CITY OF RICHMOND
Proposal
User Fee and Traffic Impact Fee Studies
CALIFORNIA
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
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, i t 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 goal s, 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 unabl e 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.
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 pro posal, 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.
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 upda te 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-the-
fly adjustments and updates.
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 ea sy 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 analysi s. 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 model s 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 effect s 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.
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.
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 fee - generating service. Typically, these items are charged, on an item - by-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 st ring 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.
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. Flexibil ity also enables us to avoid excessive engineering costs associated with detailed facility planning. We calculate t he 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 publ ic 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 ca n 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.
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 ar e 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 shar e 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. Th e 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.
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 assessment s 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 commu nity 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.
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 scope s provides quality and clarity and is responsive to the City’s needs and specific local circumstances. We will work in conce rt 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 op erating 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
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.
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 jurisdicti on 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 nex t 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.
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
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.
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 interest ed 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, opin ions 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 amendmen ts thereto; an d (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
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 proj ect 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.
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.
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.
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 charg ed 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 fa irly 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 f or 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 act ivities 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]
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 ◆
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 schedul e listed below. These additional fees shall only take effect once the fixed fee stated above has been exceeded.
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 .
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 21
City of Richmond, CA
Forms
D – Sanctuary City Compliance
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study 22
City of Richmond, CA
G – Disclosure for Limited Liability Corporation
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.
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 mortgage - backed 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 a nalysts 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.
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 th ese 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, d atabase 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 C omprehensive 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 Excel- based 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 allocate d 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 C omprehensive 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.
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 A nalyst within Willdan’s Financial Consulting and District Administration Services groups. M s. 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 P arcel 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 full - cost 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 analy tical support, Ms.
Labitan provided assistance to the project team. Primary duties include d 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. M s. 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, M s. 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 C omprehensive 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
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 infrastructur e 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 ins truments 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. F ee categories includ ed 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.
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. F ee 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, l aw enforcement, g eneral 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.
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 include s 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
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-4856
951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com