Agreement — Riverside City Council, August 6, 2024

SCOPE OF SERVICES

PROJECT

February 28, 2024
Ms. Kristan Nordmeyer, CPPB
Senior Procurement and Contracts Specialist
City of Riverside
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92313
Re: Proposal to Conduct a Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Riverside Dear Ms. Nordmeyer:

Riverside conduct a
comprehensive development impact fee study. approach helps to ensure the preparation of an impact fee study that will withstand technical challenges and public scrutiny. we are particularly well positioned to serve the City and help achieve established long-term goals. Outlined below are the advantages and benefits that Willdan will provide for the City.

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

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

We are particularly strong in advising our clients on the advantages and disadvantages of different fee schedule structures (citywide versus multiple-fee districts/zones; more versus fewer land-use categories; etc.) and methods of fee calculation that are
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600) so that they are defensible and transparent. We are also current on the changes to fee programs and the adoption of nexus studies resulting from AB 602, which took effect in 2022.

Innovative Methodologies. As Willdan operates nationally, we possess unique experiences in numerous jurisdictions dealing with multiple challenges. Our ability to produce studies that accommodate various options and viewpoints ensures fair-minded and sensible projects. Our methodology and approach to impact fees has proven to be effective for Cities and Counties, the development community, and the public. Utilizing focus groups, with established guidelines, during the study, fully informs the development community and the public of the justification of the impact fees, and their positive effect on community growth.

Best-in-class impact fee team that can work immediately to prepare an impact fee program.The Willdan team begins 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 -in-Charge James Edison and Project Manager Carlos Villarreal are well respected by our clients for their skill in proactively organizing a clear, consensus-based project approach.

Successful project completion. Willdan has successfully completed many development impact fee studies, including most recently in the Cities of Murrieta, Moreno Valley, Indian Wells, Bell Gardens, Pomona, Fountain Valley, McFarland, Riverbank, Santa Paula, Morgan Hill, Hollister, Pismo Beach, Santa Clara and the County of Riverside.

These fee programs were approved by their respective Councils and Boards.

We are excited about this opportunity to use our skills and expertise to serve the City of Riverside. To discuss any aspect of this submittal, please contact Managing Principal James Edison, who will serve as the primary contact for this proposal, his contact information is as follows: Tel#: (800) 755-6864 | Email:[email protected].

As a Vice President of Willdan Financial Services, I am authorized to bind the firm to the terms of this proposal, as well as the subsequent agreement.

Sincerely,
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director
ii
Project Understanding............................................................................................................................................3 Summary of Approach............................................................................................................................................4 Work Plan .................................................................................................................................................................7 Project Schedule ...................................................................................................................................................10 Project Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................................11 Firm Profile.............................................................................................................................................................14 WFS Office Locations ...........................................................................................................................................15 Litigation ................................................................................................................................................................15 Sub-Consultants....................................................................................................................................................16 Resumes.................................................................................................................................................................16 James Edison, JD, MPP, MA ..................................................................................................................................17 Carlos Villarreal, MPP .............................................................................................................................................19 Experience and Expertise.....................................................................................................................................21 References .............................................................................................................................................................23 Required Form .......................................................................................................................................................24 Development Impact Fee Study ...........................................................................................................................30 Hourly Rates ..........................................................................................................................................................31 This section outlines understanding of the situation surrounding the City of Riverside to conduct a development impact fee study, as well as identify the project objectives and discusses the background regarding public facilities financing in California. Also outlined is an overview of our impact fee project approach.

As part of the larger financial planning effort for Riverside General Plan, the City seeks to understand what the financial al
gaps in funding for those necessary improvements. The City desires to update impact fees to ensure a fair and reasonable fee structure, while meeting the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 et seq). The resulting fees will fund new , while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs.

Listed below are the development impact fees that will be included in this study:

Traffic & Railroad Signal
Mitigation Fees
Transportation Impact Fee
Overlook Parkway Crossing of
the Alessandro Arroyo Fee
Aquatic Facility RMC Fee
Fire Station Fee
Storm Drain Fee
Backup Facility Capacity Charge
Sewer Fee
Sewer Capacity Fee
Local Park Development Fee
Trails Development Fee
Regional Parks and Reserve Fee
Elevation Fee
Distribution System Fee
Listed below are development impact fees that are being considered by the City and will require a Nexus Study:

Public Art Fee
Public Safety Facilities Fee
Water Connection Fee
Library Improvement Fee
Drainage Improvement Fee
Airport Improvement Fee
Warehouse and Logistics Fee
Accessory Dwelling Fee
Willdan has excluded the Threatened and Endangered Special Preservation Fee, as this fee is administered by a separate agency.

The objective of this project is to update development impact fees pursuant to State law. To accomplish this objective, this study will:

Develop a technically defensible fee justification, based on the reasonable relationship and deferential review standards;
Review and facility standards, capital facilities plans and costs, and development and growth assumptions; Provide a schedule of maximum-justified fees by land use category; and Provide comprehensive documentation of assumptions, methodologies, and results, including findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

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

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

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

3. Steep reductions in Federal and State assistance; and

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

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees, also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners or registered voters and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit development jurisdiction-wide.

Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption. 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. 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.

In most cases, we recommend use of long-range market- - 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.

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.

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. e of planned facilities costs: 1) the existing
inventory method; 2) the planned facilities method; and 3) the system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.

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

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 demandExisting Development Demand Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.

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 demandNew 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.

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 demandExisting + 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.

At its simplest, the fee schedule uses the cost per unit of demand discussed in the last subsection to generate the fee schedule. This unit cost is multiplied by the demand associated with a new development project to calculate the fee for that project.

The fee schedule uses different demand measures by land use category to provide a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the amount of the fee. We are familiar with a wide range of methods for identifying appropriate land use categories and demand measures depending on the particular study. Related Approach Issues In our experience, one of the most common problems with impact fee programs and with many CIPs is that the program ty
expectations
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.

The development community is often 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, policy-makers, and the public.

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.

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.

Willdan will work with the City to update its impact fees consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and other relevant laws. We 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.

Identify and discuss potential policy issues raised by the study. Kick-off meeting with staff to review data needs, policy issues, and schedule.

Review agency documents related to existing capital planning policies and funding programs including existing impact fees. Bring policy issues to City
seek guidance prior to proceeding. Potential policy issues include:

Changes in implementation resulting from AB 602;
Changes in approach and nexus findings necessary to comply with AB 602; Potential new impact fees for consideration
Adequacy of General Plan and other public facility planning policies (e.g., level of service standards); impact fee ordinances and resolutions, and prior nexus studies; Availability of existing public facility master plans and CIPs to identify needed facilities; Types of facilities to be funded by each fee;
Land use categories for imposition of fees;
Nexus approach to determining facility standards;
Nexus approach to allocating cost burden among land uses, including need for separate fee zones; Potential alternative funding sources, if needed;
Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and
Implementation concerns and strategies.
(1) Information requests; and (2) revised project scope and schedule (if needed). (1) Identify estimates of existing levels of development; and (2) identify a projection of future growth consistent with current planning policy.

Identify base year for estimating existing levels of development and for calculating facility standards based on existing facility inventories (see Task 3). Include entitled development that would be exempt from fee program.

Consult with City staff to identify growth projections to a defined long-range planning horizon (10 to 30 years). Projections provide a basis for determining the facilities needed to accommodate growth (see Task 4). Consider projections from regional metropolitan planning agencies and other available sources - City staff to provide estimates and projections by zone if needed.

Develop approach for converting land use data to measure of facility demand. For example, identify population and employment density factors to convert population and employment estimates to dwelling units and building square footage.

Select appropriate approach for each impact fee based on:

Available local data on facility demand by land
use category;
Approaches used by other agencies; and
Support for other agency policy objectives.

Changes to estimates and projections during subsequent tasks could cause unanticipated effort and require an amendment to the scope of services and budget. Obtain approval of estimates and projections from City staff prior to proceeding.

Conduct Tasks 3, 4, and 5 separately for each intended facility and fee type. Conduct tasks concurrently because of the effect of facility standards (Task 3), facility needs (Task 4), and alternative funding (Task 5) on the fee calculation.

Determine standards to identify facilities required to accommodate growth.

Identify and evaluate possible facility standards depending upon the facility type, current facility inventory data, and available facility planning documents. Consider use of: (1) adopted policy standards (e.g., General Plan, master facility plans); (2) standards derived from existing facility inventories; or (3) standards derived from a list of planned facility projects. City staff to provide policies, inventories, and project lists.

Willdan will work with the City to identify additional costs that might be eligible for funding by the DIF.

Identify the type, amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate growth and correct deficiencies, if any.

Quantify total planned facilities based on growth projection from Task 2 and facility standards from Task

3. Express planned facilities in general quantities such as acres of parkland, or as a specific list of capital projects from a master facility plan.

Location of planned facilities may or may not be specified. If only a general description of planned facilities is available through the planning horizon, City staff to provide a list of specific capital projects for use of fee revenues during the short term (e.g., five years).

Distinguish between: (1) facilities needed to serve growth (that can be funded by impact fees); and (2) facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies (that cannot be funded by impact fees). Use one of three cost allocation methods (existing inventory, system plan, or planned facilities).

Gather planning-level data on new facilities costs based on lump sum project cost estimates, or unit costs and project quantities (acres, building square feet, lane miles, etc.). Consider recent City experience, local market data such as land transactions, and consultant team experience from prior projects. Inflate older cost estimates to base year using appropriate cost indices.

The revised facility costs will form the basis of the capital improvement program needed for compliance with AB 602.

This scope of work does not include additional engineering analysis, including traffic engineering, to identify total facility needs, existing deficiencies, or cost estimates. Any such engineering/design work can be provided under a separate contract with Willdan Engineering or a third party. However, Willdan can use rough descriptions and comparables to calculate a reasonable cost estimate sufficient for use in the DIF study.

Determine the extent of alternative (non-fee) funding available for new facilities.

If impact fees are going to only partially fund a capital project, the Mitigation Fee Act requires the agency report on the anticipated source and timing of the additional funding every five years. There are two types of alternative funding sources that we will identify:

1. Funding from non-impact fee sources to correct existing deficiencies; and

2. Funding from new development other than impact fees that must be credited against new Identify anticipated alternative funding based on information from City staff or note that funds are still to be identified based on a list of probable funding alternatives.

If fees will fund debt service include financing costs in the total cost of facilities.

Assume facilities to be funded predominantly on a pay-as-you-go basis. Scope does not include a cash flow analysis to analyze effect of timing of fee revenues on financing costs.

The City of Riverside further represents, acknowledges, and agrees that:
(i) The City uses, or may use, the services of one or more municipal advisors registered with the U.S. Securities and municipal securities;
(ii) The City is not looking to Willdan to provide, and City shall not otherwise request or require Willdan to provide, any advice or recommendations with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities (including any advice or recommendations with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues);
(iii) The provisions of this proposal and the services to be provided hereunder as outlined in the scope of services are not intended (and shall not be construed) to constitute or include any municipal advisory services within the meaning of Section 15B of
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.

At Willdan, we utilize a Project Management Process/Approach that ensures projects are completed on time, within budget policy decisions and/or the choice of critical assumptions used in constructing the analysis and model. Following key stakeholder discussions, we will schedule a call to summarize findings and direction with City staff, to make certain that we are in agreement with stated objectives, and that feedback is incorporated as appropriate.

Through the process of providing regular updates and conducting status conference calls, potential issues will be highlighted, discussed, and resolved. Any deviances from the project timeline will be identified and plans will be developed for course corrections. If necessary, changes in approach or strategy will be discussed with City staff, to meet the needs of the City of Riverside. In doing this, we will ensure the project stays on track and evolves, based upon current thinking and outside dynamics.

Identify the project
scope, set
objectives, list
potential
constraints,
document
assumptions.

Define a course of
action and develop
an effective
communication
plan.

Provide a forum for
collective expertise
to solving difficult
analytical issues
that arise in
complex projects.

Collaborate with
the project team
and client staff and
agree upon timeline
to meet the
estimated project
timeline.

Assign workload
functions to
appropriately
qualified staff to
ensure milestones
are met, on time.

Pre-schedule
quality control
meetings with
project team to
maintain the
progressive motion
of the project.

Manage the
execution of the
project.

Direct existing and
upcoming project
tasks.

Control and
monitor work in
progress.

Provide feedback
to client and
project team.

Identify and
resolve deviances
from project
timeline.

Review all work
product and
deliverables.

Utilize structured
quality assurance
process involving
up to three levels
of review at the
peer level, project
manager level.

Procure executive
officer level review.

Communicate with
the client regarding
work status and
progress.

Ensure client is in
receipt of regular
status updates.

Schedule regular
conference calls to
touch base.

Inform client of
roadblocks, work
outside of projected
scope.

-to-day activities. There are three levels
of reviews incorporated for our deliverables:
1) Peer review;
2) Project Manager review; and
3) Final quality assurance
manager review.

Peer reviews involve one analyst
reviewing the work of another,
while project manager reviews
are conducted prior to delivery to
the quality assurance manager.

The quality assurance manager
then performs a final review. This
assures that our final product has
been thoroughly evaluated for
potential errors; thus, providing
quality client deliverables, and
high levels of integrity and outcomes.

The primary mission of our quality control plan is to provide staff with the technical and managerial expertise to plan, organize, implement, and control the overall quality effort, thereby ensuring the completion of a quality project within the time and budget established.

James Edison
Establish a set of planned and systematic actions for
maintaining a high level of quality in the professional services performed;
Emphasize quality in every phase of work;
Ensure efficient use of resources;
Establish a consistent and uniform approach to the services performed; and
Implement appropriate quality control measures for each work task of the project.

James Edison;
Carlos Villarreal
Contract deliverables;
Specific quality control procedures;
Special quality control emphasis;
Budget and manpower requirements;
Overall project schedule and budget; and
Project documentation requirements.

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 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 1,500 employees working in more
than a dozen states across the U.S. Our employees
include a number of nationally recognized Subject
Matter Experts for all areas related to the broadest
definition of connected communities including a
team who will be committed to contribute their
expertise throughout the duration of the City of
Riverside
s Comprehensive 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.

Established on June 24, 1988, Willdan Financial Services is a California Corporation and a national firm. Since that time, we have helped over 800 public agencies successfully address a broad range of infrastructure challenges.

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

Willdan assists local public agencies by providing the following services:

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

The following table provides the location of our Division Headquarters, as well as our satellite offices.

Division Headquarters
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, California 92590 | Tel: (800) 755-6864 | Fax: (888) 326-6864 Aurora, CO
3190 S. Vaughn Way
Suite 550, Office 523
Aurora, Colorado 80014
(303) 990-4616
Orlando, FL
200 South Orange Avenue
Suite 1550
Orlando, Florida 32801
(407) 872-2467
Plano, TX
5500 Democracy Lane
Suite 130
Plano, Texas 75024
(972) 378-6588
Oakland, CA
66 Franklin Street
Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
(510) 832-0899
Phoenix, AZ
1440 E. Missouri Ave
Suite C-170
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
(602) 870-7600
Washington, DC
1025 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 510-0511
Willdan Financial Services is not currently, nor in the previous five years, involved in any condition, e.g., bankruptcy, pending litigation, planned office closures, impending merger, disciplinary actions, in the performance of the requested services that may impede our ability to complete this engagement.

Furthermore, Willdan Group, Inc. (WGI) has sustained a healthy financial performance record due to the outstanding performance of our operating divisions and a strong, dependable reputation in municipal consulting. Detailed financial statements and annual reports are included on our webpage ( http://ir.willdangroup.com/). As a publicly traded company (WLDN), Willdan must provide public financial information as required by the SEC.

In business for 60 years
Over 1,500 employees
Fiscal Year 2023 Consolidated
Contract Revenue of $354M
Market capitalization of $231M
(January 2024)
$50 million Line of Credit with the
ability to increase up to $60 million
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.
that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill the desired work performance.

Managing Principal
[email protected]
(510) 853-2612
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
Principal Consultant
[email protected]
(415) 786-0295
Project Manager
Collect, interpret, and disseminate key data
Day to day contact
Production of key elements of the analyses
Model development
Report preparation, and
Meeting and presentation attendance
Willdan will not require the assistance of sub-consultants to conduct the scope of services noted within our proposal.

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
Member of State Bar,
California
Council of
Development Finance
Agencies
CFA Society of
San Francisco
Congress for the
New Urbanism
Urban Land Institute
Seaside Institute
International Economic
Development Council
Mr. James Edison 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 -
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.

City of Moreno Valley, CA Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison was the principal-in-charge ee 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-
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 Indian Wells, CA Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison served as the principal-in- charge for the City The fee program was
comprised of a variety of fee categories including transportation, public facilities, recreation, park, and storm drain.

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
City of Fountain Valley, CA Development Impact Fee Update Study: Mr. Edison served as the project manager for the City
included the park impact fee, traffic improvement fee, transportation impact fee, utility infrastructure impact fee and general plan surcharge fee.

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 impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.

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

City of Alameda, CA Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team that updated the City of Alamed 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 park impact fee update. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the cost of acquiring and improving public park land.

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 City of Manteca, CA Fire Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the capacity of project manager City of Carpinteria, CA Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison was the project manager 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 The study included the
following facility fee categories; general government, law enforcement, park and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, storm drain, and traffic.

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

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

Resume Continued
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
Fiscal Impact Analyses
Development Impact
Fees
Public Facilities
Financing Plans
GIS Analysis
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.

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

City of Murrieta, CA Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Update: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager
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.

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. 2030.

City of Long Beach, CA Park Impact Fee Update:
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.

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

City of Carpinteria, CA Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was the lead analyst to thoroughfares, traffic control, parking, storm drain, general government, aquatic, park and recreation, and open space. The City has engaged Willdan again to update their impact fees and Mr.

Villarreal is serving in the role of project manager.

County of San Benito, CA Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: As project manager, Mr. Villarreal assisted the County with the preparation of an updated and expanded impact fee program. The study included updates to the following fees: capital improvements, road equipment, fire mitigation, and park and recreation.

City of McFarland, CA Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project 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.

City of Soledad, CA Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal managed the update 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 unnecessary costs.

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

City of Oroville, CA
Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager for a study aw 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.

County of Stanislaus, CA Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project 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.

Resume Continued
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 worked on virtually every aspect of municipal finance,
including fiscal and economic impact studies related to development and re-organization, the financing of
infrastructure and services through special district or supplemental taxes, and even working under contract as a department head of an entire municipality. This experience has provided Willdan team members with deep insight into the sources of municipal revenue and the costs of services.

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

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

Willdan has assembled a project team of subject matter experts within the Financial Consulting Services group, to conduct the City of Riverside 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.

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.
reputation. Willdan is known for its personal, customized service. professional staff to provide the
long term service, that is our prime goal.

The following table lists development impact fee clientele that have utilized our services in the past ten years.

City of Alameda, CA City of Parkland, FL
City of Antioch, CA City of Petaluma, CA
City of Arcadia, CA City of Pismo Beach, CA
City of Artesia, CA City of Pittsburg, CA
City of Bakersfield, CA City of Pleasant Hill, CA
City of Banning, CA City of Pomona, CA
City of Bell Gardens, CA City of Rancho Mirage, CA
City of Bellflower, CA City of Redwood City, CA
City of Brea, CA City of Rialto, CA
City of Calexico, CA City of Richmond, CA
City of Calimesa, CA City of Rio Rancho, NM
City of Carpinteria, CA City of Riverbank, CA
City of Chino Hills, CA City of Rolling Hills Estates, CA City of Clovis, CA City of Rosemead, CA
City of Coachella, CA City of San Carlos, CA
City of Commerce, CA City of San Fernando, CA
City of Compton, CA City of San Jacinto, CA
City of Corona, CA City of San Marcos, CA
City of Covina, CA City of San Ramon, CA
City of Cudahy, CA City of Santa Clara, CA
City of Dixon, CA City of Sebastopol, CA
City of Dublin, CA City of Selma, CA
City of El Monte, CA City of Sierra Madre, CA
City of El Segundo, CA City of Soledad, CA
City of Emeryville, CA City of South Gate, CA
City of Fillmore, CA City of South San Francisco, CA
City of Fountain Valley, CA City of St. Helena, CA
City of Fremont, CA City of Tehachapi, CA
City of Garden Grove, CA City of Thousand Oaks, CA
City of Gilroy, CA City of Tracy, CA
City of Gonzales, CA City of Upland, CA
City of Goose Creek, SC City of Visalia, CA
City of Guadalupe, CA City of Wasco, CA
City of Greenfield, CA Coachella Valley Association of Governments, CA City of Grover Beach, CA Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Hawthorne, CA County of Clay, FL
City of Healdsburg, CA County of Kern, CA
City of Hercules, CA County of Kings, CA
City of Hollister, CA County of Los Angeles, CA
City of Huntington Beach, CA County of Madera, CA
City of Huntington Park, CA County of Merced, CA
City of Indian Wells, CA County of Placer, CA
City of Irwindale, CA County of Riverside, CA
City of Kingsburg, CA County of Sacramento, CA
City of La Mesa, CA County of San Benito, CA
City of La Verne, CA County of San Diego, CA
City of Las Cruces, NM County of San Joaquin, CA
City of Lake Elsinore, CA County of San Luis Obispo, CA City of Lake Forest, CA County of Santa Barbara, CA
City of Lancaster, CA County of Solano, CA
City of Lawndale, CA County of Sonoma, CA
City of Livermore, CA County of Stanislaus, CA
City of Long Beach, CA County of Tulare, CA
City of McFarland, CA County of Yolo, CA
City of Madera, CA East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Manteca, CA Kern Council of Governments, CA
City of Menifee, CA Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, CA City of Moreno Valley, CA Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, CA City of Morgan Hill, CA San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District, CA City of Mountain View, CA Stanislaus Council of Governments, CA City of Murrieta, CA Tehachapi Valley Rec. & Park District, CA City of Newport Beach, CA Town of Mead, CO
City of Oroville, CA Town of Windsor, CA
City of Pacifica, CA Tulare County Association of Governments, CA City of Patterson, CA Village of Taos Ski Valley, NM
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.

Development Impact Fee
Nexus Study
Kevin McCarthy, Finance Director
44950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Tel #: (760) 346-2489
Email: [email protected]
Development Impact Fee
Nexus Study
Michael Lloyd, PE, Public Works Director
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
Tel #: (951) 413-3100
Email: [email protected]
Development Impact
Fee Study
Serena Chow, Administrative Services Manager II
Riverside County Economic Development Agency
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Tel #: (951) 955-6619
Email: [email protected]

Based upon the scope of work identified herein, Willdan proposes a fixed fee of $110,280 Impact Fee Study. The table below provides a breakdown of the proposed fee by task and team member.

Please note the following:

The fee denoted above includes attendance at up to sixteen (16) in-person meetings with City staff, stakeholders, and City Council
Attendance at more than sixteen (16) meetings and/or presentations will be billed at our current hourly rates, provided below, and actual expenses.

Comprehensive written responses to resolve conflicts or preparation of more than one set of major revisions to the draft report, will be classified as Additional Services, and may require additional billing at hourly rates stated in the hourly rate schedule listed below. These additional fees shall only take effect once the fixed fee stated above has been exceeded.

Our fixed fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project.

We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed.

City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs, travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency relating to City or relating to the project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan 's rates in effect at the time of such response.

Optional/Additional Services beyond the listed Scope of Services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting rates.

Provided below hourly rate table identifying current hourly rates for additional or optional services.

Vice President/Director $250
Managing Principal James Edison $240
Principal Consultant Carlos Villarreal $210
Senior Project Manager $185
Project Manager $165
Senior Project Analyst $135
Senior Analyst $125
Analyst II $110
Analyst I $100

COMPENSATION
Based upon the scope of work identified herein, Willdan proposes a fixed fee of $110,280 Impact Fee Study. The table below provides a breakdown of the proposed fee by task and team member.

Please note the following:

Our fixed fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project.

We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed.

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.

Provided below hourly rate table identifying current hourly rates for additional or optional services.

KEY PERSONNEL
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.
that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill the desired work performance.

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

Villarreal is serving in the role of project manager.

Resume Continued

Riverside City CouncilAugust 6, 2024

Riverside City Council
August 6, 2024