associated with a User Fee Study, address gaps in data, and refine appropriate existing or new fee categories (based on Task 2).

Description: Verify our understanding of the City’s goals, the City’s cost-recovery policy for user fees, and to fill any gaps in data/information necessary for the project. It is important for the City and Willdan to identify and address any foreseeable problems and maintain open communication throughout the process.

This Task will also include up to two (2) strategy sessions with the City Team to clarify and confirm the project’s direction, including the fee categories to be included in the Study.

During this call, we will ask that the City identify a project manager who will serve as the primary contact for the project. The project manager shall have responsibility for ensuring that all available data is provided in a timely manner, thereby maintaining adherence to the project’s schedule.

Meetings: One (1) project kick-off call to initiate the entire project, discuss data needs, and address policy objectives and up to two (2) virtual strategy sessions to confirm Study direction.

Deliverables: Willdan: 1) Revised project scope and schedule (if needed); and 2) brief summary of policy decisions (if needed).

City: 1) Provide further data needs; and 2) determine/introduce City’s project manager.

Task 4: Develop Comprehensive User Fee Model/Incorporate Overhead Factors Objective: Develop and test model.

Description: This task involves the development of the model ultimately used to calculate the departmental fees, based on data and information gathered in previous tasks and in the Time Survey Interviews described in Task 5.

Key model inputs will include staff and allocated overhead costs per position, and relevant budget data on staffing, salaries and benefits. As mentioned in Task 1, since this engagement does not include completion 814
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 9 City of Richmond, CA
of a Cost Allocation Plan, information related to the City’s methodology for allocating indirect overhead costs will be obtained directly from the City and incorporated into the user fee model. We will request clarification and/or additional data if necessary. We will also update, as appropriate, available fee volumes (occurrences) and revenue generation.

The Fee Study model will provide an allocation of administrative and overhead costs to fee related activities, so that fees and billable rate schedules incorporate applicable costs. Furthermore, the fees and rates charged to customers will also reflect the cost of the services being provided, to the extent possible given policy and/or political considerations.

Furthermore, the fees and rates charged to customers will also reflect the cost of the services being provided, to the extent possible given policy and/or political considerations.

Deliverables: Willdan: One (1) user-friendly model in Microsoft Excel format, which, when finalized, City staff can use to calculate fee changes annually, or as often as deemed appropriate by the City Council.

Task 5: Staff Interviews and On-site Information Gathering Objective: Meet with City staff to complete Time Surveys and understand service delivery processes.

Description: In order to assist staff with the completion of the survey worksheets, we will schedule one (1.0) day of meetings with staff; however, the number of meetings needed may vary depending on the number of staff and departments involved.

The Willdan Team will conduct interviews with supervisors/managers, as well as other staff, as deemed appropriate and/or necessary, from each department involved in the user fee study to gain an understanding of the City’s processes and operations, determine the average time required by City staff to provide each of the services for which a fee is collected, and conduct a review of the City’s current fees to be evaluated.

We will also discuss opportunities to develop and implement fees for services that are provided, but for which no fee currently exists.

The fee model is designed so that full cost recovery fees are calculated immediately upon input of staff time. These full costs are also compared to current cost recovery levels. This will allow Willdan and City staff to conclude with a final meeting to review the draft full cost recovery fees and adjust any times as necessary once all information has been compiled and input into the fee model. We will schedule the interviews with staff to minimize any disruption to their normal workflow.

Meetings: One (1.0) business days of meetings/staff interviews. Depending upon circumstances and availability, we may discuss the option with City Staff of conducting these meetings via WebEx or Zoom. We use these tools very successfully and found them to be highly effective and efficient, particularly for follow-up questions and/or discussions.

Deliverables: Willdan and City: Time surveys and draft full cost recovery fees.

Task 6: Data Analysis and Final User Fee Schedule
Objective: Incorporate information obtained from on-site surveys to fully develop model.

Description: We will update the model, based on information received during the on-site surveys, to generate a comprehensive user fee schedule. In addition, it is very common that a supplemental data request may be necessary, based on new fees identified that the City is not currently collecting.

Where appropriate, we will suggest and discuss with staff alternate approaches to existing fee programs (i.e., building fees) and suggest potential areas where fees could be collected where they are not currently.

We will calculate and present the full cost recovery level for fees, both current and projected under the new fees, and revenue projections, given certain assumptions about the levels of subsidy for different fees.

Current levels of cost recovery will be compared to actual full costs calculated during the course of this study. Cost will be calculated at reasonable activity levels and include all appropriate direct and indirect costs and overhead. We will review fee programs for compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.

In developing the fee schedules for each division, we will make recommendations for new fees where appropriate, based on our experience with other cities.

Some areas for new fees may be due to changes in law (legalized cannabis), or for activities that the City finds itself performing regularly, but for which no fee is collected.

The user fee data analysis and model development may take three (3) to five (5) weeks with frequent correspondence with City staff to refine data inputs and assumption and discuss current cost recovery amounts, necessary to recover full cost and frequency activity.

Meetings: One (1) meeting, as necessary, to gather additional input, complete analysis and finalize fee schedule.

Please see the note in Task 5 regarding in-person meetings.

Deliverables: Final user fee model for City Council presentation and discussion.

Task 7: Common Fees Comparison
Objective: Examine selected user fees charged by up to five (5) comparable cities in Contra Costa County or other jurisdictions that are close in proximity or similar to the City of Richmond. 815
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 10 City of Richmond, CA
Description: We will access and use our knowledge of other jurisdictions to benchmark the City’s five (5) most common visible fees or highest yielding fees with comparable jurisdictions.

Fee schedules are rarely readily or directly comparable from agency to agency due to definitional and operational differences. For example, a grading permit in one jurisdiction may include the plan check service, while the same permit in another jurisdiction may not, resulting in similar sounding services with widely varying costs. For this reason, Willdan takes a selection of the City’s most commonly used and/or highest yielding fees.

The survey will contain the following, a comparison of common or similar fees and charges used by the City and other jurisdictions; current and proposed fees and charges unique to the City of Richmond; fees and charges used by other public entities not currently used in the City; and If possible, identify characteristics and processes unique to the City that account for significant variances in fees and charges used by other jurisdictions.

Deliverables: Willdan: Recommendations provided in Task 8 will incorporate the data gathered during our examination.

Task 8: Prepare and Present Draft Report
Objective: Prepare draft report.

Description: This task involves the preparation of the draft report that discusses the study’s background, the methodologies utilized in the study, and the results and presentation to various stakeholder groups. As noted below, meetings may occur during this or the next task as appropriate. The calculations used to generate the user fee study will be included textually, as well as in easy to understand tables. Individual fee summaries by department and a comprehensive fee schedule will be included.

The draft report will include the following:
▪ Key results and findings;
▪ The scope and approach for the analysis completed and presented in the report; ▪ Basic descriptions of each service;
▪ The full cost of each service at lowest reasonable activity level and current cost recovery levels; ▪ Costs broken down graphically into indirect and direct components, with a graphic display of the level of cost recovery;
▪ Current and proposed fee recommendations with associate levels of cost recovery; ▪ Projections of potential fee revenue and revenue impacts; ▪ Assessment of reasonableness of each City’s costs;
▪ Fee comparisons from Task 7;
▪ Review of reasonableness of current consultant cost structure (for Building Division services); ▪ As appropriate, recommend alternative methodologies for building permit fee calculation; and ▪ Summary and recommendations.

The objective of the report is to communicate the recommendation of appropriate fees, which include the appropriate subsidy percentage for those fees where full cost recovery may be unrealistic.

Meetings: One (1) conference call with City staff, to present draft results, address questions, and receive feedback.

Deliverables: Willdan: Draft report for City review and comment.

City: Review of draft report, with comments and edits.

Task 9: Revise Draft Report/Determine Cost Recovery Levels for Recommended Adoption Objective: Review of draft report and fee model.

Description: The goal of this task is to conduct an in-depth review of the draft report and model, incorporate feedback and changes as a result of previous discussions, and arrive at an optimum fee structure.

Often through the course of an engagement, City staff and management will volunteer insightful likes and dislikes regarding the existing fee structure. We listen to this feedback carefully because your staff members know the community best.

Comments usually revolve around issues of:
▪ Understandability;
▪ Fairness to applicants;
▪ Ease of calculation;
▪ Appropriate levels of cost recovery; and
▪ Full cost recovery hourly rates.

When adjusting fee recovery levels, we believe it is important to address these concerns.

Following one (1) round of comments and feedback from City staff on the draft report, we will prepare the final report for presentation to the City Council.

Meetings: One (1) online demonstration (WebEx) to review the report and model, with any revisions.

Deliverables: Draft report, revised draft /final report. 816
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 11 City of Richmond, CA
Task 10: Prepare and Present Final Report/Instruct Staff on Model Objective: Prepare and present final report to City Council. Instruct staff on the operation and use of the model for future modifications. The model will allow for annual updates to cost assumptions, ad hoc fee analyses for hypothetical or future services, and flexible edits to reflect organizational or staffing changes, consistent with the City’s expectations for long-term usability.

Description: This task is the culmination of the entire project. Based on staff comments received regarding the draft report, we will prepare the final report for presentation.

Meetings: One (1) meeting with City Council to present the results, adopt the updated fee schedule, and complete the first reading of the ordinance to update the City’s Municipal Code. We will also provide staff training on the operation and use of the model on the same day, during regular business hours.

Deliverables: Provide one (1) electronic PDF file copy of the final report and models; in addition to providing (2) bound copies to the City. Using Microsoft Word and Excel, an updateable electronic copy of the study and models, as well as related schedules, will also be provided on CD.

Traffic Impact Fee Study
Willdan will work with the City to update its Traffic Impact Fee in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), AB 602, and other applicable laws. Our approach is tailored to address the City’s specific needs and evolving local conditions.

We will ensure that the updated fee is legally defensible, data-driven, and reflects best practices for funding transportation infrastructure related to new development.

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 transportation planning and funding programs. 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 updates to fee zones or categories within the Traffic Impact Fee; ▪ Adequacy of General Plan and other transportation-related plans; ▪ 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 related to transportation demand.

Description: Willdan will identify a base year for estimating existing levels of development and for calculating transportation facility standards based on current inventories (see Task 3). The analysis will include entitled or under-construction development that may be exempt from the Traffic Impact Fee program.

Consult with City staff to identify growth projections over a long-range planning horizon (typically 10 to 30 years), which will form the basis for determining future transportation infrastructure needs (see Task 4).

We will consider growth projections from the City’s General Plan, regional agencies (e.g., MTC/ABAG), and any recent transportation planning documents. If necessary, City staff may provide growth estimates by zone or district. To convert land use projections into transportation demand, we will develop appropriate metrics (such as trip generation, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or square footage) to measure traffic impacts. Selection of methodology will be based on.

Select appropriate approach for each impact fee based on:
▪ Available local data on traffic generation by land use type; ▪ Approaches used in similar jurisdictions; and
▪ Support for other agency policy objectives.

Changes to projections during the course of the study may result in additional effort and would require prior City approval
817
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 12 City of Richmond, CA
Final growth estimates and assumptions will be confirmed with City staff before proceeding with subsequent tasks.

Task 3: Determine Facility Standards
Note: Conduct Tasks 3, 4, and 5 separately for each intended facility 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: Establish transportation facility standards needed to serve growth.

Description: Identify and evaluate possible facility standards depending upon the facility type, current facility inventory data, and available facility planning documents, including the long range transportation study currently in progress. Consider use of: (1) adopted policy standards (e.g., General Plan, master facility plans, and transportation plans); (2) standards derived from existing facility inventories; or (3) standards derived from a list of planned facility projects. Use metrics such as roadway level of service (LOS), vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thresholds, and multimodal infrastructure needs to inform appropriate facility standards. City staff to provide applicable policies, inventories, and project lists. Willdan will work with the City to identify additional transportation-related costs that may be eligible for funding under AB 602.

Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs
Objective: Identify type, amount, and cost of transportation improvements required to serve growth.

Description: Quantify total planned transportation facilities based on growth projections from Task 2 and facility standards from Task 3. Express planned improvements either as a specific list of transportation capital projects (e.g., intersection improvements, roadway widening, multimodal enhancements), or in general quantities such as lane miles or signalized intersections.

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).

Use one of three cost allocation methods (existing inventory, system plan, or planned facilities) to allocate costs. Gather planning-level data on transportation improvement costs using lump sum project estimates or unit costs and quantities (e.g., lane miles, signalized intersections).

Consider recent City experience, local market data (such as land and construction costs), and consultant team experience from prior projects. Inflate older cost estimates to the 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 detailed traffic engineering or new traffic studies. Any such services may be provided under a separate contract with Willdan Engineering or another third party. However, Willdan can use rough descriptions and comparables to calculate reasonable planning-level cost estimates sufficient for the Traffic Impact Fee study
Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives
Objective: Determine the extent of alternative (non-fee) funding available to support the Transportation Fee Program.

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 transportation improvements to be funded predominantly on a pay-as-you-go basis. This scope does not include a detailed financing cash flow analysis to evaluate the timing of fee revenues or financing costs.

Task 6: Fee Comparison
Objective: Compare proposed Richmond transportation fees with those of comparable/surrounding jurisdictions in neighboring and/or similarly sized municipalities.

Description: Willdan will compare Richmond’s proposed traffic impact fee with a total of four nearby or similarly sized cities, to be selected by the City.
818
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 13 City of Richmond, CA
Willdan will also identify any transportation-related fees imposed in those jurisdictions that are not currently charged in Richmond. The comparison will also include how fee credits are earned, tracked, and potentially transferred between projects, per RFP requirements
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report
Objective: Deliver a comprehensive, technically defensible, AB 602-compliant Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study.

Description: Generate a fee schedule to apportion transportation 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, documenting each step of the analysis, including a schedule of maximum justified fees by facility type and 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 an administrative draft report. Following one (1) round of comments on the administrative draft, prepare a public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public, and elected officials. This public review draft will be presented at stakeholder meetings and at a Council informational session.

Prepare the final report, if necessary, based on comments received on the public draft report. If requested, post the report on our website for public access. Include required 30-day notice language per AB 602, and 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: 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. 819
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 19 City of Richmond, CA
F. Cost Information
Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) proposes a fixed fee of $59,230 for the Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study.

Comprehensive User Fee Study
Willdan Financial Services proposes a fixed fee of $33,910 for the Comprehensive User Fee Study.

Traffic Impact Fee Study
Willdan Financial Services proposes a fixed fee of $25,320 for the Traffic Impact Fee Study.

Traffic Impact Fee Review Notes:
▪ The fee denoted above includes attendance at four in-person meetings with City staff, stakeholders, and City Council. ▪ Attendance at more than four meetings will be billed at the per meeting fee. Attendance at additional on-site meetings or presentations will be $2,000 per meeting; attendance at additional remote meetings or presentations will be $1,000 per meeting.
▪ 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.
820
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 20 City of Richmond, CA
Rates for Additional Professional Services
Our current hourly rates are listed below.

Willdan Financial Services
Hourly Rate Schedule
Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Vice President / Director Chris Fisher $310
Managing Principal James Edison $300
Principal Consultant
Tony Thrasher
Carlos Villarreal
Bob Quaid
$270
Senior Project Manager $250
Project Manager Priti Patel $210
Senior Project Analyst $150
Senior Analyst Samantha Labitan $135
Analyst II $120
Analyst I $110
Notes
▪ Our fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project. ▪ We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed. ▪ Additional services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting rates.
▪ 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.
▪ If the City wishes for Willdan to attend additional in-person meetings, the fee is $2,000 per meeting. ▪ The cost of preparing the user fee study can be included in the resulting new user fee schedule. Therefore, over time, the City can recover the initial outlay of funds that was required to complete the studies. ▪ 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. 821
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT PROVISIONS

1. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:
a. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated in the manner set forth herein.
b. All payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photocopying, meals and travel, etc.). Invoices shall be adequately detailed, based on accurate records, and be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. Contractor may be required to provide back-up material upon request. c. All City vendors receiving new contracts shall sign up to receive electronic payments through the City’s Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) payments service/provider.

2. SUBMISSION OF INVOICES:

Contractor shall submit timely invoices by email to
[email protected] and/or to the following address:

Attention: City of Richmond Finance/Account Payable
Project Manager: _______________________
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804

3. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City Project Manager, _______________________, before payments shall be authorized.
a. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days after completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.
b. All appropriate permits, certificates, and licenses, including a City business license shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of this Contract before any payment is authorized.

4. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract is executed by the City. The insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be maintained by Contractor for the duration of this Contract and must be in place before any payment is authorized.

Antonio Banuelos Antonio Banuelos Willdan Financial Services 822
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT C

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES

1. All required written notices shall be delivered: (i) by hand; or (ii) sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service; or (iii) sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective address listed in this Section.

2. Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of:
actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused; or three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above (Sundays and City holidays excepted).

3. Either party may, at any time, change its notice address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party three (3) days prior written notice of the new address.

4. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to the City shall be addressed to the City at:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Email: ________________________________________________

5. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at:

Attn:

Email: ________________________________________________ Antonio Banuelos [email protected] Willdan Financial Services Willdan Financial Services 66 Franklin Street Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 [email protected] 823
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:

Contractor hereby declares that Contractor is engaged as an independent business and Contractor agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor.

The manner and means of conducting the services and tasks are under the control of Contractor except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Contract. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Contractor’s services. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from any compensation due to Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.

2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:

Contractor and the City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Contract.

3. STANDARD OF CARE:

Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service Contractors, as applicable, in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City.

4. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):

Contractor assumes all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.

5. NON-DISCRIMINATION:

Consistent with the City’s policy and state and federal law that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Contractor and its employees, contractors, and agents shall not harass or discriminate against any job applicant, City employee, or any other person on the basis of any kind of any statutorily (federal, state or local) protected class, including but not limited to: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, Willdan Financial Services
824
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
disability (both mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, medical condition (e.g. cancer), genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, political affiliation, military and veteran status or legitimate union activities. Contractor agrees that any violation of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.

6. CITY PROPERTY:
a. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, applicable plans, drawings, calculation, data, specification, video, graphic, or any other material or document produced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the City. b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 11 below, indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data. c. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval of the City Manager or their designee. d. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City Manager or their designee may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services and tasks required under this Contract.

7. RECORDS:
a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services, tasks, work, documents and data in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Contractor’s performance under the Contract, as well as maintain books and records related to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of the services and tasks under this Contract (collectively the “Records”).
b. All Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the Records to the representatives of the City or its designees during regular business hours upon reasonable prior notice. The City has the right to examine and audit the Records, and to make copies or transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all proceedings and activities related to this Contract. Such Records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained by Contractor for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment.

Willdan Financial Services
825
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. If supplemental examination or audit of the Records is necessary due to concerns raised by the City’s preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City’s supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of this Contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.

8. PERMITS AND LICENSES:

Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City business license, required in connection with the performance of the services and tasks hereunder.

The failure to obtain such permits and licenses shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.

9. TERMINATION:
a. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder immediately upon transmission of written notice to Contractor as provided in Exhibit C “Authorized Representatives and Notices”.
b. Termination in the Event of Default. Should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Contract, City may immediately terminate this Contract by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination. Contractor shall be compensated as provided in Exhibit B; provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, if any, sustained by City by virtue of Contractor's breach of this Contract. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest (as defined under any federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation, or at common law) with respect to this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges, represents and warrants that no City official or employee has any economic interest, as defined in Title 2, California Code of Regulations §§ 18703.1 through 18703.5, with Contractor that would invalidate this Contract. Contractor acknowledges that in the event that Contractor shall be found by any judicial or administrative body to have any conflict of interest (as defined above) with respect to this Contract, all consideration received under Willdan Financial Services
826
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.

11. HOLD HARMLESS:
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, obligations, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses whatsoever, including attorney’s fees and costs of litigation (“Claims”), arising from or in any manner connected to Contractor’s performance of its obligations under this Contract or failure to comply with any of its obligations under this Contract or out of the operations conducted by Contractor even if the City is found to have been negligent. If the Claims filed against Indemnitees allege negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct on the part of Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct is not found on the part of Contractor. Contractor shall not have any obligations to indemnify Indemnitees if the loss or damage is found to have resulted solely from the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract. b. This indemnification obligation shall survive this Contract and shall not be limited by any term of any insurance policy required under this Contract; provided however, that if this Contract is for design professional services, this indemnity provision is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional (as defined in California Civil Code section 2782.8).

12. LIMITATIONS UPON SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT:
a. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee.
b. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Contract, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of the City Manager. Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to transfer to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the desired transfer.

The City Manager or their designee may consent or reject such request in their sole and absolute discretion. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for Willdan Financial Services
827
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
money against the City under this Contract may be assigned by Contractor to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. c. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor (if applicable), or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member if Contractor is a partnership or jointventure or syndicate, which shall result in a change of control of Contractor, shall be deemed an assignment. For this purpose, control shall mean fifty percent or more of the voting power or twenty-five percent or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture.
d. Only those persons and/or businesses whose names and resumés are attached to this Contract shall be used in the performance of this Contract. However, if after the start of this Contract, Contractor wishes to use sub-contractors, at no additional costs to the City, then Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to add subcontractors including the names of the sub-contractors and the reasons for the request to the City Manager at least five (5) days in advance. The City Manager may consent or reject such requests in their sole and absolute discretion. e. Each sub-contractor shall be required to furnish proof of workers’ compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance (as applicable) in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor.
f. In addition, any tasks or services performed by sub-contractors shall be subject to each provision of this Contract. Contractor shall include the following language in their Contract with any sub-contractor: “Sub-Contractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to the City.”
g. The requirements in this Section 12 shall not apply to persons who are merely providing materials, supplies, data or information that Contractor then analyzes and incorporates into its work product.

13. SAFETY:
a. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of all vehicles owned or operated by Contractor, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the services and tasks under this Contract.

Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any of subcontractor's employees This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. In addition, Contractor will comply with all safety provisions in conformance with U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Act, any equivalent state law, and all other applicable Willdan Financial Services
828
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, codes, and any regulations that may be detailed in other parts of the Contract. Where any of these are in conflict, the more stringent requirements will be followed. Contractor’s failure to thoroughly familiarize itself with the aforementioned safety provisions will not relieve it from compliance with the obligations and penalties set forth herein.
b. Contractor will immediately notify the City (in no event less than 24 hours) of any incident of death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage that occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract. Contractor will promptly submit to the City a written report of all incidents that occur in connection with this Contract. This report must include the following information: (i) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); (ii) name and address of Contractor’s employee(s) involved in the incident; (iii) name and address of Contractor’s liability insurance carrier; (iv) a detailed description of the incident; and (v) a police report.
c. Contractor acknowledges that the City shall have the right to impose, at the City’s sole discretion, requirements that it deems are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City employees, residents, and visitors. Contractor agrees to comply with all such requirements, including, but not limited to, mandatory vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. masks), physical distancing, and health screenings.

Contractor also agrees to make available to the City, at the City’s request, records to demonstrate Contractor’s compliance with this Section.

14. INSURANCE:

Insurance requirements are set forth in Exhibit F to this Contract. Contractor shall abide by the insurance requirements set forth in said Exhibit F.

15. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS:
a. During the term of this Contract, Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future state and federal laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Richmond which affect the manner in which the services or tasks are to be performed by Contractor, as well as all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, state and federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50,

2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable.
b. Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor is required to provide the City with documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall notify each of its affected employees with regards to the wages that are required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance as prescribed in § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code.

Willdan Financial Services
829
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or sub-Contractor under an agreement or sub-agreement with the City for public works, goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential sub-contractor. d. Contractor acknowledges that the City’s Drug Free Workplace Policy, Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the City’s website at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/workplacepolicies.

Contractor agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of said policies.

16. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:

The Recitals and exhibits are a material part of this Contract and are expressly incorporated herein. This Contract represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only by written execution signed by both the City and Contractor.

17. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS:

In the event of a conflict between these General Conditions and those of any Exhibit or attachment hereto, these General Conditions shall prevail; provided, however, that any Special Condition as set forth in Exhibit E shall prevail over these General Conditions. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any two or more Exhibits or attachments hereto, those prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by the Contractor, and the terms and conditions preferred by the City shall prevail over those preferred by the Contractor.

18. FORCE MAJEURE:

Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of such an obligation is prevented or delayed by reason of acts of God, strikes, boycotts, lock-outs, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, failure of power, restrictive governmental laws and regulations enacted after the date of this Contract, riots, civil unrest, acts of terrorism, insurrection, war, declaration of a state or national emergency or other reasons of a like nature not within the reasonable control of such party.

19. CONFLICT OF LAW:

This Contract shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of Willdan Financial Services
830
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
California without regard to any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Contract and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Contract (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Contract shall be filed with the courts of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.

20. CLAIMS:

Any claim by Contractor against City hereunder shall be subject to Government Code §§ 800 et seq. The claims presentation provisions of said Act are hereby modified such that the presentation of all claims hereunder to the City shall be waived if not made within six months after accrual of the cause of action.

21. INTERPRETATION:

This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.

22. WARRANTY:

If any product is be provided to the City as part of this Contract, Contractor warrants as follows: Contractor possesses good title to the product and the right to transfer the product to City; the product shall be delivered to the City free from any security interest or other lien; the product meets any specifications contained herein; the product shall be free from material defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of one (1) year from the date of delivery; and the product shall be fit for its intended purpose(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, consumable and maintenance items (such as light bulbs and batteries) shall be warranted for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of delivery. All repairs during the warranty period shall be promptly performed by Contractor, at Contractor's expense, including shipping.

23. SEVERABILITY:

In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.

24. AUTHORITY:

City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that they are duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, Willdan Financial Services
831
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
and shall be personally liable to City if they are not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.

25. WAIVER:

The waiver by City of any breach of any term or provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. Inspections or approvals, or statements by any officer, agent or employee of the City relating to the Contractor’s performance, or payment therefore, or any combination of these acts, shall not relieve the Contractor’s obligation to fulfill this Contract as prescribed; nor shall the City be thereby stopped from bringing any action for damages or enforcement arising from any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Contract.

26. COUNTERPARTS:

This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts (including by fax, PDF, DocuSign, or other electronic means), each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

27. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE (SCCO):

The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G.

Willdan Financial Services
832
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT E

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable, otherwise please state “NONE”):

Willdan Financial Services
Section 11 c. is added to read as follows: Limitation of Liability: Consultant's liability for claims arising out of the performance of Services of this Contract shall not exceed the amounts paid to Consultant for the Services. Consultant shall in no event be liable for indirect, consequential or special damages whether arising out of tort, contract or otherwise.
833
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT F

INSURANCE PROVISIONS
☐ CHECK HERE IF RISK MANAGEMENT HAS APPROVED WAIVING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CONTRACT.

1. CERTIFICATES: Before the commencement of the terms of this Contract, and during the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, Contractor shall furnish the City’s Risk Manager with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with coverage requirements set forth by the City and incorporated herein.

Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor’s indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement:
“Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of Richmond.

Attention: Risk Manager.”
Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Contract all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Contract with an insurance company licensed to offer insurance business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII or Standard & Poor’s Rating (if rated) of at least BBB unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Contractor shall deliver updated insurance certificates to the City at the address set forth in Exhibit C prior to the expiration of the existing insurance certificate for the duration of the term of Contract.

Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.

2. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS: The City’s insurance requirements depend upon the type of service being provided and/or the provider. The City’s insurance requirements will fall into one of the following categories (unless otherwise provided by the City):

Consultants and Contractors – Type 1
Professional Services – Type 2
Environmental Risk/Hazardous Waste Material – Type 3
Lease of City Property – Type 4
Vendors, Suppliers, Small Grant Recipients & Nonprofit Organizations – Type 5 Transportation Providers – Type 6
Professional Services Pyrotechnics – Type 7
Cyber and I.T. Risks – Type 8
Willdan Financial Services
834
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
The insurance requirements classification applicable to this Contract shall be attached to this Exhibit F and made a part hereof.

3. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in Contractor’s name or as an agent of Contractor and shall be compensated by Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.

4. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor’s insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Contractor. The coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Contract; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of the coverage carried by or available to Contractor; whichever is greater.

INSERT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CLASSIFICATION APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT: (IF NECESSARY, CONFIRM WITH RISK MANAGER)
Willdan Financial Services
835
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

EXHIBIT G

SANCTUARY CITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
The undersigned, (hereafter "Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”).

Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:
a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:
i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies;
ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.
b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.

Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.

By executing this statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

Willdan Financial Services
836