Agenda packet — City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing Authority, February 10, 2026

Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

Page 1 of 7 ends

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD CITY OF RIVERBANK
Regular City Council and Local
Redevelopment Authority Board
Meetings
Mayor/Chair
Rachel Hernandez
Council/Authority Members
District 1 — Luis Uribe
District 2 — Cindy Fosi
Vice Mayor, District 3 — John Pimentel
District 4 — Stacy Call
Council Chambers
6707 Third Street, Suite B
Riverbank, CA 95367
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026 — 6:00 PM
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTP://WWW.RIVERBANK.ORG/AGENDACENTER)

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. FLAG SALUTE

3. INVOCATION

4. ROLL CALL

5. AGENDA CHANGES

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any Council/Authority Member who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time.Pursuant to Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act), any Council /Authority Member who has received a contribution of $500 or more within the preceding 12 months from a party, participant, or their agent related to an item on the agenda must disclose that contribution on the record prior to participation in the discussion or decision on the item and may be required to recuse themselves, as applicable.

7. PRESENTATIONS (Informational only)
Item 7.1. Presentation to Review the Cheese and Wine Festival 2025 and Plans for the 2026 Cheese and Wine Festival

8. PUBLIC COMMENTS (No action can be taken)
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda, and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/LRA Board. Individual comments will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes (or as stated by the presiding Officer) and time cannot be yielded to another person. Under State law, matters presented during the public comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon.

Refer to the last page of this agenda for the Public Comment Procedures via ZOOM.

Page 1 of 92 ends

Page 2 of 7 ends

IN PERSON COMMENTS: Please fill out a Comment Card and return it to the City Clerk.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR (No obligation to read aloud)
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council/LRA Board unless requested by an individual Council/Authority Member or member of the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by motion of the City Council/LRA Board.

Item 9.1. Waiver of Readings
Item 9.2. Approval of the City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Meeting Minutes for January 27, 2026.

Item 9.3. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Willdan Financial Services to assist the Community Development Department with Updating the Citywide System Development Fee (SDF) Program

10. NEW BUSINESS
Item 10.1. Resolution Approving a Commercial Lease Agreement for 3313 Santa Fe Street (APN 132-009-056) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Said Agreement

11. COMMENTS/REPORTS
A brief report on notable attendance of a meeting or conference or other notable topics of City business shall be made. The Brown Act does not allow for discussion or action of items by the City Council/LRA Board during this time.

Item 11.1. Staff
Item 11.2. Council/Authority Member
Item 11.3. Mayor/Chair

12. CLOSED SESSION
The public will have a limit of 3 minutes to comment on Closed Session item(s) as set forth on the agenda prior to the City Council/LRA Board recessing to Closed Session Item 12.1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela H. Garcia
Employee Organizations: Riverbank Mid-Management Employee Item 12.2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela H. Garcia
Employee Organizations: Riverbank Miscellaneous Employees

Page 2 of 92 ends

Page 3 of 7 ends

Item 12.3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela H. Garcia
Employee Organizations: Unrepresented Contract Employees Item 12.4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Govt. Code § 54956.8)
Property: 3300 Atchison Rd. (APN: 132-009-069)
Agency Negotiator: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Property Negotiator: Del Rio City Center, LLC.

Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
Item 12.5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL– ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation (Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)) Number of Potential Cases:1

13. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Item 13.1. Report from Item 13.1

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela H. Garcia
Employee Organizations: Riverbank Mid-Management Employee Association Item 13.2. Report from Item 13.2

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela H. Garcia
Employee Organizations: Riverbank Miscellaneous Employees Item 13.3. Report from Item 13.3

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela H. Garcia
Employee Organizations: Unrepresented Contract Employees Item 13.4. Report from Item 13.4

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Govt. Code § 54956.8)
Property: 3300 Atchison Rd. (APN: 132-009-069)
Agency Negotiator: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Property Negotiator: Del Rio City Center, LLC.

Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
Item 13.5. Report from Item 13.5
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL– ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant Exposure to Litigation (Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)) Number of Potential Cases:1

Page 3 of 92 ends

Page 4 of 7 ends

14. ADJOURNMENT
The Next Regular City Council Meeting will be on Tuesday, February 24, 2026.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted at the meeting location, on the North City Hall public exterior bulletin board, South City Hall public exterior Bulletin, Riverbank Community Center exterior bulletin, and the City’s website 72 hours prior to the meeting in accordance to the California Ralph M. Brown Act.

Posted this 5th Day of February, 2026
/s/Gabriela Hernandez, CMC, City Clerk

ADA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, the City will make every effort to make reasonable modifications or accommodations from individuals with disabilities. Contact the Administration Dept. at (209) 863-7122 or the City Clerk at [email protected] at least (48) hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for accessibility.

NOTICE REGARDING NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
Pursuant to California Constitution Article III, Section IV, establishing English as the official language for the State of California, and in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedures Section 185, which requires proceedings before any State Court to be in English, notice is hereby given that all proceedings before the City of Riverbank City Council/LRA Board shall be in English and anyone wishing to address the Council is required to have a translator present who will take an oath to make an accurate translation from any language not English into the English language.

How to Use Live Spanish Translation/ Como Usar Traducción en Español En Vivo STEP 1/PASO 1 STEP 2/PASO 2 STEP 3/PASO 3

Page 4 of 92 ends

Page 5 of 7 ends

Scan QR Code Choose Spanish Language Read Captions on Device Use Headset for Audio
Escanea el código Escoja el idioma Español Lea subtítulos en su aparato Use auriculares para audio
https://attend.wordly.ai/join/LHDA-5715

Page 5 of 92 ends

Page 6 of 7 ends

TELECONFERENCE/VIRTUAL PLATFORM PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

COMMENT PROCEDURES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN

CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT
PUBLIC "LIVE" VIEWING
• Government Channels: Charter — 2 and AT&T U-VERSE — 99 • YouTube Live — City of Riverbank
• Via ZOOM Platform (See instructions below)

SUBMITTING PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD
Written comments must be received before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting in order for them to be distributed to the Council prior to consideration of the matter.

Written comments will not be read aloud at the meeting, but will be reported as received for the record. If you do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt within an hour of submission or by 5:00 p.m., please call the City Clerk's Office at (209) 863-7198 or the Administration Dept. at (209) 863- 7122.

ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF SUBMITTING COMMENTS BEFORE THE 5:00 PM DEADLINE • Via Mail Service: Mail comments to City of Riverbank, Attn: City Clerk, 6707 Third Street, Suite A, Riverbank, CA 95367. (Call 209-863-7198 / 209-863-7122 to ensure they were received.)
• Via Email: [email protected]
(Note: This technology is not a guaranteed method.)
o Indicate Agenda Item # in the subject line. (Call 209-863-7198 / 209-863-7122 to ensure receipt.)
• Oral Comments In-Person: The Mayor will ask the public if anyone wishes to comment, at that time you may approach the podium.
• Oral Comments Via Zoom:The Mayor will announce when public comments may be made for a limit of 3 minutes on the agenda item being considered, at which time you will:
o Using a computer — click on the “raise hand” feature in the webinar controls.

This will alert staff that you wish to speak, and you will be unmuted. o Using a Phone — press *9 to “raise the hand”. This will alert staff that you wish to speak, and you will be unmuted.
o (Please make sure the volume on your device is on and that any nearby device or any nearby device is turned down.)
Teleconference Phone Number: (This system is a backup for ZOOM technical difficulties only when providing oral comments.) If there are technical difficulties or disconnection with ZOOM

Page 6 of 92 ends

Page 7 of 7 ends

while making oral comments, please immediately call the teleconference phone number (209) 863-7151 so that Council may receive your comments. Council will be waiting for your call.

Thank you.

JOIN THE MEETING VIA ZOOM PLATFORM
Join by this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81500912873 Join by accessing website: https://zoom.us/join — enter Webinar ID: 815 0091 2873 Join by telephone: 1 669 444 9171 OR 1 669 900 9128, plus Webinar ID: 815 0091 2873 Learn about using ZOOM - Visit https://zoom.us/j/ for a free account or to download the app.

Page 7 of 92 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 7.1. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.1.

SECTION : PRESENTATIONS
Meeting Date: 2/10/2026
Subject: Presentation to Review the Cheese and Wine Festival 2025 and Plans for the 2026 Cheese and Wine Festival
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Michael Patton, Director of Parks & Recreation

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receives a presentation from Michael Patton, Director of Parks and Recreation, regarding a review of the Cheese and Wine Festival 2025 and a preview of the Cheese and Wine Festival for 2026.

SUMMARY
The Riverbank Parks and Recreation Department is providing a presentation on the Cheese and Wine Festival that occurred on October 11th, 2025.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This presentation will highlight the city's largest annual community event which has direct correlation with the vision outlined in the Strategic Plan. The vision is "Riverbank is a regional leader in sustainable development offering a unique, culturally diverse, safe, and welcoming community with a thriving downtown, recreational opportunities for all ages and abilities, and a sustainable economy — collaborating with local and regional partners."

BACKGROUND
In 2024, the City of Riverbank Parks and Recreation Department began overseeing the annual Cheese and Wine Festival. Since this shift in oversight, the department has provided presentations to the City Council and the public to provide transparency in the planning, development, and execution of the festival.

In this presentation, the Parks and Recreation Department will be providing a review of the Cheese and Wine Festival in 2025. This review will include what went well, what didn't go well, improvements to include in future years, and discussion of the revenues

Page 8 of 92 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 7.1. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026
and expenditures from the festival. The presentation will also include plans for the festival in 2026.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
This presentation does not have a financial impact.

ATTACHMENTS
None

Page 9 of 92 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 9.1. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.1.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 2/10/2026
Subject: Waiver of Readings
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council / LRA Board approve the waiver of readings of any proposed ordinances and resolutions for consideration, except by title.

SUMMARY
In lieu of reading the entire text of a proposed ordinance or resolution that is introduced for consideration for adoption and approval, by majority vote, the City Council/LRA Board may waive the reading of the text and introduce the ordinance or resolution by title only for the record.

The full text of the proposed ordinances and resolutions, and any related documents that are part of the agenda packet, are available for review by the public on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall (North) upon distribution to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board; typically 72 hours prior to the scheduled date and time of the meeting.

STRATEGIC PLAN
Waiver of reading supports the City’s 2025–2030 Strategic Plan by promoting efficient and transparent decision-making.

BACKGROUND
The full readings are being waived to allow theCity Council/LRA Board to introduce and consider the items in a timely and efficient manner. The items have been provided to the City Council/LRA Board in advance of the meeting for review.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this report.

Page 10 of 92 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 9.1. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026

ATTACHMENTS
None

Page 11 of 92 ends

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 9.2. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.2.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 2/10/2026
Subject: Approval of the City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Meeting Minutes for January 27, 2026.

From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/ Local Redevelopment Authority Board approve the City Council/LRA Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2026.

SUMMARY
The Draft Minutes of the City Council and the Local Redevelopment Authority Board meeting have been prepared for review and approval.

STRATEGIC PLAN
Preparation and approval of the meeting minutes align with the City’s 2025–2030 Strategic Plan core values of transparency and accountability.

BACKGROUND
The meeting minutes provide an official record of the actions taken and discussions held during the City Council Meetings. Staff prepares the minutes in accordance with applicable laws and established procedures, and they are presented for review and approval to ensure accuracy and transparency.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Minutes 01-27-2026

2. Exhibit A-Letter from Bill Lyons

Page 12 of 92 ends

Page 1 of 10 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 01/27/2026
0 MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2026 – 6:00 P.M.
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTP://WWW.RIVERBANK.ORG/AGENDACENTER)

1. CALL TO ORDER -Mayor / Chair Hernandez called the meeting to order at 6:00pm

2. FLAG SALUTE –Vice Mayor Pimentel led the pledge of allegiance.

3. INVOCATION – Reverend Randy Richardson provided the Invocation.

4. ROLL CALL – City Clerk Hernandez conducted Roll Call.

Members of the City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority Board present:

Council Member / Authority Member District 1 Luis Uribe Council Member/ Authority Member District 2 Cindy Fosi
Council Member / Authority Member District 4 Stacy Call Vice Mayor / Vice Chair District 3 John Pimentel
Mayor / Chair Rachel Hernandez

5. AGENDA CHANGES
No Agenda Changes.

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any Council/Authority Member or Staff who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time.

None Declared.

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
Mayor/Chair
Rachel Hernandez
Council/Authority Members:

District 1-Luis Uribe
District 2-Cindy Fosi
Vice Mayor -District 3-John Pimentel
District 4-Stacy Call

CITY OF RIVERBANK
Regular City Council and
Local Redevelopment Authority
Board Meetings
Council Chambers
6707 Third Street, Suite B
Riverbank, CA 95367

Page 13 of 92 ends

Page 2 of 10 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 01/27/2026

7. PRESENTATIONS (Informational only)
No Items Scheduled.

8. PUBLIC COMMENTS (No action can be taken)
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda, and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/LRA Board. Individual comments will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes (or as stated by the presiding Officer) and time cannot be yielded to another person. Under State Law, matters presented during the public comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon.

Mayor Hernandez opened the Public Comment Period at 6:03 P.M.

Julia Hernandez, Sierra House Facilitator to introduce herself and share her background. Also, provided info regarding services provided at Sierra House.

Mayor Hernandez closed the Public Comment Period at 6:06 P.M.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR (No Obligation to Read Aloud)
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council/LRA Board unless requested by an individual Council/Authority Member or member of the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by motion of the City Council/LRA Board.

Item 9.1 Waive Readings. All Readings of ordinances and resolutions, except by title, are waived.

Item 9.2 Approval of the City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Minutes for January 13, 2026.

Item 9.3 Resolution 2026-004 to Approve the Award of the Pest Control Contract to Clark Pest Control
Item 9.4 Resolution 2026-005 to Approve and Adopt 2026 City of Riverbank Measure L Expenditure Plan Project List
Item 9.5 Second Reading by Title Only and Introduction of a Proposed Ordinance 2026-001 Amending Chapters 150 (BUILDING
REGULATIONS) and 157 (WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION) of Title XV: LAND USAGE, by Amending and Adopting by Reference the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 & 12, Including Identified Appendices).

There being no public comments, Mayor Hernandez brought the item back to City Council.

Page 14 of 92 ends

Page 3 of 10 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 01/27/2026
ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Fosi / Call 5/0) to approve Consent Calendar as presented.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Call, Pimentel, and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

10. PUBLIC HEARING
The Public Notice for Item 11.1 was published on 01/14/2026 in the Riverbank Newspaper.

Item 10.1 A Resolution to Adopt the New Fee Schedule of Park Amenities, Rentals, Recreation Programs, and Events for the City of Riverbank- It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a Resolution to approve the fees for Park Amenities, Rentals, Recreation Programs, and Events for the City of Riverbank offered with associated fees that are highlighted in Exhibit A.

Director of Parks & Recreation Patton gave a comprehensive staff report and PowerPoint presentation on the proposed new fee schedule of parks amenities, rentals recreation programs, and events.

City Council discussed item with staff.

Mayor Hernandez opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.

Mayor Hernandez Closed the public hearing at 6:41 p.m.

There being no further public comment Mayor Hernandez brought the item back to city council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Uribe / Fosi 5/0) approve Resolution 2026-006 adopting the fee schedule for Park Amenities, Rentals, Recreation Programs, and events for the City of Riverbank.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Call, Pimentel, and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

11. NEW BUSINESS
Item 11.1 Presentation by Chief Ridenour on Current Staffing Allocations and Five-Year Plan for Riverbank Police Services and to Consider a Resolution Authorizing the Reallocation of One Community Resource Deputy Position to a Patrol Deputy Position.- It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from Chief Ridenour on the current

Page 15 of 92 ends

Page 4 of 10 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 01/27/2026
staffing allocation for Riverbank Police Services and the proposed five-year staffing plan. The Council is asked to consider a Resolution reallocating the already approved Community Resource Deputy position to a Patrol Deputy.

Alternatively, the Council may provide feedback and direction on reallocation and staffing requests, or request that staff research other options.

Chief Ridenour gave a comprehensive staff report and PowerPoint presentation on the current staffing allocations and five-year plan for Riverbank Police Services and the consideration of the reallocation of one community resource deputy position to a patrol deputy position.

City Council discussed item with staff.

There being no further public comment Mayor Hernandez brought the item back to city council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Fosi / Uribe 5/0) approve Resolution 2026-007 authorizing the reallocation of one Community Resource Deputy Position to a Patrol Deputy Position.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Call, Pimentel, and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None
Item 11.2 Adoption of a Groundwater Use Management Program in the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin- It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a resolution authorizing collaboration with the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (STRGBA) Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), its member agencies, consultants, stakeholders and the County of Tuolumne GSA to take such actions as may be reasonably necessary to (1) approve and implement the Groundwater Use Management Program (GWUMP or Program) for the Modesto Subbasin to ensure long-term groundwater sustainability, and (2) develop action plans which ensure the demand management actions identified in the GWUMP are under implementation beginning January 31, 2027.

Adoption of the GWUMP fulfills commitments made in prior Council actions and advances compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

Director of Public Works Bridgewater gave a comprehensive staff report and PowerPoint presentation on collaboration with Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (STRGBA) Groundwater Sustainability Agency and implement the Groundwater Use Management Program and develop actions plant to ensure demand management actions.

Page 16 of 92 ends

Page 5 of 10 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 01/27/2026
City Council discussed item with staff.

Wrangler Wheeler, Modesto resident to express his support for Item 11.2.

Bill Lyons, Riverbank resident to express his support for Item 11.2, provided letter to council (Exhibit A Attached)
Evelyn Halbert, Riverbank resident to seek clarification of Item 11.2.

There being no further public comment Mayor Hernandez brought the item back to city council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Hernandez / Uribe 5/0) approve Resolution 2026-008 adopting the Groundwater Use Management Program with the addition of Memo.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Call, Pimentel, and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None
Item 11.3 Adoption of a Well Mitigation Plan in the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin- It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a resolution authorizing collaboration with the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (STRGBA) Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), its member agencies, stakeholders and the County of Tuolumne GSA to take such actions as may be necessary to approve and implement the Well Mitigation Plan developed for the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin. Adoption of the Well Mitigation Plan by the STRGBA GSA fulfills commitments made in prior Council actions and advances compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

Director of Public Works Bridgewater gave a comprehensive staff report and PowerPoint presentation on collaboration with Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (STRGBBA) Groundwater Sustainability Agency and implement the Groundwater Use Management Program and develop actions plant to ensure demand management actions.

City Council discussed item with staff.

Garry Pearson, Riverbank resident to express his support for Item 11.3.

Bill Lyons, Riverbank resident to express his support for Item 11.3.

Page 17 of 92 ends

Page 6 of 10 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 01/27/2026
Evelyn Halbert, Riverbank resident to seek Clarification on Item 11.3.

There being no further public comment Mayor Hernandez brought the item back to city council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Hernandez / Uribe 5/0) approve Resolution 2026-009 approving the implementation of Well Mitigation Plan developed for the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin with the addition of Memo.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Call, Pimentel, and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None
Item 11.4 Resolution Approving a Consultant Services Agreement with JPW Communications, Inc. for the Preparation of a Community Engagement Strategy and Communications Plan. - It is recommended that the City Council consider approving a Consultant Services Agreement with JPW Communications, Inc. for the preparation of a Community Engagement Strategy and Communications Plan for the City of Riverbank.

City Manager Garcia gave a comprehensive staff report and PowerPoint presentation on the consultant services agreement with JPW Communications, Inc for the preparation of a Community Engagement Strategy and Communications Plan.

Jenny windle, President and Ceo of JPW Communications gave an overview of the scope of services her firm will be providing the City on this project.

City Council discussed item with staff.

There being no further public comment Mayor Hernandez brought the item back to city council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Hernandez / Call 5/0) approve Resolution 2026-010 approving the Consultant Services Agreement with JPW Communications, Inc.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Call, Pimentel, and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

12. COMMENTS/REPORTS
A brief report on notable attendance of a meeting or conference or other notable topics of City business shall be made.

The Brown Act does not allow for discussion or action of items by the City Council/LRA Board during this time.

Page 18 of 92 ends

Page 7 of 10 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 01/27/2026
Item 12.1 Staff
City Manager:
• So, just a couple of comments from staff from our Planning department. After submitting the third round of updates to our Housing Element to HCD, we have received approval to move forward with consideration of adoption of the final document. So, we are tentatively scheduling that for approval at the Planning Commission at their March meeting and then at our first April meeting for City Council.
• From our Parks and Recreation department, the third annual My Little One and Me Dance, as Michael shared earlier, will take place on Saturday, February 7th from 5pm to 7pm at the Community Center. They will be offering a fun family focused evening for adults and their little ones to enjoy quality time together. The event will include dinner, dancing, games, and interactive activities that will create a memorable experience for all attendees. The tickets are $45 for one adult and one child. And then additional tickets can be purchased for $15 per person. They can be purchased online or here in person at our Parks and Recreation office
• From our Finance department, a reminder to our businesses that business license renewals are due and will be considered late as of January 31st, 2026.

Late fees will be added and delinquent notices will be mailed out. • Then a final comment from our Public Works department. Next week our street sweeper is going to be going in for some upgrades and so we will not be having street sweeping services for the entire week. So that would be from February 2nd through the 6th.

Item 12.2 Council/Authority Member
Vice Mayor Pimentel:
• On the 13th I had a meeting with Mr. Steve Grand from Grand Asia for Sister City.

We are planning the Chinese Lunar New Year event. So, stay tuned for that. It's in the beginning stages.
• On the 16th we had the Chamber of Commerce Awards dinner. I want to give a shout out to Olivia and Monica for all their hard work and to all those that took the time to make it a great night. Even though there was a movie being shot here in Riverbank, there was a great turnout.
• Also, seniors, if you need help with your utility bills, reach out to me. St. Francis of Rome has access and I can help you with that.
• Also, if you need help with groceries, there is a CVOC program that you can reach out to me about.
• I will be having a meet and greet in February. Stay tuned. I'll give you the time and date.

Councilmember Uribe:

Page 19 of 92 ends

Page 8 of 10 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 01/27/2026
• We have been discussing Strategic Plan ad hoc committees is something I should have probably mentioned at the last one when we were kind of assigning committees and subcommittees. I would love to get a just an update from staff on our Strategic Plan. We wanted to do an ad hoc committee for tourism kind of create that guided city tour where the benefits would go to Historical Society. So, if I can get an update on that.
• The chamber asked since I am an ambassador if I would mention some of the events for February. So, February 4th and it is open meetings they are open to the public so feel free to stop by. They meet on Claus at the RIC. February 4th their first ambassador meeting of the year. They are recruiting other ambassadors. So, feel free to stop by.
• February 5th there will be a Multi-Chamber held in Patterson. • February 7th, they'll be doing a Food Truck Ribbon Cutting just down the street behind us here.
• February 13th, the Boot Barn Ribbon Cutting will be at 12:00pm that day. • And then February 25th, a Lunch and Learn from 12:00pm – 1:00pm at the Timeless Real Estate.
• Save the date for the Easter egg hunt for March 28th.

Councilmember Fosi:
• On February 6th, the Riverbank Historical Society will have their Annual Installation Dinner meeting. It will be at Perkos at 6:00pm. We would love to have anybody who would like to see what we are doing or become members attend as well as all the Council Members and the Mayor and Staff. • On February 17th, the Women's group will be meeting at 6:00pm at the Morris Nursery. So, if you have gardening questions and you want to come and see who's at the Women's group, please show up at 6:00pm.

Councilmember Call:
• On the 17th of January, our Riverbank Branch for the Stanislaus County Library reopened. I was able to be at the ribbon cutting and if you haven't been by, I highly encourage you to go. It is absolutely beautiful in there and all of the books look absolutely perfect. I couldn't stop taking pictures of them because none of them have tears or dents or anything. I loved it. They also are bringing back their book clubs and they are doing story time and there is a bilingual story time. • And then last week the mayor and I were at Cal Cities. The one session that really resonated with me was Land Use Planning and Smart Land Use Planning.

And that kind of leads me into the next thing that I've been doing. I'm knee deep into meetings with constituents and other elected officials regarding the Riverwalk project. So, if I have not met with you about it or if you would like to have a refresher or just more conversation, I encourage you to email me so that we can set up a time to meet.

Page 20 of 92 ends

Page 9 of 10 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 01/27/2026
• And then lastly, there's a tremendous blood shortage in our nation and January is National Blood Drive Month. I'm personally donating tomorrow. So, I encourage everyone if you are able to donate blood to sign up to do so.

Item 12.3 Mayor/Chair
Mayor Hernandez:
• There was and especially with Jenny here to give you a flavor of what happens in our City of Action. We had a film crew come out to film a romantic comedy I believe it was a holiday romantic comedy and it's been so sweet because the main actress or the yeah, the main actress has been just posting about Riverbank every single day and we actually had an interview with ABC or someone this week and that is now up on I have not seen it yet so have some grace with me. It's up on online right now.
• Councilmember Uribe and I had a meeting with staff about the Tiny Tots program with our partners over a SCOE and they have a lot of data that they are going to provide to us to be able to make some assessments moving forward on what the child care situation looks like in our City specifically. So, they have it broken down by zip code and would love to pass that along as soon as we get it. • The session that stood out to me was of course Communications. So, there was a lot of conversations on the legality and the changing laws around communications for cities and so I am very excited to get moving on some of the strategies there.
• Stan Cog is taking up a lot of time per usual but there's a lot of positive progress in that. So, there's final interviews at the end of February for the Executive Director.
• Slowly the Policy Council, Policy board members are getting back into advocacy as a whole. And so, I sit on as a representative for the California Council of Governments and there is going to be some meetings happening around there. • And as also chair of the VVS the Valley Vision Steering Committee which is going to have some more meetings and movement. So, there is a meeting coming up in March.
• Youth Council had their Applebee's fundraiser and they raised about $1,300 which is exciting. So that is going to go towards their Social Night at the end of this year around early May.
• I do appreciate the Budget presentation from RPS to be able to start like planting some seeds and getting some data before we have the full budget considerations. So, it would be great if we could get some presentation similar from other staff member or departments to be able to process that as it leads up to the Budget discussions.
• I am headed off to DC. I have a flight at 5:00am tomorrow and so it is going to be for the US Conference of Mayors. I think all the snow has passed, the storm has passed, so it should be a smooth flight there. But I am looking forward to it to connect with Mayors from across the Country. I mentioned before I was able to

Page 21 of 92 ends

Page 10 of 10 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 01/27/2026
get into some groups, group conversations, the group chats the last time I went and it served really well to be able to bring some ideas and some just best practices here to the City. They are made up of mostly East Coast Mayors and so I am looking forward to that and I will discuss it more is when I return.

13. CLOSED SESSION
The public will have a limit of 3 minutes to comment on Closed Session item(s) as set forth on the agenda prior to the City Council/LRA Board recessing to Closed Session
No Items Scheduled.

14. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING
There being no further business, Mayor / Chair Hernandez adjourned the regular meeting at 8:23 P.M. to the next regular scheduled City Council / LRA Meeting of February 10, 2026.

ATTEST: (Adopted 02/10/2026) APPROVED:

Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk / LRA Recorder Mayor/ Chair

Page 22 of 92 ends

Page 23 of 92 ends

Page 24 of 92 ends

Page 25 of 92 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

Item 9.3. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.3.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 2/10/2026
Subject: Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Willdan Financial Services to assist the Community Development Department with Updating the Citywide System Development Fee (SDF) Program
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Joshua Mann, Director of Community Development

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Willdan Financial Services to assist the Community Development Department with updating the citywide System Development Fee (SDF) program and authorize a budget allocation not to exceed $319,575 from the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) Regional Early Action Planning (REAP

2.0) Grant awarded to the City.

SUMMARY
The project includes an update to the City’s System Development Fee (SDF) program, also known as the Development Impact Fee program. In addition to updating the overall SDF program, the update will establish an Infill Development Fee and a VMT/TransitOriented Development (TOD) Fee, while also incorporating Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) principles. This effort will modernize the City’s infrastructure funding framework to align with state housing, climate, and equity objectives by supporting infill housing through equitable fee structures, reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by incentivizing transit-oriented and compact development, and expanding fair housing access and advancing sustainable infrastructure planning. The project to update City SDF fees will provide a Significant Beneficial Impact under REAP 2.0 guidelines by lowering barriers to infill housing, encouraging TOD growth patterns, reducing emissions, and creating a replicable model for other jurisdictions in the StanCOG region.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This project advances the City Council’s Strategic Plan goal to Foster Attainable

Page 26 of 92 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

Item 9.3. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026
Housing by updating the Nexus Fee Study to incentivize infill development and improve housing affordability. It also supports the infrastructure strategy to “expand nonmotorized transportation options,” aligning with the City’s commitment to sustainable growth patterns. Additionally, by modernizing the City’s development impact fee program, the effort aligns with the goal of Financial Sustainability and the City's strategy to “review and update the City fee schedule” to ensure fiscal responsibility and transparency.

BACKGROUND
A new grant funding opportunity has been made available to the City through StanCOG’s REAP 2.0 Grants Program. The purpose of REAP 2.0 is to provide funding to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and regional entities for transformative planning and implementation activities that support housing and equity goals, reduce per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and advance the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy. StanCOG was awarded $7,091,933, of which $3,100,000 has been allocated to the Transformative Funding Suballocation Program for distribution to member agencies. The portion of funds available to the City of Riverbank totaled $319,575.00.

On October 1, 2025, StanCOG notified Staff that the City of Riverbank had been tentatively awarded the full $319,575 in available REAP 2.0 funding. Staff subsequently identified a project that will utilize the available funding by updating the System Development Fee (SDF) program and establish an Infill and VMT/Transit-Oriented Development Fee, while also incorporating Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) principles.

On October 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-103 authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) for the suballocation of Regional Early Action Planning (REAP 2.0) Grant Program funds totaling $319,575.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
Staff prepared and released a Request for Proposal (RFP) on November 20, 2025, with a submission deadline of January 7, 2026. The scope of work encompasses all analyses, evaluations, and documentation necessary to prepare a comprehensive update to the City’s System Development Fee (SDF) Program. The scope of work included five (5) key tasks including: review of applicable city documents, providing sufficient analysis and findings, meeting participation, development of a draft System Development Fee Study, and reports and deliverables.

A total of four (4) proposals were received and reviewed by Staff. The proposals were scored based on the following categories: Project Understanding and Approach, Qualifications and Relevant Experience, Legal Defensibility and Technical Quality, Implementation and Adoption Support, Local and Regional Knowledge, and Cost

Page 27 of 92 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

Item 9.3. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026
Proposal and Value. Interviews were held with the top three (3) firms. Willdan Financial Services was selected as the preferred firm who will best be able to assist with the needs of the Community Development Department. Willdan’s proposal is included as Attachment 1 to this report. While minor details of the final contract are currently being negotiated, the draft contract is included as Exhibit A of Attachment 2.

Based on the scope of work provided in the RFP, Willdan Financial Services provided a total cost of $115,830, or $135,870 including a transportation nexus analysis, to complete the project. The cost proposal submitted by Willdan may be found in Exhibit A of Attachment 2.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost of the SDF program update is funded by the REAP 2.0 grant awarded to the City of Riverbank. Upon project completion, any unused grant funds will be returned to the State of California.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposal for Development Impact Fee Study submitted by Willdan Financial Services

2. Resolution 2026-xxx with Exhibit A: Draft Contract with Willdan Financial Services for SDF Program Update Services

Page 28 of 92 ends

City of Riverbank, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Proposal for
Attachment 1

Page 29 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study i
City of Riverbank, CA
Table of Contents

1. Cover Letter................................................................................................................................................................ ii

2. Qualifications.............................................................................................................................................................4 Experience and Expertise...................................................................................................................................... 4

3. Company Profile....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Firm Profile – Willdan Financial Services ............................................................................................................ 5 Firm Profile – Fehr & Peers ................................................................................................................................... 6

4. Approach .....................................................................................................................................................................7 Project Understanding ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Proposed Scope of Services ............................................................................................................................... 11 Project Disclaimer ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Project Schedule................................................................................................................................................... 15

5. References ................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Similar Studies...................................................................................................................................................... 18

6. Qualifications.......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Key Staff ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Resumes................................................................................................................................................................ 20 James Edison, JD, MPP, MA ................................................................................................................................. 21 Carlos Villarreal, MPP............................................................................................................................................. 23 Ian Barnes, PE........................................................................................................................................................ 25 Francisco Martin, PE .............................................................................................................................................. 27

7. Price Proposal............................................................................................................... Under Separate Cover Project Cost............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Hourly Rates............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Appendix .......................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Fehr & Peers Scope.............................................................................................................................................. 28

Page 30 of 92 ends

T 800.755.6864 | 66 Franklin Street, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94607 | www.willdan.com ii

1. Cover Letter
January 7, 2026
Mr. Joshua Mann
Community Development Director
City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Re: Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Riverbank Dear Mr. Mann:

Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Riverbank (“City”) to prepare a comprehensive update to the City’s System Development Fee (Development Impact Fee) Program. Willdan’s approach is focused on developing a legally defensible, transparent, and equitable fee program that supports infill and transitoriented development, reduces vehicle miles traveled, and aligns with REAP 2.0 and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives. Our team will work collaboratively with City staff to ensure the updated fee structure lowers barriers to infill housing, supports long-term infrastructure needs, and withstands technical review, public scrutiny, and statutory requirements.

Willdan will partner with Fehr & Peers to support the traffic engineering and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis components of the study, ensuring technical consistency with state guidance and alignment with the City’s infill and transit-oriented development objectives.

Unmatched experience implementing and defending fee programs. Willdan’s impact fee staff has assisted more than 100 California government agencies with the development and/or update of all fee types and is fortunate to be in a position that will provide a tremendous benefit to the City. Each project has required defensible documentation and thorough coordination of fee program changes for different agency departments and stakeholders within the business community.

In some cases, Willdan has been required to negotiate fees with stakeholders and, on occasion, defend them in meetings and public forums.

Established Law and Recent Legislation. 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 landuse categories; etc.) and methods of fee calculation that are based on the City’s and stakeholder priorities. Impact fees also need to be developed in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600) so that they are defensible and transparent. We are also current on the changes to fee programs and the adoption of nexus studies resulting from AB 602, which took full effect in 2022.

Recent Experience with the City of Riverbank. Willdan has an established history of supporting the City of Riverbank on development-related finance and infrastructure planning initiatives. This includes preparation of the City’s Park Impact Fee Nexus Study, assistance with the Traffic Impact Fee update, and advisory services related to Community Facilities District (CFD) formation and annexation efforts. Through these engagements, Willdan has worked closely with City staff to develop legally defensible nexus documentation, evaluate growth-related infrastructure needs, and align fee programs with City policy objectives. This experience provides our team with a strong understanding of Riverbank’s planning framework, development patterns, and implementation considerations that will directly inform the proposed System Development Fee update.

We will leverage this knowledge and our established relationships with City staff to streamline and expedite our work, reducing the need for extensive data gathering and allowing us to focus more time on analysis. This enables us to provide clear, defensible results and meaningful recommendations that other firms cannot match, allowing City staff to dedicate their time to core operations.

Innovative Methodologies. As Willdan operates nationally, we possess unique experiences in numerous jurisdictions dealing with multiple challenges.

Page 31 of 92 ends

Mr. Joshua Mann, Community Development Director
City of Riverbank, CA
Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Study
January 7, 2026 | Page iii
Our ability to produce studies that accommodate various options and viewpoints ensures fair-minded and sensible projects. Our methodology and approach to impact fees have proven to be effective for local agencies, the development community, and the public. Conducting stakeholder outreach during the study, fully informs the development community and the public of the justification of the impact fees, and their positive effect on community growth.

Successful project completion. Willdan has successfully completed many development impact fee studies, including most recently in the Counties of Madera, San Benito, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne and Yolo, as well as the Cities of Carpinteria, Garden Grove, Hollister, Murrieta, Oroville, Rialto and Santa Clara.

Best-in-class impact fee team that can work immediately to prepare an impact fee program. The Willdan team begins a project by evaluating the agency’s existing fee program, if available, and current capital planning policies and funding programs. Not all capital projects are amenable to funding from impact fee programs, and we identify sources that complement fee revenues to fully fund the capital improvement program. The team’s Principal-in-Charge and Project Manager are well respected by our clients for their skill in proactively organizing a clear, consensus-based project approach.

Willdan has reviewed the City’s Sample Agreement (Attachment A) and confirms that it is able to execute the agreement as drafted, with no material exceptions. Willdan will meet all insurance requirements outlined in the agreement and will provide certificates of insurance upon award. Willdan further confirms its ability to perform all work outlined in this request for proposal and to fully comply with the City’s requirements, including adherence to the established project schedule and completion of the project no later than December 31, 2026.

I, Chris Fisher, am an authorized signer for Willdan Financial Services and submit this proposal on the firm’s behalf. Mr.

James Edison will serve as the primary contact for this engagement. Should you wish to discuss any aspect of this submittal, please reach out to him directly; his contact information is provided in the table below.

Willdan Financial Services
Prime Contact
James Edison, JD, MPP
Managing Principal
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94607 Direct #: (510) 912-4687 | Email: [email protected]
Sincerely,
Willdan Financial Services
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director

Page 32 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 4
City of Riverbank, CA

2. Qualifications
Experience and Expertise
Willdan has been preparing impact fee nexus studies since the passage of the Mitigation Fee Act. Our commitment to public agencies and public solutions has helped us develop the broad finance expertise that will be utilized to support the City’s Development Impact Fee Study. Willdan has worked on virtually every aspect of municipal finance, including fiscal and economic impact studies related to development and reorganization, the financing of infrastructure and services through special district or supplemental taxes, and even working under contract as a department head of an entire municipality. This experience has provided Willdan team members with deep insight into the sources of municipal revenue and the costs of services.

Managing Principal James A. Edison and his team have
worked with public agencies on many community
development projects, including the full range of analysis related to feasibility, economic and fiscal impacts,
infrastructure finance, and negotiations with private
developers. Willdan is thoroughly familiar with both the Act and with the technical and policy issues surrounding impact fees.

Unique Qualifications
Willdan is uniquely qualified to assist the City of Riverbank with the proposed Development Impact Fee Study. The
following are specific advantages that we will provide for the proposed engagement.

Project Dedication
Willdan has assembled a project team of subject matter experts within the Financial Consulting Services group, to conduct the City of Riverbank Development Impact Fee Study engagement. This team has coordinated or participated in numerous public stakeholder and staff workshops regarding fees and cost of service-based charges.

Community Investment
Much of our success in developing impactful programs and studies is due to our experiences in meeting with citizen / stakeholder groups and elected officials. Our ability to explain technical information in a concise, understandable manner is a fundamental reason for our high degree of success. Willdan staff takes the time to include and inform the Community.

Proven Professionals
The Team’s quality is often as important as the consulting firm’s reputation. Willdan is known for its personal, customized service. Our team will work with the City’s professional staff to provide the long‐ term service, that is our prime goal.

Project Availability
Willdan’s Financial Consulting Services group is composed of a team of over 30 senior-level professional consultants.

While each member of the project team currently has work in progress with other clients, the workload is at a manageable level with sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the City specific to the schedule and budget for this engagement.

The team presented within this proposal
has worked collectively on numerous
projects, such as the one requested by the
City of Riverbank; an established work
practice between the team members has
been forged, this proven long-standing
system has benefited our clients.

In the past five years Willdan has conducted
over 125 Impact Fee Studies

Page 33 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 5
City of Riverbank, CA

3. Company Profile
Firm Profile – Willdan Financial Services
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 1,900 employees working in more than
a dozen states across the U.S. Our employees include
a number of nationally recognized Subject Matter
Experts for all areas related to the broadest definition of connected communities—including a team who
will be committed to contributing their expertise
throughout the duration of the City of Riverbank’s
Development Impact Fee Study engagement.

Willdan has solved economic, engineering and energy
challenges for local communities and delivered industry-leading solutions that have transformed government and commerce. Today, we are leading our clients into a future accelerated by a change in resources, infrastructure, technology, regulations, and industry trends.

Willdan Financial Services
Established on June 24, 1988, Willdan Financial Services, is a national firm and is one of the largest public sector economic and financial analysis consulting firms in the United States. Since that time, we have helped over 800 public agencies successfully address a broad range of infrastructure challenges.

Our staff of over 80 professionals support our clients by conducting year-round workshops and on-site training to assist them in keeping current with the latest developments in our areas of expertise.

Willdan assists local public agencies by providing the following services:

Willdan Financial Services
Services
▪ User fee studies;
▪ Cost allocation studies;
▪ Utility rate and cost of service studies;
▪ Feasibility studies;
▪ Municipal Advisory;
▪ Arbitrage and Continuing Disclosure Services;
▪ Economic development strategic plans;
▪ Debt issuance support
▪ Development impact fee establishment and analysis;
▪ District Administration Services;
▪ Real estate economic analysis;
▪ Property tax audits;
▪ Tax increment finance district formation and
amendment;
▪ Housing development and implementation strategies;
and
▪ Long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling.

Page 34 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 6
City of Riverbank, CA
Firm Profile – Fehr & Peers
Business Structure:

S-Corporation
Office Addresses:
1000 Pringle Avenue 343 E. Main Street
Suite 600 Suite 901
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Stockton, CA 95202
Total Number of Employees:
418 employees companywide
About Fehr & Peers:

Fehr & Peers is a transportation planning and engineering firm with 24 offices and over 400 staff nationwide. Since 1985, the firm has partnered with public and private clients to design safer, more effective ways for people and goods to move— creating spaces where everyone can thrive, today and for generations to come.

Bringing together data, technology, and the lived experiences of the communities they serve, the firm helps clients make confident, well-informed decisions. Along the way, the team has earned national recognition for raising the bar on how transportation projects are planned, designed, and delivered. Many of the firm’s earliest clients continue to trust its experts after decades of collaboration; a testament to the strong partnerships built and the innovative mindset brought to every project.

Rather than simply following trends, the team helps clients anticipate what’s next. With a blend of multimodal expertise, national perspective, and local insight fueled by our strong and longstanding relationships, the firm tailors solutions across a wide range of services to meet each community’s unique needs.

Fee Program Experience:

Fehr & Peers has strong experience supporting transportation fee programs for jurisdictions across California’s Central Valley, where rapid growth, constrained infrastructure, and evolving state policy create distinct implementation challenges.

We help cities and counties develop and update development impact fee and transportation mitigation programs that reflect local travel patterns and funding realities, while remaining consistent with California nexus requirements and SB 743. Our data-driven, context-sensitive approach results in fee programs that are transparent, defensible, and practical to administer, and that support long-term mobility, safety, and capital improvement priorities.

Page 35 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 7
City of Riverbank, CA

4. Approach
This section outlines Willdan Financial Services’ understanding of the City of Riverbank’ objectives for updating its System Development Fee Program, identifies the project objectives, and summarizes Willdan’s proposed approach to completing the Development Impact Fee Study in accordance with the City’s Request for Proposals.

Project Understanding
The City is seeking to update its existing SDF Program to reflect current development conditions, infrastructure needs, and State policy priorities, while ensuring compliance with the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.), Assembly Bill 602, SB 743, and REAP 2.0 program requirements. The updated program is intended to support implementation of the City’s General Plan, Housing Element, and Capital Improvement Program, while reducing barriers to infill development, incentivizing transit-oriented growth, and advancing Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives.

Willdan understands that the study will require a comprehensive review of existing fees, capital facilities plans, growth assumptions, and City planning documents, followed by development of updated methodologies and fee calculations that establish a clear and legally defensible nexus between new development and growth-related infrastructure needs. The resulting fee program must be transparent, equitable, and supported by clear documentation suitable for public review and adoption within the REAP 2.0 funding timeline. Willdan will serve as the prime consultant and will be responsible for overall project management, coordination with City staff, development of the fee program, and preparation of the draft and final SDF Study. Fehr & Peers will support the effort by providing transportation engineering analysis to inform the transportation-related fee components, including VMT and transit-oriented development considerations.

Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to prepare a comprehensive and legally defensible update to the City’s System Development Fee Program that aligns with State law, City policy, and REAP 2.0 program goals, while equitably allocating the cost of growth-related infrastructure to new development. To accomplish this objective, the study will:
▪ Review and evaluate existing System Development Fees, prior fee studies, capital improvement plans, master plans, and relevant City policy documents to establish a consistent and transparent foundation for the updated fee program;
▪ Develop updated fee methodologies and calculations that comply with the California Mitigation Fee Act and reflect current growth projections, facility standards, and infrastructure needs over a long-term planning horizon; ▪ Identify and refine appropriate fee categories, including opportunities to consolidate or restructure existing fees to improve clarity, equity, and administrative efficiency; ▪ Establish new or updated fee components, including Infill Development and VMT/Transit-Oriented Development fee elements, that incentivize infill housing, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and advance REAP 2.0 and AFFH objectives; ▪ Prepare schedules of maximum justified fees by land use category, supported by documented assumptions, proportional cost allocations, and nexus findings;
▪ Conduct ongoing coordination with City staff, including weekly progress meetings, to review preliminary findings, refine methodologies, and ensure alignment with City priorities; ▪ Support community engagement through at least one bilingual (English/Spanish) public information meeting to communicate project objectives, proposed fee changes, and equity-focused outcomes; and ▪ Prepare clear, comprehensive draft and final SDF Study reports and presentation materials suitable for staff review, Planning Commission consideration, and City Council adoption.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:

1. The passage of a string of tax limitation measures starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;

2. Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;

3. Steep reductions in Federal and State assistance; and

4. Permanent shifting by the State of local tax resources to the State General Fund to offset deficit spending brought on by recessions.

Page 36 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 8
City of Riverbank, 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.

Approach and Methodology
Willdan’s methodology for calculating public facilities fees is both simple and flexible. Simplicity is important so that the development community and the public can easily understand the justification for the fee program. At the same time, we use our expertise to reasonably ensure that the program is technically defensible.

Flexibility is important, so we can tailor our approach to the available data, and the agency’s policy objectives. Our understanding of the technical standards established by statutes and case law suggests that a range of approaches are technically defensible. Consequently, we can address policy objectives related to the fee program, such as economic development and affordable housing. Flexibility also enables us to avoid excessive engineering costs associated with detailed facility planning. We calculate the maximum justifiable impact fee and provide flexibility for the agency to adopt fees up to that amount.

Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in an impact fee study include:
▪ Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities; ▪ Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities; ▪ Determine facilities required to serve new development and their costs: Estimate the total amount and cost of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development; and ▪ Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the public facilities fee schedule.

We discuss key aspects of our approach to each of these steps in the subsections that follow.

Growth Projections
In most cases, we recommend use of long-range market-based projections of new development. By “long-range” we suggest 20 to 30 years to: capture the total demand often associated with major public facility investments; and support analysis of debt financing, if needed. In contrast to build out projections, market-based projections provide a more realistic estimate of development across all land uses. Build out projections typically overestimate commercial and industrial development because of the oversupply of these land uses relative to residential development.

Facility Standards
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (second bullet above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities.

Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Our approach recognizes three separate components of facility standards:

1. Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth. Examples include park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicles-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning;

2. Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates current facility design standards into the fee program to reflect the increasing construction cost of public facilities; and

3. Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand.

Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process.

Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), useful when disparate facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

Page 37 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 9
City of Riverbank, CA
Identifying New Development Facility Needs and Costs
We can take several different approaches to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development. Typically, this is a two-step process: 1) identify total facility needs; and 2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs. Total facility needs are often identified through a master facility planning process that typically takes place concurrent with or prior to conducting the fee study. Engineered facility plans are particularly important in the areas of traffic, water, sewer, and storm drain due to the specialized technical analysis required to identify facility needs.

There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: 1) the existing inventory method; 2) the planned facilities method; and 3) the system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.

The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized as follows:

Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:

Current Value of Existing Facilities = $/unit of demand Existing Development Demand Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. Future facilities to serve growth are identified in the nexus study Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) though the cost of those facilities are not necessarily used to drive the fee calculation.

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.

Page 38 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 10
City of Riverbank, CA
Calculating the Fee Schedule
At its simplest, the fee schedule uses the cost per unit of demand discussed in the last subsection to generate the fee schedule. This unit cost is multiplied by the demand associated with a new development project to calculate the fee for that project. The fee schedule uses different demand measures by land use category to provide a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the amount of the fee. We are familiar with a wide range of methods for identifying appropriate land use categories and demand measures depending on the study.

Related Approach Issues
Funding and Financing Strategies
In our experience, one of the most common problems with impact fee programs and with many CIPs is that the program or plan is not financially constrained to anticipated revenues. The result is a “wish list” of projects that generate community expectations that often cannot be fulfilled. Our approach is to integrate the impact fee program into the local agency’s existing CIPs while encouraging those plans to be financially constrained to available resources. We clearly state the cost of correcting existing deficiencies, if any, to document the relationship between the fee program and the need for additional non-fee funding.

We can also address one of the most significant drawbacks of an impact fee program – the inability to support conventional public debt financing, so projects can be built before all fee revenues have been received. In collaboration with financial advisors and underwriters, we have developed specific underwriting criteria so that fees can be used to pay back borrowing if another source of credit exists. Typically, this approach involves the use of Certificates of Participation or revenue bonds that are calibrated so that they can be fully repaid using impact fee revenues.

Economic Development Concerns
The development community often is concerned that fees and other exactions will become too high for development to be financially feasible under current market conditions. Local agencies have several strategies to address this concern, including:
▪ Conducting an analysis of the total burden placed on development, by exactions, to see if feasibility may be compromised by the proposed fees;
▪ Gathering similar data on the total fee burden imposed by neighboring or competing jurisdictions; ▪ Developing a plan for phasing in the fees over several years to enable the real estate market to adjust; ▪ Providing options for developers to finance impact fees through assessments and other types of financing districts; and
▪ Imposing less than the maximum justified fee.

If less than the maximum justified fee is imposed, we will work with staff to identify alternative revenues sources for the CIP. The CIP should remain financially feasible to maintain realistic expectations among developers, policymakers, and the public.

Stakeholder Participation
Stakeholder participation throughout the study supports a successful adoption process. Our approach is to create consensus first, around the need for facilities based on agreed upon facility standards. Second, we seek consensus around a feasible funding strategy for these needs, leading to an appropriate role for impact fees.

Gaining consensus among various groups requires a balanced discussion of both economic development and community service objectives. Often, our approach includes formation of an advisory committee to promote outreach to and input from the development community and other stakeholders. We have extensive experience facilitating meetings to explain the program and gain input.

Program Implementation
Fee programs require a certain level of administrative support for successful implementation. Our final report will include recommendations for appropriate procedures, such as:
▪ Regularly updating development forecasts;
▪ Regularly updating fees for capital project cost inflation; ▪ Regularly updating capital facility needs based on changing demands; ▪ Developing procedures for developer credits and reimbursements; and ▪ Including an administrative charge in the fee program.

Page 39 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 11
City of Riverbank, CA
Proposed Scope of Services
Willdan will work with the City to update its impact fees consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and other relevant laws. We want to ensure that our scope of services is responsive to the City’s needs and specific local circumstances. We will work with the City to revise our proposed scope based on input prior to approval of a contract, and as needed during the course of the study.

Task 1: Project Initiation and Policy Review
Objective: Confirm project objectives, identify key policy considerations, and establish a clear framework for the Development Impact Fee update.

Description: Willdan will conduct a project kickoff meeting with City staff to review data needs, policy considerations, schedule, and coordination protocols. Willdan will review applicable City documents related to existing capital planning policies and funding programs, including adopted impact fees, ordinances, resolutions, capital improvement plans, and prior nexus studies. Policy issues will be identified and discussed with City staff throughout the project, as appropriate, prior to proceeding with subsequent analyses. Policy considerations may include, but are not limited to:
▪ Prior Development Impact Fee studies and annual Mitigation Fee Act reports; ▪ Changes in fee program requirements resulting from AB 602; ▪ General Plan and other public facility planning policies, including level-of-service standards; ▪ Availability and adequacy of master plans and Capital Improvement Programs; ▪ Types of facilities to be funded by each fee, including supporting infrastructure such as vehicles and equipment;
▪ Land use categories and fee structure assumptions;
▪ Nexus methodology and cost allocation approaches, including consideration of fee zones or subareas;
▪ Fee credit, reimbursement, and accounting policies;
▪ Opportunities for fee consolidation or restructuring to improve administrative efficiency; ▪ Annual fee indexing practices; and
▪ Implementation strategies and best practices
Fehr & Peers Role:

Fehr & Peers will support this task by reviewing applicable transportation plans, prior transportation fee studies, and transportation-related policy documents to inform the transportation fee methodology.

Deliverables: (1) Information requests; and (2) refined project scope and schedule (if needed).

Task 2: Existing Conditions and Growth Projections
Objective: Identify existing levels of development and project future growth consistent with City and regional planning assumptions.

Description: Willdan will identify an appropriate base year for estimating existing development and will coordinate with City staff to confirm growth projections over a defined long-range planning horizon. Growth projections will be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Housing Element, Capital Improvement Program, and applicable regional forecasts as appropriate.

Willdan will develop methodologies to translate land use data into measures of facility demand, such as service population, vehicle trip generation, VMT, flow generation and impervious surface, as appropriate for each fee category. Assumptions and projections will be reviewed with City staff prior to proceeding.

Fehr & Peers Role:

Fehr & Peers will assist with transportation-related growth assumptions, including VMT-based demand metrics and coordination with regional transportation forecasts, as applicable.

Task 3: Facility Standards
Objective: Establish facility standards necessary to identify facilities required to accommodate future development.

Description: Willdan will identify and evaluate appropriate facility standards for each facility and fee type, based on adopted policies, existing facility inventories, and/or planned capital projects. City staff will provide available facility inventories, standards, and project lists.

Page 40 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 12
City of Riverbank, CA
Willdan will work with the City to identify eligible costs associated with supporting infrastructure, such as vehicles, equipment, and operational needs, where appropriate.

Fehr & Peers Role:

For transportation facilities, Fehr & Peers will support identification of applicable facility standards and assumptions consistent with SB 743, VMT-based methodologies, and REAP 2.0 objectives.

Task 4: Facilities Needs and Cost Analysis
Objective: Identify the type, amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate growth and correct deficiencies and distinguish growth-related improvements from existing deficiencies.

Description: Willdan will quantify planned facilities based on growth projections and facility standards, using either system planning documents or lists of planned capital projects. Willdan will distinguish between growthrelated facilities eligible for fee funding and facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Planninglevel cost estimates will be developed using City-provided data, recent cost information, and appropriate cost indices.

Facility needs will reflect City priorities and may include evaluation of opportunities to consolidate or restructure fees based on updated capital needs.

Fehr & Peers Role:

Fehr & Peers will support identification and refinement of transportation capital projects, review planninglevel cost estimates provided by the City or other sources and prepare transportation-related assumptions used to calculate the transportation impact fee components. Transportation analyses will rely on existing plans, prior studies, and regional data and will be closely coordinated with the Willdan project team.

If requested by the City, Fehr & Peers will conduct an optional supplemental nexus analysis using a regional travel demand model to determine development fair-share allocations at locations where existing deficiencies are identified. The findings from that optional work will be incorporated by Willdan into the overall Development Impact Fee Study and the project schedule and budget will be adjusted consistent with the priced option shown in the fee table.

Task 5: Funding and Financing Analysis
Objective: Identify alternative funding sources and determine appropriate credits and reimbursements.

Description: Willdan will identify non-fee funding sources used to correct existing deficiencies and funding from new development that must be credited against impact fee calculations. The analysis will include consideration of fee credits, reimbursements for oversizing, and best practices for annual fee indexing. Facilities are assumed to be funded primarily on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Fehr & Peers Role:

Fehr & Peers will assist in identifying transportation-related funding assumptions and non-fee funding sources relevant to the transportation project list.

Task 6: Fee Comparison Analysis
Objective: Provide context for the City’s proposed fees through comparison with peer jurisdictions.

Description: Willdan will prepare a comparison of existing and proposed impact fees to those of comparable jurisdictions, using prototype developments or other appropriate benchmarking methods, in consultation with City staff.

Deliverables: Impact fee comparison memorandum.

Task 7: Fee Calculation, Documentation, and Adoption Support Objective: Prepare a comprehensive and legally defensible Development Impact Fee Study.

Description: Willdan will calculate maximum justified impact fees by land use category and facility type, based on facility costs, demand factors, and nexus findings developed in prior tasks. Willdan will prepare draft and final reports documenting assumptions, methodologies, and results in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act and AB 602.

Fehr & Peers will prepare the transportation nexus analysis, VMT calculations, and supporting technical documentation. Willdan will integrate the transportation analysis into the overall Development Impact Fee Study and remain responsible for preparation of the final report, policy analysis, and coordination with City staff.

Page 41 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 13
City of Riverbank, CA
Willdan will support public review and adoption, including preparation of presentation materials, participation in public meetings, and coordination with City legal counsel, as requested.

Deliverables: All deliverables will be provided in both final (PDF) and editable (Microsoft Word and Excel) formats, along with any supporting data files developed as part of the study.

Task 8: Meetings and Public Outreach
Objective: Support coordination, transparency, and adoption of the updated fee program.

Description: Willdan will coordinate closely with City staff throughout the project and will conduct weekly progress meetings, which will generally be held virtually, to review project status, discuss policy and technical issues, and confirm next steps. In-person meetings will be held at key project milestones or as requested by the City.

Willdan will support at least one (1) bilingual community information meeting (English and Spanish) to present the proposed Development Impact Fee Program and receive public input. This meeting will be conducted in person with a virtual participation option to maximize accessibility. Willdan will prepare meeting agendas, presentation materials, and a summary of comments received.

Willdan will also attend one (1) Planning Commission meeting and one (1) City Council meeting, as required, to support consideration and adoption of the updated fee program.

City Staff Support
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City staff. We suggest that the City of Riverbank assign a key individual to represent the City as the project manager who can function as our primary contact. We anticipate that the City’s project manager will:
1) Coordinate responses to requests for information;
2) Coordinate review of work products; and
3) Help resolve policy issues.

Willdan will endeavor to minimize the impact on City staff in the completion of this project. We will ask for responses to initial information requests in a timely manner. If there are delays on the part of the City, we will contact the City’s project manager to steer the project back on track. We will keep the City’s project manager informed of data or feedback we need to keep the project on schedule.

Page 42 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 14
City of Riverbank, CA
Project Disclaimer
Willdan is a registered municipal advisory firm with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), as such the City of Riverbank represents, acknowledges, and agrees that Willdan is not acting as a “municipal advisor” (as defined by the SEC), to the City, in any capacity as it relates to the project proposed in this Development Impact Fee Study RFP. (i) The City uses, or may use, the services of one or more municipal advisors registered with the SEC to advise it in connection with municipal financial products and the issuance of municipal securities; (ii) The City is not looking to Willdan to provide, and the City shall not otherwise request or require Willdan to provide any advice or recommendations with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities (including any advice or recommendations with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues);
(iii) The provisions of this proposal and the services to be provided hereunder as outlined in the scope of services are not intended (and shall not be construed) to constitute or include any municipal advisory services within the meaning of Section 15B of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder;
(iv) For the avoidance of doubt and without limiting the foregoing, in connection with any revenue projections, cash-flow analyses, feasibility studies and/or other analyses Willdan may provide the City with respect to financial, economic or other matters relating to a prospective, new or existing issuance of municipal securities of the City , (A) any such projections, studies and analyses shall be based upon assumptions, opinions or views (including, without limitation, any assumptions related to revenue growth) established by the City, in conjunction with such of its municipal, financial, legal and other advisers as it deems appropriate; and (B) under no circumstances shall Willdan be asked to provide, nor shall it provide, any advice or recommendations or subjective assumptions, opinions or views with respect to the actual or proposed structure, terms, timing, pricing or other similar matters with respect to any municipal financial products or municipal securities issuances, including any revisions or amendments thereto; and (v) Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, the City recognizes that interpretive guidance regarding municipal advisory activities is currently quite limited and is likely to evolve and develop during the term of the potential engagement and, to that end, the City will work with Willdan throughout the term of the potential Agreement to ensure that the Agreement and the services to be provided by Willdan hereunder, is interpreted by the parties, and if necessary amended, in a manner intended to ensure that the City is not asking Willdan to provide, and Willdan is not in fact providing or required to provide, any municipal advisory services.

Page 43 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 15
City of Riverbank, CA
Project Schedule
Willdan understands that time is of the essence for the City and that the Development Impact Fee Study must be completed by December 31, 2026. The schedule below reflects a realistic and achievable timeline based on timely receipt of data, policy direction, and review comments from City staff. Delays in responding to requests for information, policy guidance, clarifications, or review comments may result in corresponding delays to the schedule. If such delays occur, Willdan will promptly notify the City of any potential impacts to the project timeline.

Page 44 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 16
City of Riverbank, CA

5. References
Provided below are client references for projects completed by Willdan and the project team members proposed herein, which demonstrates our ability to provide the requested services. We are proud of our reputation for customer service and encourage you to contact our past clients regarding our commitment to excellence.

City of East Palo Alto
Development Impact Fee Nexus and Financial Feasibility Study In 2023, Willdan was selected through a competitive bidding process to conduct a comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus and Financial Feasibility Study for the City. The planned growth outlined in the City’s 2035 Vista General Plan represented significant changes to the anticipated development of the City, and the City’s impact fee program was due for an update pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act. Additionally, there has been an increasing interest in development within the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Transit-Oriented Development Specific Plan area that required modifications to the City’s infrastructure and financing plans.

To address these challenges, Willdan carried out a comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study update to revise the existing fees and conducted a Financial Feasibility Analysis to evaluate the effects of the maximum supportable impact fees on development projects. The impact fees included Water Capacity, Parks and Trails, Public Facilities, Transportation Infrastructure, and Storm Drainage.

For this project, the Willdan team evaluated nine development prototypes, compared impact fees with six similar cities, conducted extensive stakeholder outreach, and collaborated closely with City staff. The project was completed in March 2025.

Client Contact: Hanson Hom, FAICOP, Deputy Manager, Special Projects 1960 Tate Street, East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel #: (650) 519-5121 | Email: [email protected]
County of Stanislaus, CA
Development Impact Fee Update
Willdan has a long-standing relationship with the County of Stanislaus. In 2016, we assisted the County with an update to the existing impact fee program. The program is made up of a range of fee categories including animal control, behavioral health, criminal justice, detention, emergency services, health, library, park, sheriff patrol and investigation, and countywide information technology facilities. Fees are collected on new development countywide, including incorporated municipalities within the County, which include the Cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock and Waterford. The study also includes a Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF), which is currently being updated for the County. Considerable stakeholder outreach was an integral component of this project.

Willdan recently revised the Public Facilities Impact Fee Update report to include an accessory dwelling unit land use category.

Client Contact: Keith Boggs, Assistant Executive Officer (Retired, serving as independent consultant to the County) 1010 10th Street, Suite 6800, Modesto, CA 95354
Tel #: (209) 652-1514 | Email: [email protected]

Page 45 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 17
City of Riverbank, CA
City of Pismo Beach, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan assisted the City of Pismo Beach with an update to their impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. This project was warranted due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the prior update, coupled with the adoption of new and revised public facility master plans that complemented the updated impact fees. Prior to fee program adoption, Willdan held a stakeholder meeting to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.

Willdan was re-engaged in 2024 to provide an update to the Development Impact Fee Study.

Client Contact: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Tel #: (805) 773-7010 | Email: [email protected]
City of Murrieta, CA
Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan was retained originally in 2013 to conduct a comprehensive update to the City’s impact fees. The team was once again retained through competitive bid in 2023 to update the following fees: Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, Streets and Minor Bridges, Traffic Signals, Storm Drainage, General Facilities, Bridge/Freeway/Ramps, Open Space Acquisition, Park Land Facilities, Community Center, and Public Library.

Willdan developed a technically defensible fee justification based on the reasonable relationship and deferential review standards; provided a schedule of maximum-justified fees by land use category; engaged stakeholders to facilitate public support for the impact fee; and provided comprehensive documentation of all assumptions, methodologies, and results, including findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Willdan was re-engaged in 2023 to provide an update to the Development Impact Fee Study.

Client Contact: Javier Carcamo, Finance Manager
1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562
Tel #: (951) 461-6090 | Email: [email protected]
City of Fremont, CA
Comprehensive Impact Fee Update
Willdan’s impact fee staff has a long-standing relationship with the City of Fremont. In 2014/2015, Willdan successfully updated their impact fee programs, which included an update of the City’s transportation impact fee program and capital improvement program. The City retained Willdan again in 2020 to update their impact fee program and the project was completed during the second quarter of 2021.

Client Contact: Michelle Silva-Salinas, Public Works Business Manager 3300 Capitol Avenue, Fremont, CA 94538
Tel #: (510) 979-5705 | Email: [email protected]

Page 46 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 18
City of Riverbank, CA
Similar Studies
The following table lists Willdan’s development impact fee clientele that have utilized our services.

Willdan Financial Services
Development Impact Fee Experience
Partial Client List
City of Alameda, CA City of Pacifica, CA
City of Arcadia, CA City of Patterson, CA
City of Arroyo Grande, CA City of Parkland, FL
City of Artesia, CA City of Pismo Beach, CA
City of Atwater City of Pittsburg, CA
City of Azusa, CA City of Pleasant Hill, CA
City of Bakersfield, CA City of Rancho Mirage, CA
City of Barstow, CA City of Redwood City, CA
City of Bell, CA City of Rialto, CA
City of Bell Gardens, CA City of Richmond, CA
City of Bellflower, CA City of Rio Rancho, NM
City of Brea, CA City of Riverbank, CA
City of Calexico, CA City of Rolling Hills Estates, CA
City of Calimesa, CA City of Rosemead, CA
City of Carpinteria, CA City of San Carlos, CA
City of Chino Hills, CA City of San Fernando, CA
City of Claremont, CA City of San Gabriel, CA
City of Clovis, CA City of San Jacinto, CA
City of Coachella, CA City of San Marcos, CA
City of Commerce, CA City of San Ramon, CA
City of Compton, CA City of Santa Clara, CA
City of Corona, CA City of Sebastopol, CA
City of Covina, CA City of Selma, CA
City of Cudahy, CA City of Sierra Madre, CA
City of Dixon, CA City of Soledad, CA
City of Dublin, CA City of South Gate, CA
City of Eastvale, CA City of South Pasadena, CA
City of El Monte, CA City of South San Francisco, CA
City of El Segundo, CA City of St. Helena, CA
City of Emeryville, CA City of Tehachapi, CA
City of Fillmore, CA City of Temple City, CA
City of Fontana City of Thousand Oaks, CA
City of Fountain Valley, CA City of Tracy, CA
City of Fremont, CA City of Upland, CA

Page 47 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 19
City of Riverbank, CA
Willdan Financial Services
Development Impact Fee Experience
Partial Client List
City of Garden Grove, CA City of Visalia, CA
City of Gilroy, CA City of Wasco, CA
City of Gonzales, CA City of Yucaipa, CA
City of Goose Creek, SC Coachella Valley Association of Governments, CA City of Guadalupe, CA Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Greenfield, CA County of Clay, FL
City of Grover Beach, CA County of Kern, CA
City of Hawthorne, CA County of Kings, CA
City of Healdsburg, CA County of Los Angeles, CA
City of Hemet, CA County of Madera, CA
City of Hercules, CA County of Merced, CA
City of Hollister, CA County of Placer, CA
City of Huntington Beach, CA County of Riverside, CA
City of Huntington Park, CA County of Sacramento, CA
City of Indian Wells, CA County of San Benito, CA
City of Irwindale, CA County of San Diego, CA
City of Kingsburg, CA County of San Joaquin, CA
City of La Mesa, CA County of San Luis Obispo, CA
City of La Verne, CA County of Santa Barbara, CA
City of Las Cruces, NM County of Solano, CA
City of Lake Elsinore, CA County of Sonoma, CA
City of Lake Forest, CA County of Stanislaus, CA
City of Lancaster, CA County of Tulare, CA
City of Lawndale, CA County of Yolo, CA
City of Livermore, CA East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Long Beach, CA Kern Council of Governments, CA
City of McFarland, CA Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, CA City of Madera, CA Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, CA City of Manteca, CA San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District, CA City of Menifee, CA Stanislaus Council of Governments, CA City of Moreno Valley, CA Tehachapi Valley Rec. & Park District, CA City of Morgan Hill, CA Town of Apple Valley, CA
City of Mountain View, CA Town of Mead, CO
City of Murrieta, CA Town of Windsor, CA
City of Newport Beach, CA Tulare County Association of Governments, CA City of Oroville, CA Village of Taos Ski Valley, NM

Page 48 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 20
City of Riverbank, CA

6. Qualifications
Key Staff
Our management and supervision philosophy for the project team is very simple: staff every position in sufficient numbers with experienced personnel to deliver a superior product and convey results to decision makers in meetings, on time and on budget. With that philosophy in mind, we have selected experienced professionals for the City’s engagement. We are confident that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill the desired work performance.

City of Riverbank
Project Team
Key Team Member Project Role Responsibility to the Engagement Willdan Financial Services
James Edison, JD, MPP
Managing Principal Principal-in-Charge
▪ Ensure client satisfaction, flow of communication, and management of the project
▪ Technical guidance
▪ Project oversight
▪ Quality assurance & control, and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance
Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Principal Consultant Project Manager
▪ Collect, interpret, and disseminate key data
▪ Day to day contact
▪ Production of key elements of the analysis
▪ Model development
▪ Report preparation, and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance
Fehr & Peers
Ian Barnes, PE
Principal-in-Charge Principal
▪ Provide technical oversight and quality assurance for transportation-related analyses
▪ Guide transportation fee methodology to ensure
consistency with SB 743, and State requirements
▪ Review key assumptions, methodologies, and findings
related to transportation impact fee components
▪ Participate in coordination meetings and attend
presentations, as requested
Francisco Martin, PE
Principal Project Manager
▪ Support development of transportation impact fee
methodologies and calculations
▪ Analyze transportation system impacts associated with future development, including VMT and transit-oriented
development considerations
▪ Coordinate with Willdan project team to integrate
transportation findings into the overall Development
Impact Fee Study
▪ Participate in meetings and presentations, as requested Staff Continuity
Mr. Edison has been assigned to serve as the City’s principal-in-charge; he has been selected for this role due to his extensive experience, which includes the preparation and supervision of numerous fee studies, as well as his experience presenting to governing bodies, stakeholders, and industry groups.

Resumes
Resumes for Willdan’s project team are presented on the following pages.

Page 49 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 21
City of Riverbank, CA
Education
Juris Doctorate,
University of
California, Berkeley,
School of Law
Master of Public
Policy, Goldman
School of Public
Policy, University of
California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts,
magna cum laude,
Harvard University
Professional
Registrations
Member of State Bar,
California
Affiliations
Council of
Development Finance
Agencies
CFA Society of
San Francisco
Congress for the
New Urbanism
Urban Land Institute
Seaside Institute
International Economic
Development Council
26 Years’ Experience
James Edison, JD, MPP, MA
Principal-in-Charge
Mr. James Edison, Managing Principal, specializes in the nexus between public and private, with expertise in public-private partnerships, and the benefits of economic development to municipalities and state, provincial, regional, and national governments. He possesses deep expertise in land use economics, with a specialty in finance and implementation, including fiscal impact and the public and private financing of infrastructure and development projects, both in the U.S. and internationally. Mr.

Edison’s public-sector experience includes local and regional economic impact studies; fiscal impact evaluations; new government formation strategies; and the creation of impact fees, assessments, and special taxes to fund infrastructure and public facilities. He has conducted numerous evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of specific plans and consulted on a wide variety of land use planning topics related to community revitalization and the economic and fiscal impacts of development.

As a former bond attorney, Mr. Edison understands the legal underpinnings and technical requirements of public financing instruments and has advised both public and private clients on the use of individual instruments, and the interaction between those instruments and the needs of developers and project finance.

Related Experience
City of Carpinteria, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison was the project manager for the City of Carpinteria’s Development Impact Fee update study engagement. The study included updates to the following fees: highways and bridges, streets and thoroughfares, traffic control, parking, storm drain, general government, aquatic, park and recreation, and open space. The City has engaged Willdan again to update their impact fees.

City of McFarland, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Edison was the principal-in-charge and technical advisor on the update to the City’s development impact fee program. The study included the following facility fee categories; general government, law enforcement, park and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, storm drain, and traffic.

City of Manteca, CA – Fire Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the capacity of project manager for the update of the City’s fire services impact fee program.

City of Fillmore, CA – North Fillmore Specific Plan Nexus Study: Mr. Edison is currently assisting the City with an analysis of development impact fees needed to finance public facilities necessary for the development of the North Filmore Specific Plan. Public facilities included in this analysis include water, sewer systems, recycled water, and streets.

City of Pismo Beach, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the role of principal-in-charge of an update to the City’s impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.

City of Morgan Hill, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal-incharge of an update to the City’s existing nexus study, which included general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder outreach.

City of 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.

County of San Benito, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison served as technical advisor to the County’s Impact Fee Study. The study included updates to the following fees: capital improvements, road equipment, fire mitigation, and park and recreation.

Page 50 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 22
City of Riverbank, CA
City of Alameda, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team that updated the City of Alameda’s impact fee programs, as well as created a separate impact fee program for Alameda Point, the former Alameda Naval Air Station.

City of Santa Clara, CA – Parks Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal-in-charge of the City’s park impact fee update. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the cost of acquiring and improving public park land.

Stanislaus County Council of Governments, CA – Regional Transportation Fee Update: Mr.

Edison worked on an update of the County’s transportation impact fee program. Key tasks included a revised capital improvement program and fee model, along with a public participation process that ensures buy-in from the communities of Stanislaus County and the County government itself.

County of Tulare, CA – Countywide Impact Fees: Mr. Edison served as project manager for a study that involved the creation of an impact fee program for the County. The study included a range of facilities such as public protection, library, and parks, as well as a transportation facilities impact fee with different fees calculated for two zones in the County.

County of Riverside, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the effort to establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries, and traffic. He prepared the technical and analytical documents necessary to calculate the fee and establish the necessary nexus to collect it, as well as presented the fees during public hearings to the County Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, Mr. Edison is currently leading an update to the County’s development impact fees for 2030.

City of Moreno Valley, CA – Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison was the principal-in-charge for the City’s comprehensive impact update. Fee categories included arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities.

City of Murrieta, CA – Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Update: Mr. Edison served as the principal-in-charge of the City’s study to update their Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report, to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Willdan was recently re-selected, through competitive bid, to update the Impact Fees.

City of Cudahy, CA – Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team that helped the City analyze impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Cudahy through buildout of the City’s General Plan.

City of Indian Wells, CA – Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison served as the principal-incharge for the City Indian Wells’ update to their development impact fees. The fee program was comprised of a variety of fee categories including transportation, public facilities, recreation, park, and storm drain.

City of Fountain Valley, CA – Development Impact Fee Update Study: Mr. Edison served as the project manager for the City of Fountain Valley’s update to their development impact fees. Fees included the park impact fee, traffic improvement fee, transportation impact fee, utility infrastructure impact fee and general plan surcharge fee.

J. Edison
Resume Continued

Page 51 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 23
City of Riverbank, CA
Education
Master of Public Policy,
Goldman School of
Public Policy,
University of California,
Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts,
Geography, University
of California, Los
Angeles; Minor in Public
Policy and Urban
Planning
Areas of Expertise
Fiscal Impact Analyses
Development Impact
Fees
Public Facilities
Financing Plans
GIS Analysis
20 Years’ Experience
Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Project Manager
Mr. Carlos Villarreal, a Financial Consulting Group Principal Consultant, is proposed to serve in the role of project manager due to his experience documenting nexus findings for development impact fees, preparing capital improvement plans, facilitating stakeholder involvement, and analyzing the economic impacts of fee programs. He has supported adoption of fee programs funding a variety of facility types.

Related Experience
City of Pismo Beach, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for the City’s impact fee nexus study updates on two occasions. The program included: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.

City of Carpinteria, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was the lead analyst and project manager to update the City of Carpinteria’s impact fees on two occasions, respectively. The studies included highways and bridges, streets and thoroughfares, traffic control, parking, storm drain, general government, aquatic, park and recreation, and open space.

County of San Benito, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: As project manager, Mr. Villarreal assisted the County with the preparation of an updated and expanded impact fee program. The study included updates to the following fees: general government, road maintenance equipment, fire mitigation, detention facilities, libraries and parks and recreation facilities.

City of Oroville, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager for a study updating the City’s development impact fee program, including parks, law enforcement, general government, fire suppression, and traffic facilities. The fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2015. The City engaged Willdan again to update the 2015 study, and Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager.

City of McFarland, CA – Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager updating the City’s development impact fee program. The study comprehensively updated the City’s fee program, incorporating new facility master planning and infrastructure costs necessary to facilitate expected development in the City through 2040. The study included the following facility fee categories; general government, law enforcement, park and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, storm drain, and traffic. The fees were adopted by the City Council in 2020.

County of Stanislaus, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for a study updating the County’s existing impact fee program. The program includes a range of facilities, like public protection, library, and parks. The study also included a transportation facilities impact fee, with different fees calculated for two zones in the County. Considerable stakeholder outreach was an integral component of this project.

City of Soledad, CA – Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal managed the update of the City’s impact fee program, specifically changes in demographics, growth projections, project costs, and facility standards. In particular, the City had to revise its capital facilities needs to accommodate a much lower amount of growth than what was projected before 2007. The resulting fees funded new development’s share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs.

City of Morgan Hill, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as lead analyst assisting with an update to the City’s existing nexus study, including general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder outreach. The City engaged Willdan again to update the study and Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager.

Page 52 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 24
City of Riverbank, CA
City of Murrieta, CA – Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Update: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager 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. Willdan was re-selected, through competitive bid, to update the Impact Fees for a second time. The updated program was successfully adopted.

City of Long Beach, CA – Park Impact Fee Update: Willdan assisted with an update to the City’s existing park impact fees, with Mr. Villarreal serving in the role of project manager. The project included updating demographic data and facility planning to properly update park facility standards.

He used this information to then calculate impact fees for single family and multi-family residential dwelling units and prepare a nexus study documenting the revised fees and the required legal findings under the Mitigation Fee Act.

County of Los Angeles/City of Santa Clarita, CA – Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Study: Mr.

Villarreal assisted with the development of an impact fee program to fund law enforcement facilities serving the City of Santa Clarita, and other Antelope Valley jurisdictions within the County of Los Angeles. The analysis involved the comparison of law enforcement facilities serving incorporated and unincorporated areas.

County of Riverside, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was the lead analyst in the effort to establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries, and traffic. He assisted in the preparation of the technical and analytical documents necessary to calculate the fees and establish the necessary nexus. Mr.

Villarreal once again served on the project team to update the County’s impact fees for a second time, through 2030.

City of Moreno Valley, CA – Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager for the City’s comprehensive impact update. Fee categories included arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities. In 2022 the City added a public arts fee and workforce development facility fee.

C. Villarreal
Resume Continued

Page 53 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 25
City of Riverbank, CA
Ian Barnes, PE

Page 54 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 26
City of Riverbank, CA

Page 55 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 27
City of Riverbank, CA
Francisco Martin, PE

Page 56 of 92 ends

Page 57 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 28
City of Riverbank, CA
Appendix
Fehr & Peers Scope

Page 58 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 29
City of Riverbank, CA

Page 59 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 30
City of Riverbank, CA

Page 60 of 92 ends

27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-4856
951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com

Page 61 of 92 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 02/10/2026
CC Resolution 2026-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH WILLDAN

FINANCIAL SERVICES TO ASSIST THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT WITH UPDATING THE CITYWIDE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE (SDF) PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET ALLOCATION OF $319,575 FROM THE REAP 2.0 GRANT AWARDED TO THE CITY

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, StanCOG has awarded the City of Riverbank the REAP 2.0 grant in the amount of $319,575; and
WHEREAS, the City of Riverbank identified a project that will utilize the available funding by updating the System Development Fee (SDF) program and establish an Infill and VMT/Transit-Oriented Development Fee, while also incorporating Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) principles; and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025- 103 authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) for the suballocation of Regional Early Action Planning (REAP

2.0) Grant Program funds totaling $319,575; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department issued a Request for Proposal to prepare a comprehensive update to the City’s System Development Fee (SDF) Program on November 20, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2026, proposals were received from four (4) separate consulting firms; and
WHEREAS, a panel of Community Development Staff reviewed the proposals and rated each based on specific needs of the Department; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the proposals it was determined the consulting firm best able to meet the Department’s needs was Willdan Financial Services; and WHEREAS, City staff are seeking to contract with Willdan Financial Services for a total amount not to exceed $319,575 funded by the REAP 2.0 Grant; and Attachment 2

Page 62 of 92 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 02/10/2026
CC Resolution 2026-
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and approve final contract terms and conditions and to make minor, non-substantive and administrative changes to the agreement, including scope, schedule, and standard contractual provisions, provided the total contract does not exceed the amount authorized by the City Council, and the agreement remains consistent with the intent of this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Willdan Financial Services to assist the Community Development Department with updating the System Development Fee (SDF) Program and authorizes a budget allocation of $319,575 from the REAP 2.0 grant.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of February, 2026; motioned by Councilmember __________, seconded by Councilmember __________, and upon roll call was carried by the following City Council vote of ______:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor
Exhibit A: Contract with Willdan Financial Services for SDF Program Update Services

Page 63 of 92 ends

1 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ___________ 2026, (the “Effective Date”) by and between the City of Riverbank, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and Willdan Financial Services (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may herein be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”. There are no other parties to this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City has issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) for consultant services in order to prepare a comprehensive update to the City’s System Development Fee (SDF) Program (the “Project”).

B. Consultant has submitted a proposal to City that includes a scope of proposed consultant services, attached hereto and described more fully in Exhibit A (“Services”).

C. Consultant represents that it is qualified, willing and able to provide the Services to City, and that it will perform Services related to the Project according to the rate schedule attached hereto and described more fully in Exhibit B (the “Rates”).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth below, the Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Consulting Services. Consultant agrees, during the term of this Agreement, to perform the Services for City in connection with the Project. Any request for services in addition to the Services described in Exhibit A will be considered a request for additional consulting services and not compensated unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing. No subcontract shall be awarded or an outside consultant engaged by Consultant unless prior written approval is obtained from City.

2. Compensation. City shall pay Consultant according to the fee schedule set forth in the Rates, as full remuneration for the performance of the Services. Consultant agrees to maintain a log of time spent in connection with performing the Services. On a monthly basis, Consultant shall provide City, in reasonable and understandable detail, a description of the services rendered pursuant to the Services and in accordance with the Rates. If the work is satisfactorily completed, City shall pay such invoice within thirty (30) days of its receipt.

If City disputes any portion of any invoice, City shall pay the undisputed portion within the time stated above, and at the same time advise Consultant in writing of the disputed portion.

3. Reimbursement. City shall pay Consultant for reimbursable expenses

Page 64 of 92 ends

2 related to travel, lodging, conference calls, reproduction and other costs incurred related to Consultant’s performance of the Services.

4. Confidential Information. Consultant understands and agrees that, in the performance of Services under this Agreement or in the contemplation thereof, Consultant may have access to private or confidential information that may be owned or controlled by City and that such information may contain proprietary or confidential details, the disclosure of which to third parties may be damaging to City (“Confidential Information”).

Consultant shall not, either during or after the Term, disclose to any third party any Confidential Information without the prior written consent of City. If City gives Consultant written authorization to make any such disclosure, Consultant shall do so only within the limits and to the extent of that authorization. Such authorization does not guarantee that the City will grant any further disclosure of Confidential Information. Consultant may be directed or advised by the City Attorney on various matters relating to the performance of the Services on the Project or on other matters pertaining to the Project, and in such event, Consultant agrees that it will treat all communications between itself, its employees and its subcontractors as being communications which are within the attorney-client privilege.

5. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date and will continue in effect until the Services provided herein have been completed, unless terminated earlier as provided in Section 6 or 7 below (the “Term”).

6. Termination. City may terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the Term (“Termination”), without cause or reason, by notifying Consultant in writing of City’s desire to terminate this Agreement (the “Termination Notice”). Upon receipt of a Termination Notice, Consultant shall immediately cease performing the Services. Consultant will be entitled to compensation, as of the date Consultant receives the Termination Notice, only for Services actually performed.

7. Termination for Cause. Notwithstanding Section 6 above, this Agreement may be terminated by City for cause based on the loss or suspension of any licenses, permits or registrations required for the continued provision of the Services, or Consultant’s malfeasance. Termination of the Agreement for cause as set forth in this Section shall relieve City from compensating Consultant.

8. Performance by Key Employee. Consultant has represented to City that Carlos Villarreal and/or James Edison will be the person(s) primarily responsible for the performance of the Services and all communications related to the Services. City has entered into this Agreement in reliance on that representation by Consultant.

9. Property of City. The following will be considered and will remain the property of City:

A. Documents. All reports, drawings, graphics, working papers and Confidential Information furnished by City in connection with the Services (“Documents”).

Page 65 of 92 ends

3 Nothing herein shall be interpreted as prohibiting or limiting City’s right to assign all or some of City’s interests in the Documents.

B. Data. All data collected by Consultant and produced in connection with the Services including, but not limited to, drawings, plans, specifications, models, flow diagrams, visual aids, calculations, and other materials (“Data”). Nothing herein shall be interpreted as prohibiting or limiting City’s right to assign all or some of City’s interests in the Data.

C. Delivery of Documents and Data. Consultant agrees, at its expense and in a timely manner, to return to City all Documents and Data upon the conclusion of the Term or in the event of Termination.

10. Duties of City. In order to permit Consultant to render the services required hereunder, City shall, at its expense and in a timely manner:

A. Provide such information as Consultant may reasonably require to undertake or perform the Services;
B. Promptly review any and all documents and materials submitted to City by Consultant in order to avoid unreasonable delays in Consultant’s performance of the Services; and
C. Promptly notify Consultant of any fault or defect in the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder.

11. Representations of Consultant. City relies upon the following representations by Consultant in entering into this Agreement:

A. Qualifications. Consultant represents that it is qualified to perform the Services and that it possesses the necessary licenses, permits and registrations required to perform the Services or will obtain such licenses or permits prior to the time such licenses or permits are required. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at Consultant’s sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the Term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, and registrations that are legally required for Consultant to practice Consultant's profession at the time the Services are rendered.

B. Consultant Performance. Consultant represents and warrants that all Services under this Agreement shall be performed in a professional manner and shall conform to the customs and standards of practice observed on similar, successfully completed projects by specialists in the Services to be provided. Consultant shall adhere to accepted professional standards as set forth by relevant professional associations and shall perform all Services required under this Agreement in a manner consistent with generally accepted professional customs, procedures and standards for such Services. All work or products completed by Consultant shall be completed using the best practices available for the profession and shall be free from any defects. Consultant agrees that, if a Service is not so performed, in addition to

Page 66 of 92 ends

4 all of its obligations under this Agreement and at law, Consultant shall re-perform or replace unsatisfactory Service at no additional expense to City.

12. Compliance with Laws and Standards. Consultant shall insure compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, regulations and permits, including but not limited to federal, state, and county safety and health regulations. Consultant shall perform all work according to generally accepted standards within the industry. Consultant shall comply with all ordinances, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, including the administrative policies and guidelines of Client pertaining to the work.

13. Independent Contractor; Subcontracting. Consultant will employ, at its own expense, all personnel reasonably necessary to perform the Services. All acts of Consultant, its agents, officers, employees and all others acting on behalf of Consultant relating to this Agreement will be performed as independent contractors. Consultant, its agents and employees will represent and conduct themselves as independent contractors and not as employees of City. Consultant has no authority to bind or incur any obligation on behalf of City. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Consultant is prohibited from subcontracting this Agreement or any part of it unless such subcontracting is expressly approved by City in writing.

14. Insurance. Consultant and all of Consultant’s contractors and subcontractors shall obtain and maintain insurance of the types and in the amounts described in this paragraph and its subparagraphs with carriers reasonably satisfactory to City.

A. General Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or an equivalent form with a limit of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per claim and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for each occurrence.

B. Workers’ Compensation Insurance. Consultant shall carry workers’ compensation insurance as required by the State of California under the Labor Code.

Consultant shall also carry employer’s liability insurance in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per accident, with a One Million Dollar ($1,000,000.00) policy limit for bodily injury by disease, and a One Million Dollar ($1,000,000.00) limit for each employee’s bodily injury by disease.

C. Errors and Omissions Liability. Consultant shall carry errors and omissions liability insurance in the amount of no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence or greater if appropriate for the Consultant's profession. Architects and engineers coverage is to be endorsed to include contractual liability. Any deductibles or selfinsured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to the City, elected and appointed councils, commissions, directors, officers, employees, agents, and representatives (“City’s Agents”); or the Consultant shall provide a

Page 67 of 92 ends

5 financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

D. Other Insurance Requirements. Within five (5) days of the Effective Date, Consultant shall provide City with certificates of insurance for all of the policies required under this Agreement (“Certificates”), excluding the required worker’s compensation insurance. Such Certificates shall be kept current for the Term of the Agreement and Consultant shall be responsible for providing updated copies and notifying City if a policy is cancelled, suspended, reduced, or voided. With the exception of the worker’s compensation insurance, all of the insurance policies required in this Agreement shall: (a) provide that the policy will not be cancelled, allowed to expire, or materially reduced in coverage without at least thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to City of such cancellation, expiration, or reduction and each policy shall be endorsed to state such; (b) name City, and City’s Agents as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of Services, work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied, or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, leased, or hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City; (c) be primary with respect to any insurance or self-insurance programs covering City or City’s Agents and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City or City’s Agents shall be in excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute to it; (d) contain standard separation of insured provisions; and (e) state that any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policy including breaches of warranties shall not affect the coverage provided to the City.

15. Indemnification. Consultant hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its agents, officers, employees and volunteers, against all liability, obligations, claims, loss, and expense (a) caused or created by Consultant, its subcontractors, or the agents or employees of either, whether negligent or not, pertaining to or related to acts or omissions of Consultant in connection with the Services, or (b) arising out of injuries suffered or allegedly suffered by employees of Consultant or its subcontractors (i) in the course of their employment, (ii) in the performance of work hereunder, or (iii) upon premises owned or controlled by City.

Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify and hold City and its agents, officers, employees and volunteers harmless is not terminated by any requirement in this Agreement for Consultant to procure and maintain a policy of insurance.

16. Consequential Damages. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in no event shall City be liable, regardless of whether any claim is based on contract or tort, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages, including, but not limited to, lost profits or revenue, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the Services performed in connection with this Agreement.

17. Litigation. In the event that either Party brings an action under this Agreement for the breach or enforcement hereof, or must incur any collection expenses for any amounts due hereunder the prevailing Party in such action shall be entitled to its costs including reasonable attorney’s fees, whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment.

Page 68 of 92 ends

6 18. Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between City or Consultant must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal Express, UPS or other similar couriers providing overnight delivery. If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the Party to whom it is addressed. Notices given by registered or certified mail shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (a) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent, (b) on the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier, or (c) five (5) days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If given by Federal Express or similar courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Any Party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other Party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at the addresses in this paragraph set forth below:

If to City: City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Attn: City Clerk
With courtesy copies to: City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Attn: City Manager
And to: White Brenner LLP
1608 T Street
Sacramento, California 95811
Attention: Douglas L. White, Esq.

If to Consultant: Willdan Financial Services
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
Attention: James Edison

19. General Provisions.

A. Modification. No alteration, modification, or termination of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and executed by all Parties.

B. Waiver. The waiver by any Party of a breach of any provision hereof shall be in writing and shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any other or subsequent breach hereof unless specifically stated in writing.

Page 69 of 92 ends

7 C. Assignment. No Party shall assign, transfer, or otherwise dispose of this Agreement in whole or in part to any individual, firm, or corporation without the prior written consent of the other Party. Subject to the forgoing provisions, this Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the respective successors and assigns of the Parties.

D. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California.

E. Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings shall be in the Superior Court of California for the County of Stanislaus.

F. Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

G. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall be deemed a single agreement.

H. Severability. If any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect.

I. Audit. City shall have access at all reasonable times to all reports, contract records, contract documents, contract files, and personnel necessary to audit and verify Consultant’s charges to City under this Agreement.

J. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding between the Parties as to the subject matter of this Agreement and merges all prior discussions, negotiations, proposal letters or other promises, whether oral or in writing.

K. Headings Not Controlling. Headings used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement.

L. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement for each covenant and term of a condition herein.

Page 70 of 92 ends

8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the last day and date below written.

CITY:

CITY OF RIVERBANK, a California
municipal corporation
By:

Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Date:

CONSULTANT:

Willdan Financial Services, a _____________
By:

Name:

Date:

Approved as to Form:

Tom Hallinan, City Attorney

Page 71 of 92 ends

EXHIBIT "A"

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY - SCOPE OF WORK
Willdan Financial Services will provide professional consulting services to the City of Riverbank in support of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program Update. The Consultant shall perform all work in coordination with the City’s Community Development Department and in compliance with the California Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), relevant state housing goals, and REAP 2.0 funding objectives.

The services the successful Consultant will be expected to provide include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Project Initiation and Coordination
a. Conduct a kickoff meeting with City staff to review project objectives, establish communication protocols, and confirm the project schedule and deliverables. Confirm project objectives, including development of an impact fee framework that incentivizes infill and transit-oriented development consistent with AB 1600, REAP 2.0, and SB 743. b. Participate in weekly progress meetings with City staff to provide status updates, review preliminary findings, and address any emerging issues or data needs.

2. Data Collection and Review
a. Review and compile existing City documents, including the General Plan, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Master Plans, and previous fee studies.
b. Verify existing development assumptions, growth projections, and service standards for all applicable facility categories. c. Coordinate with City departments to identify infrastructure needs and planned capital projects related to growth and new development.

3. Technical Analysis and Fee Methodology
a. Prepare updated fee methodologies consistent with AB 1600 requirements and industry best practices. The consultant shall identify and recommend fee categories and methodologies that incentivize infill and transit-oriented development through reduced or tiered fees, consistent with the California Mitigation Fee Act and State housing goals, including REAP 2.0 and SB 743.
b. Develop calculations and justifications establishing a reasonable relationship (nexus) between new development and the cost of providing public facilities.

Page 72 of 92 ends

c. Recommend fee adjustments that reflect current construction costs, growth forecasts, and equitable cost-sharing among land use types.

4. Draft Development Impact Fee Study
a. Background information and existing conditions summary b. Description of overall methodology
c. Supporting documentation and justification
d. Recommended development impact fees
e. Purpose and use of each fee
f. Legal nexus analysis for each fee category
g. Relationship between fee use, project type, and new development impacts
h. Summary of key findings and AB 1600 compliance documentation

5. Community Engagement and Outreach
a. Conduct at least one bilingual (English/Spanish) community meeting to inform residents, businesses, and stakeholders of potential changes to the City’s impact fee structure.
b. Provide presentation materials in accessible formats, summarizing key findings, rationale, and community benefits associated with proposed fee adjustments.

6. Review and Refinement
a. Present draft findings to City staff for review and discussion. b. Incorporate staff feedback, technical comments, and policy guidance into the revised draft report.
c. Attend additional staff or Council committee meetings as necessary to review progress and discuss recommendations.

7. Final Repot and Adoption Process
a. Prepare and submit a Final Development Impact Fee Study incorporating all comments and revisions.
b. Present findings at a City Council meeting for consideration and potential adoption.

Page 73 of 92 ends

c. Provide supporting documentation and materials necessary for public hearing notices and adoption in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act.

All services described above shall be performed on a fixed-fee or time-and-materials basis, as determined during contract negotiation and directed by the City’s Community Development Director. The Consultant shall submit monthly invoices itemizing hours worked, tasks completed, and deliverables submitted for review and payment authorization.

Page 74 of 92 ends

City of Riverbank, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Cost Proposal for
EXHIBIT "B"

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY - COST PROPOSAL

Page 75 of 92 ends

7. Price Proposal
January 7, 2026
Mr. Joshua Mann
Community Development Director
City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Re: Cost Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Riverbank Dear Mr. Mann:

Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is pleased to submit the following fee proposal to the City of Riverbank (“City”) for the preparation of a System Development Fee (Development Impact Fee) Study. This submission reflects our understanding of the City’s Request for Proposal.

Willdan will serve as the prime consultant and will be responsible for overall project management and coordination with City staff. Fehr & Peers will support Willdan as a subconsultant for traffic and transportation-related services, as needed.

Willdan appreciates the opportunity to serve the City of Riverbank. Mr. James Edison will serve as the primary contact for this engagement. Should you wish to discuss any aspect of this submittal, please reach out to him directly; his contact information is provided in the table below.

Page 76 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 1
City of Riverbank, CA
Project Cost
Based upon the scope of work identified herein, Willdan proposes a fixed fee of $115,830 to prepare the City’s Development Impact Fee Study. This fee includes all labor and subconsultant services necessary to complete the scope of work, including traffic engineering and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis support provided by Fehr & Peers. If the City elects to include the optional transportation nexus analysis described in the scope, the total fixed fee will increase to $135,870.

The table below provides a breakdown of the proposed fee by task.

Notes
Please note the following:
▪ The Development Impact Fee Study fee denoted above includes weekly virtual progress meetings with City staff and attendance at up to four (4) in-person meetings, anticipated to include the project kickoff meeting, one (1) bilingual community information meeting, one (1) Planning Commission meeting, and one (1) City Council meeting. o Attendance at additional in-person meetings or presentations beyond those identified above may be provided as additional services, subject to prior City authorization, and billed at the hourly rates provided below.
▪ Comprehensive written responses to resolve conflicts or preparation of more than one set of major revisions to the draft report will be classified as Additional Services and may require additional billing at hourly rates stated in the hourly rate schedule listed below. Any additional services shall be performed only upon prior City authorization and shall be billed in accordance with the hourly rate schedule provided below. ▪ Our fixed fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project. ▪ We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed. ▪ City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs, travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency relating to City or relating to the project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan 's rates in effect at the time of such response.
▪ Optional/Additional Services beyond the listed Scope of Services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting rates.
▪ 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.

Page 77 of 92 ends

Development Impact Fee Study 2
City of Riverbank, CA
Hourly Rates
Willdan Financial Services
Provided below is Willdan’s hourly rate table identifying current hourly rates for additional or optional services.

Willdan Financial Services
Hourly Rate Schedule
Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Vice President / Director $310
Managing Principal James Edison $300
Principal Consultant Carlos Villarreal $270
Senior Project Manager $250
Project Manager $210
Senior Project Analyst $150
Senior Analyst $135
Analyst II $120
Analyst I $110
Fehr & Peers
Provided below is Fehr & Peers hourly rate table identifying current hourly rates for additional or optional services.

Page 78 of 92 ends

27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-4856
951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com

Page 79 of 92 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

Item 10.1. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.1.

SECTION : NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: 2/10/2026
Subject: Resolution Approving a Commercial Lease Agreement for 3313 Santa Fe Street (APN 132-009-056) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Said Agreement
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Marisela Garcia, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider a Resolution approving a Commercial Lease Agreement for 3313 Santa Fe Street and authorizing the City Manager to complete the negotiations and execute said agreement.

SUMMARY
Due to spatial constraints at the existing City Hall North and City Hall South buildings, staff have been evaluating vacant buildings and land within the city that would be suitable for relocating City Hall thus allowing for the consolidation of all downtown departments under one building. In the interim, staffing needs continue to grow. To allow the departments to be able to have the flexibility to add staff (subject to approval during the preparation of the budget) we have explored other opportunities for additional space. The leasing of 3313 Santa Fe in downtown Riverbank will allow the City departments to continue to grow while still being in close proximity to the other departments.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This item is directly related to the City Council Strategic Plan Goal to Enhance City Facilities/Organization and addresses the objective to obtain “new offices for Development Services Administration Department and evaluate Corporation Yard to accommodate in-house engineering staff.”

BACKGROUND
In June 2018, the City Council established a Strategic Plan Objective to “conduct a spatial analysis of all city facilities…” Over the past several years it has been evident

Page 80 of 92 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

Item 10.1. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026
that the City has outgrown its current facilities. With the population growth that is anticipated to occur in the near future with the continued housing construction throughout the city, the City Council thought it would be prudent to develop long-term plans to accommodate the growth in City staff that would be needed to serve our growing community.

In preparation for the study, all departments prepared short- and long-term staffing needs. These projections were used by the consulting team of Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects, LLP in order to determine the spatial needs for city offices. It became evident that City Hall North and City Hall South do not have sufficient space to adequately meet the needs of each of the departments, now or in the near future.

The City underwent the process of evaluating suitable sites in the downtown area to accommodate the construction of a new city hall. In February 2025, a Site Assessment was presented to Council with analysis performed on four sites, including those currently owned by the City, for the potential location of a new City Hall. Based on feedback, staff is exploring the feasibility of the following two sites:
• 3300 Atchison Street (Former Del Rio Theater)
• 6707 Third Street (City Hall North)
Design and financing of a new city hall has not yet been discussed as we finalize the location. We anticipate that this will be a long-term project that will take at least 5–7 years to bring to fruition. In the meantime, the City continues to grow and with limited space in our existing buildings, we do need to find opportunities to accommodate both existing and future staff. As such, the City Council included two objectives in the 2025- 2030 Strategic Plan that would allow for expanding our spatial needs, including seeking new offices for Development Services and evaluating expanding the use of the CNG building to make additional office space. The City was moving forward in evaluating this opportunity when the opportunity to lease space downtown was offered. 3313 SANTA FE STREET
Recently we have been advised that the office space at 3313 Santa Fe Street was available for lease. This location was the office space of Lana Clayton Insurance Company. She has recently retired and immediately reached out to the City to offer the opportunity to lease the space. After evaluating the building with our Development Services Administration Department, our city inspectors, and our IT staff, we feel that this location would be suitable to allow Development Services to grow while still being centrally located in downtown close to City Hall North and City Hall South for residents and contractors seeking their services.

Page 81 of 92 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

Item 10.1. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026
The City has been working with the property owners on a proposed lease with the following major terms:

Lease Term February 11, 2026 – March 31, 2029
Monthly Base Rent 02/11/26 – 03/31/27: $2,300
04/01/27 – 03/31/28: $2,415
04/01/28 – 03/31/29: $2,535.75
Security Deposit $2,301.00
Operating Expenses 100% of Utility & Service billings, Property Tax and Insurance
Maintenance Requirements City to maintain roof, foundation, exterior walls, common areas, and rear parking.

Cost shall not exceed an amount equal to
fifty percent (50%) of the Base Rent in any
given month.

The City will be performing some initial upgrades, including the installation of new workstations, carpeting, minor construction work (removal of temporary walls), and will be purchasing some furniture from the property owner for the City’s use. Additional costs will include IT upgrades to connect to the City’s network, installation of internet and phone systems.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Base rent per year as follows to be paid from the General Fund:

Year Monthly Rent Annual Rent
02/11/26 –
03/31/27
$2,300.00 $27,600.00
04/01/27 –
03/31/28
$2,415.00 $28,980.00
04/01/28 –
03/31/29
$2,535.75 $30,429.00
The first month’s payment from 2/11/26-3/31/26 will include partial rent for February 2026, full monthly rent for March 2026, Security Deposit, and last month’s rent for March 2029 for a total first payment of $7,980.08.

Additional costs to be covered by the City will include utilities (based on usage) and property tax (approximately $2,700/year).

Page 82 of 92 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

Item 10.1. — City Council / LRA Board — 2/10/2026
Costs related to the initial upgrades needed to occupy the building are currently being developed and will be requested at a future date.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. 3313 Santa Fe Street - Commercial_Lease_Agreement

Page 83 of 92 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 02/10/2026
CC Resolution 2026-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING A COMMERCIAL LEASE AGREEMENT FOR 3313 SANTA FE STREET (APN 132-009-056) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID

AGREEMENT

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, in 2018 the City authorized the preparation of a Spatial Needs Analysis which determined that City Hall North and City Hall South did not have sufficient space to adequately meet the needs of each of the departments now and in the near future; and
WHEREAS, in February 2025 a Site Assessment was presented to Council which evaluated the suitability of four sites located in downtown Riverbank as a future location for the construction of a new city hall to accommodate the City’s needs; and

WHEREAS, the acquisition, design, financing, and construction of a new city hall will continue to be a long term project that the City is working towards completing; and

WHEREAS, in the interim period the City has realized that it continues to need additional space to accommodate current and future staff; and

WHEREAS, the 2025 Strategic Plan identified a goal to Enhance City Facilities/Organization with two strategic objectives to obtain “new offices for Development Services Administration Department and evaluate the Corporation Yard to accommodate in-house engineering staff; and
WHEREAS, an opportunity to lease additional space in proximity to City Hall North and City Hall South was received which will allow for City services to remain in downtown; and
WHEREAS, the City has negotiated a Commercial Lease Agreement, herein incorporated, with the property owner of 3313 Santa Fe Street (APN 132-009-056).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank does hereby:

1. Approve the Commercial Lease Agreement with all its Terms and Conditions except as noted in item 2 below,

Page 84 of 92 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 02/10/2026
CC Resolution 2026-

2. Authorize the City Manager to complete negotiations regarding Section 18 Maintenance Costs,

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement,

4. Authorize the allocation of General Fund Reserves to the Development Services Rents & Leases Account (101-412.000-702.031) for payment of the monthly base rent,

5. Authorize the allocation of General Fund Reserves to the Development Services Utilities Account (101-412.000-704.021) for payment of ongoing monthly utilities.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the ____ day of _________, 2026; motioned by Councilmember __________, seconded by Councilmember __________, and upon roll call was carried by the following City Council vote of ______:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor
Attachment(s): Commercial Lease Agreement

Page 85 of 92 ends

Page 86 of 92 ends

Page 87 of 92 ends

Page 88 of 92 ends

Page 89 of 92 ends

The costs incurred by Tenant in fulfilling its obligation to maintain the Premises, as provided in Section 18 of this Agreement (“Monthly Maintenance Expenses”), shall not exceed an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the Base Rent in any given month. Any Monthly Maintenance Expenses exceeding fifty percent (50%) of the Base Rent for that or expenses are actually incurred, and any amounts exceeding fifty percent (50%) of the Base Rent shall not be allocated, amortized, or carried forward to any other month.
month shall be the responsibility of the Landlord. Monthly Maintenance Expenses shall be charged only in the month in which such costs

Page 90 of 92 ends

Page 91 of 92 ends

Page 92 of 92 ends

City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing AuthorityFebruary 10, 2026

City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing Authority
February 10, 2026