Willdan
78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 760.777.7000
November 30, 2018
James Edison, Managing Principal
Willdan Financial Services
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 430
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Development Impact Fee Study Update Proposal
Dear Mr. Edison:
Thank you for your proposal for the development impact fee study update. We are
pleased to have the attention of firms with your qualifications propose on projects
within the City of La Quinta. Unfortunately, another firm was selected to provide the
development impact fee study update as identified on the request for proposals (RFP).
We appreciate the time and effort your team invested in your proposal and encourage
you to submit work proposals in the future.
Sincerely,
Bryan McKinney
City Engineer
cc: Danny Castro
Design and Development Director
Project File
■
-..�iP% � �"� Tom• - -�...
�
W I LLDAN
I LLDAN
1=INANCIAL SERVICES
October 12, 2018
Mr. Bryan McKinney, PE
City Engineer
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Re: Proposal to Prepare a Development Impact Fee Study Update for the City of La Quinta
Dear Mr. McKinney:
The City of La Quinta ("City") is centrally located in the Coachella Valley within the County of Riverside. The City has
a permanent population of over 41,000 residents, which grows by an additional 16,000 people during the seasonal
months. The City originally adopted the Development Impact Fee Report in 1999, which has been updated five times
since with the last update occurring in February 2013. To ensure accurate accounting of the true costs of potential
development, the City has released a Request for Proposals for a Development Impact Fee Study Update.
Willdan Financial Services ("Willdan") is pleased to submit this proposal to the City to update development impact fees
for the following anticipated facilities: transportation improvements, park and recreation, Civic Center, library,
Community Center, street and park maintenance, and fire protection. Willdan's project approach helps to ensure the
preparation of an impact fee update that will withstand technical challenges and public scrutiny.
Given Willdan's unmatched development impact fee experience, we are particularly well positioned to serve the City
and help it reach its long-term goals. Explained below are our primary advantages.
Local expertise. Willdan has provided financial consulting services to the City for over 20 years, including special
district administration services and federal tax compliance services related to municipal bonds. Our proven record of
success on a variety of projects for the City provides assurance of the professionalism and capability we will continue
to bring to this engagement. More importantly, our knowledge of the organization, procedures and staff will allow us to
more effectively gather data and information and clarify questions. Our extensive City knowledge will provide an
unmatched understanding of local political and constituent dynamics within the City.
Unmatched experience defending and implementing 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.
We are particularly strong in advising our clients on the advantages and disadvantages of different fee schedule
structures (citywide versus multiple -fee districts/zones; more versus fewer land -use categories; etc.) and methods of
fee calculation that are based on the City's and stakeholder priorities.
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 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. Willdan will not require the assistance of a subconsultant in order to update
the City's impact fees, or a possible drainage improvement fee.
Successful project completion. As indicated within our submission, Willdan has successfully completed many
impact fee studies, including most recently in the Cities of Carpinteria, Garden Grove, Hollister, Murrieta,
Rialto and Santa Clara. These fee programs were approved by their respective City Councils. Furthermore, as noted
below in our proposal, we have assisted hundreds of cities in California with their development impact fees as well.
Engineering and Planning I Energy Efficiency and Sustainability I Financial and Economic Consulting I National Preparedness and Interoperability
T 951.587.3500 - 800.755.6864 1 F 951.587.3510 - 888.326.6864 1 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 1 www.wilidan.com
Mr. McKinney, PE, City of La Quinta
Proposal to Prepare a Development Impact Fee Study Update
October 12, 2018
Page ii
We are excited about this opportunity to use our skills and expertise to continue to serve the City of La Quinta. To
discuss any aspect of our submittal, please contact Managing Principal James Edison. Per the instructions outlined
within the Request for Proposals, the table below contains his contact information.
Sincerely,
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
Chris Fisher
Vice President - Group Manager
James Edison, Managing Principal
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 430
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel #: (510) 912-4687
Email: jedison@willdan.com
Comprehensive. Innovative. Trusted. NA/
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents..................................................................................................................................... ii
Statementof Qualifications.....................................................................................................................1
FirmBackground........................................................................................_................................................................... 1
Development Impact Fee Experience............................................................................................................................. 1
ProjectPersonnel............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Able to Provide Services in a Timely Manner.......................................................................................................... 4
Resumes............................................................................................................................................................... 4
ClientReferences........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Project Understanding and Approach....................................................................................................6
ProjectUnderstanding.................................................................................................................................................... 6
ProjectObjectives........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Public Facilities Financing in California................................................................................................................... 6
Summaryof Approach.................................................................................................................................................... 7
GrowthProjections.................................................................................................................................................. 7
FacilityStandards.................................................................................................................................................... 7
Identifying New Development Facility Needs and Costs......................................................................................... 8
Calculatingthe Fee Schedule.................................................................................................................................. 9
RelatedApproach Issues........................................................................................................................................ 9
Scopeof Work Program.........................................................................................................................10
Coordination.......................................................................................................................................................... 12
ProjectSchedule....................................................................................................................................13
RequiredDocumentation.......................................................................................................................14
InsuranceAcknowledgement........................................................................................................................................14
Non -Collusion Affidavit Form........................................................................................................................................ 15
Appendix.................................................................................................................................................16
VComPREHENsivE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVAT
TRUSTED.
it
Impact Fee Study Update
L —A
Statement of Qualifications
Firm Background
Willdan Financial Services is one of four operating divisions 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 on NASDAQ
(ticker: WLDN). WGI, through its subsidiaries, provides
professional technical and consulting services that ensure
the quality, value and security of our nation's 1 i'
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. ENGINEERING, PLANNING & ENERGY EFFICIENCY &
INFRASTRUCTURE SUSTAINABILITY
In doing so, Willdan has gained a notable reputation for -
technical excellence, cost-effectiveness, and client
responsiveness in providing superior consulting services. it �-
The company's service offerings span a broad set of��
complementary disciplines that include engineering and ,>>t
planning, energy efficiency and sustainability, financial
and economic consulting, and national preparedness. - r_/
Willdan has crafted this set of integrated services so that, FINANCIAL & ECONOMIC NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS & in the face of an evolving environment —whether CONSULTING SERVICES TRAINING
economic, natural, or built—Willdan can continue to
extend the reach and resources of its clients.
Currently, WGI has over 875 employees operating from offices in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Utah,
Texas, and Washington.
Willdan Financial Services
Established on June 24, 1988, Willdan Financial Services, a California Corporation, is a national firm, and is one of the
largest public sector financial consulting firms in the United States. Willdan assists local public agencies by providing
the following services:
• User fee studies;
• Cost allocation studies;
• Real estate economic analysis;
• Economic development plans and strategies;
■ Tax increment finance district formation and
amendment;
■ Housing development and implementation strategies;
• Financial consulting;
■ Real estate acquisition;
■ Development impact fee establishment and
analysis;
■ Utility rate and cost of service studies;
■ Feasibility studies;
• Classification/compensation surveys and analysis;
• Debt issuance support;
• Long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling;
and
• Property tax audits.
With a staff of 80 people, and office locations in Temecula, CA; Oakland, CA; Orlando, FL; Plano TX, Washington,
DC; Phoenix, AZ; and Aurora, CO, we have helped over 1,200 public agencies successfully address a broad range
of financial challenges, such as financing the costs of growth and generating revenues to fund desired services.
Development Impact Fee Experience
Willdan's commitment to public agencies and public solutions has helped us develop the broad finance expertise that
will be utilized to support the City of La Quinta's ("City") development impact fee study update. Willdan has 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/assessments,
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.
NVCOMPREHENSIVE. 1 Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
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's impact fee staff has assisted more than 100 agencies with impact fee -related projects. The following identifies
a partial listing of our development impact fee clients. Agencies listed in bold type face denote impact fee projects
completed by proposed team members Mr. James Edison and/or Mr. Carlos Villarreal.
Partial Client List
City of Alameda, CA
City of Roseville, CA
City of Antioch, CA
City of Sacramento, CA
City of Arcadia, CA
City of San Carlos, CA
City of Bellflower, CA
City of San Jose, CA
City of Beverly Hills, CA
City of Santa Clara, CA
City of Brea, CA
City of Santa Clarita, CA
City of Burlingame, CA
City of Sebastopol, CA
City of Calimesa, CA
City of Sierra Madre, CA
City of Carpinteria, CA
City of Soledad, CA
City of Coachella, CA
City of South Gate, CA
City of Covina, CA
City of South San Francisco, CA
City of Dublin, CA
City of Stockton, CA
City of El Centro, CA
City of Tehachapi, CA
City of El Monte, CA
City of Thousand Oaks, CA
City of El Segundo, CA
City of Tracy, CA
City of Emeryville, CA
City of Upland, CA
City of Fremont, CA
City of Visalia, CA
City of Fresno, CA
Coachella Valley Association of Governments, CA
City of Garden Grove, CA
Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA
City of Grass Valley, CA
County of El Dorado, CA
City of Gustine, CA
County of Kern, CA
City of Hawthorne, CA
County of Kings, CA
City of Hercules, CA
County of Los Angeles, CA
City of Hollister, CA
County of Madera, CA
City of Huntington Beach, CA
County of Merced, CA
City of Huntington Park, CA
County of Placer, CA
City of Indian Wells, CA
County of Riverside, CA
City of Irwindale, CA
County of San Benito, CA
City of Kingsburg, CA
County of San Joaquin, CA
City of La Mesa, CA
County of San Luis Obispo, CA
City of Laguna Hills, CA
County of Shasta, CA
City of Lake Elsinore, CA
County of Solano, CA
City of Lancaster, CA
County of Stanislaus, CA
City of Livermore, CA
County of Tulare, CA
City of Long Beach, CA
County of Yolo, CA
City of Madera, CA
Dixon Public Library District, CA
City of Manteca, CA
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA
City of Montebello, CA
Fremont Unified School District, CA
City of Monterey, CA
Kern Council of Governments, CA
N/C 0 M IP FR E H E N S I V E. 2 Proposal for a Development
INNQVArIVE. Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
City of Mountain View, CA
City of Murrieta, CA
City of Oceanside, CA
City of Oxnard, CA
City of Pacifica, CA
City of Palmdale, CA
City of Pittsburg, CA
City of Pleasant Hill, CA
City of Porterville, CA
City of Redding, CA
City of Redlands, CA
City of Redwood City, CA
City of Reedley, CA
City of Rialto, CA
City of Richmond, CA
City of Rio Vista, CA
City of Rocklin, CA
City of Rolling Hills Estates, CA
City of Rosemead, CA
Project Personnel
Partial Client List
Milpitas Unified School District, CA
Mountain View Fire Protection District, CA
Mt. Diablo Fire Protection District, CA
North Tahoe Fire Protection District, CA
Oakdale Rural Fire Protection District, CA
Rodeo -Hercules Fire Protection District, CA
Salida Fire Protection District, CA
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency, CA
San Miguel Fire Protection District, CA
Shasta County Regional Transportation Agency, CA
Stanislaus Council of Governments, CA
Stanislaus County Fire Protection District, CA
Stockton -San Joaquin Library District, CA
Suisun Fire Protection District, CA
Tehachapi Valley Rec. & Park District, CA
Tehama County Regional Transportation Agency, CA
Town of Windsor, CA
Town of Yucca Valley, CA
Tulare County Association of Governments, CA
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.
Mr. Carlos Villarreal will serve as project manager for the City's engagement. Mr. Villarreal will be the City's day-to-
day contact and be present at key meetings. He will be responsible for data gathering and report writing, leading tasks,
and coordinating with City staff to ensure that data gathering proceeds smoothly and minimizes the burden on client
staff. He has been selected to serve in this capacity due to his prior experience developing and updating a variety of
impact fee programs throughout the State of California.
Managing Principal James Edison will serve as the principal-In-charge/technical advisor. His responsibilities will
include overseeing consultant tasks, the quality of work products and assuring timely completion of the project. He has
been selected for this role because of his familiarity with innovative approaches to funding public facilities and recent
legislative and case law changes that alter how cities can use the Mitigation Fee Act. Mr. Edison is a former bond
attorney, and an active member of the California State BAR. With this knowledge and expertise overseeing the City's
project, he can be of assistance in advising, and addressing matters that are related to the review and/or preparation
of an impact fee and nexus study.
COMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
3
INNOVATIVE. Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
Able to Provide Services in a Timely Manner
At Willdan, we utilize a project management process that ensures projects are completed on time, within budget and
most importantly yield results that match our clients' expectations. Our complete project management process has four
primary principles common to successful projects:
1. Define the project to be completed. Mr. Edison will identify the project scope, set objectives, list potential
constraints, document assumptions, choose a course of action and develop an effective communication plan.
2. Plan the project schedule. Mr. Edison, in collaboration with City staff, will draft an agreed upon timeline to meet
the City's estimated project timeline. He will assign workload functions to appropriately qualified staff to ensure
all milestones are met, on time.
3. Manage the execution of the project. Mr. Edison has been selected as principal -in -charge for this project due to
his strong project management skills. He will be responsible for controlling the work in progress, providing
feedback to project team members and City staff, and will be accountable to the City for meeting the schedule,
budget and technical requirements of the project. Most importantly, Mr. Edison will ensure constant collaboration
and communication between City staff and the project team through frequent progress memorandums,
conference calls and in -person meetings.
4. Review each work product and deliverable through a structured quality assurance process involving up to three
levels of review at the peer level, project manager level, and if necessary executive officer level. We have
designed a formal and structured quality assurance system that Mr. Edison will utilize throughout the course of
the project. This review process ensures the City is not burdened with unnecessary review, data confirmation or
revisions.
We have utilized these guiding principles for each of our firm's projects. The City can be assured that in utilizing these
principles, Mr. Edison will implement active project management skills throughout the course of a project. He will also
ensure the deliverables developed in conjunction with this engagement will be of the highest quality and will be delivered
on time and within the agreed upon budget.
Resumes
Per the instructions outlined within the City's Request for Proposals (RFP), resumes for Willdan's proposed project team
have been provided within the Appendix section, located at the end of this submittal.
Client References
Below are recent project descriptions, including client contact information, that are similar in nature to those requested
by the City. We are proud of our reputation for customer service and encourage you to contact these clients regarding
our commitment to completing the projects within budget and agreed upon timelines.
County of Riverside, CA
Comprehensive Impact Fee Studv
Willdan assisted the County of Riverside with an update of its comprehensive impact fee program. The fee categories
were broad and diverse including countywide facilities such as jail detention facilities and county parks and trails;
unincorporated only facilities such as fire stations and libraries; and County planning area specific facilities including
storm drain and traffic improvements. Other facilities needed to be differentiated between the Eastern and Western
portions of the County due to separation by distance, as well as varying level of facilities by region.
The process was lengthy, involving significant efforts to inform staff of methodological differences between the
Willdan methodology and the methodology of the previous consultant.
Client Contact: Serena Chow, Administrative Services Manager
3403 10th Street, Suite 400, Riverside, CA 92501
Tel #: (951) 555-6619 1 Email: schow@rivcogda.org
COMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 4 Impact Fee Study Update
N%/TRUSTED.
County of Stanislaus, CA
Development Impact Fee Update
Willdan assisted the County with an update to its Public Facilities Fee (PFF) program. Willdan has updated the
program is made up of a range of facilities including public protection, library and park facilities. Fees were calculated
to fund Countywide -serving facilities and facilities only serving the unincorporated areas of the County.
Considerable stakeholder outreach was an integral component of this project to ensure buy -in from the development
community.
Client Contact: Keith Boggs, Assistant Executive Officer
1010 10th Street, Suite 6800, Modesto, CA 95354
Tel. #: (209) 652-1514 1 Email: bo sk@stancount .com
City of Soledad, CA
Development Impact Fee Update
The City of Soledad charges a wide range of development impact fees to new development. Willdan developed the
general government, fire protection, police, parks, and storm drainage fees in 2006. In 2012, the City sought to
comprehensively update its impact fee program for potential changes in demographics, growth projections, project
costs and facility standards. The resulting fees funded new development's share of planned facilities, while not
overburdening development with unnecessary costs.
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 (California Government Code 66000
to 66025).
Client Contact: Donald Wilcox, PE, Public Works Director
248 Main Street, Soledad, CA 93960
Tel. #: (831) 223-5173 1 Email: donald.wilcox@citvofsoledad.com
City of Laguna Hills, CA
Park Development Impact Fee Stud
Willdan assisted the City of Laguna Hills with the revision and updating of its park impact fee in 2015. The City had
two primary goals specific to this engagement. First, the overall program had to be updated to reflect current
demographics and park facility costs. Second, the City up to that point had relied exclusively on fees under the
Quimby Act, which did not apply to projects subject to the Subdivision Map Act. The City had received proposals for
several large apartment complexes that would be exempt from Quimby, and therefore asked Willdan to provide a fee
program based on the Mitigation Fee Act.
Willdan updated the City's demographic data and facility planning in order to properly update the Quimby Fee and
implement an MFA impact fee. The project team then calculated the applicable impact fees for single family and
multi -family dwelling units and prepared a nexus study that documented the fees and the necessary legal findings
under both applicable Acts.
Client Contact: David Chantarangsu, AICP, Community Development Director
24035 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Tel #: (949) 707-2670 1 Email: dchantarangsu @ lar unahillsca. ov
*COMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 5 Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
Project Understanding and Approach
This section outlines Willdan's understanding of the situation surrounding the City's need to update their development
impact fee study, as well as identifies the project objectives and discusses the background regarding public facilities
financing in California. Also outlined is an overview of our impact fee project approach.
Project Understanding
The City of La Quinta is centrally located in the Coachella Valley within the County of Riverside. The City has a
permanent population of over 41,000 residents, which grows by an additional 16,000 people during the seasonal
months.
The City originally adopted their Development Impact Fee Report in 1999, which has been updated five times since
with the last update occurring in February 2013. To ensure accurate accounting of the true costs of potential
development, the City has released an RFP specific to a Development Impact Fee Study Update. The RFP identifies
preparation of impact fees for the facilities listed below:
• Transportation improvements;
■ Park and recreation;
• Civic Center;
■ Library;
■ Community Center;
• Street and park maintenance; and
■ Fire protection
The City is seeking a consultant to develop an impact fee program to ensure a fair and reasonable fee structure, while
meeting the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 to 66025). The
resulting fees will fund new development's share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with
unnecessary costs.
Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to prepare development impact fees pursuant to State law, which requires an update
every five years. To accomplish this objective, this study will:
• Develop a technically defensible fee justification, based on the reasonable relationship and deferential review
standards;
• Review and update facility standards, capital facilities plans and costs, and development and growth assumptions;
• Provide a schedule of maximum -justified fees by land use category; and
• Provide comprehensive documentation of assumptions, methodologies, and results, including findings required
by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 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.
AcOMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 6 Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
I
Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit development
jurisdiction -wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Summary of Approach
Willdan's methodology for calculating public facilities fees is both simple and flexible. Simplicity is important so that the
development community and the public can easily understand the justification for the fee program. At the same time,
we use our expertise to reasonably ensure that the program is technically defensible.
Flexibility is important, so we can tailor our approach to the available data, and the agency's policy objectives. Our
understanding of the technical standards established by statutes and case law suggests that a range of approaches
are technically defensible. Consequently, we can address policy objectives related to the fee program, such as
economic development and affordable housing. Flexibility also enables us to avoid excessive engineering costs
associated with detailed facility planning. We calculate the maximum justifiable impact fee and provide flexibility for the
agency to adopt fees up to that amount.
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps
followed in an impact fee study include:
• Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth
forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;
• Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;
• Determine facilities required to serve new development and their costs: Estimate the total amount and cost
of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development; and
• Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the public facilities fee
schedule.
We discuss key aspects of our approach to each of these steps in the subsections that follow.
Growth Projections
In most cases, we recommend use of long-range market -based projections of new development. By "long-range" we
suggest 20 to 30 years to: capture the total demand often associated with major public facility investments; and support
analysis of debt financing, if needed. In contrast to build out projections, market -based projections provide a more
realistic estimate of development across all land uses. Build out projections typically overestimate commercial and
industrial development because of the oversupply of these land uses relative to residential development.
Facility Standards
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, 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 (WC) 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.
1VCOMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 7 Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
Identifying New Development Facility Needs and Costs
We can take several different approaches to identify facility needs and costs to sere 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 on the
page that follows:
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing
development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities = $/unit of demand
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing
development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing
development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities
to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to sere growth are identified through an annual
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new
development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand = $/unit of 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 sere 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
Existing + New Development Demand = $/unit of 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.
INVCOMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. g Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
h�mm___ �_ - - - ____ - - �__
Calculating the Fee Schedule
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
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 a number of strategies to address this
concern, including:
• Conducting an analysis of the total burden placed on development, by exactions, to see if feasibility may be
compromised by the proposed fees;
• Gathering similar data on the total fee burden imposed by neighboring or competing jurisdictions;
• Developing a plan for phasing in the fees over several years to enable the real estate market to adjust;
• Providing options for developers to finance impact fees through assessment 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
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 rei'nbursements; and
■ Including an administrative charge in the fee program.
'NVCOMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 9 Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
L A
Scope of Work Program
Outlined below is Willdan's proposed work plan to update development impact fees for the City. It is anticipated that
Willdan will prepare a technically defensible nexus study for the following fee categories.
• Transportation improvements
• Park and recreation
• Civic Center
• Library
■ Community Center
• Street and park maintenance
• Fire protection
In addition, Willdan will recommend other fees based on the City needs and best practices statewide. It is further
understood that the City has discussed the implementation of a new impact fee to fund future drainage improvements.
We want to ensure that our scope of services is responsive to the City's needs and specific local circumstances. We
will work with the City to revise our proposed scope based on input prior to approval of a contract, and as needed during
the course of the study.
Task 1: Identify and Resolve Policy Issues
Objective: Identify and resolve policy issues raised by the study.
Description: Review agency documents related to existing capital planning policies and funding programs including
existing impact fees. Meet with representatives of affected City departments to gather background
regarding the City's fee program. Bring policy issues to City staff's attention, as appropriate, during the
project and seek guidance prior to proceeding.
Potential policy issues include:
• 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;
• Availability of existing studies;
• 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;
• Master -planned development and relationship to fee program;
Implementation concerns and strategies; and
• Potential additional fees consistent with the City's goals and policies.
Meetings: One meeting to initiate the project, discuss data needs, and begin discussion of applicable policy
issues. Additional meetings on the same day (or next day) with affected City departments, as needed.
Deliverables: 1) Information requests; 2) revised project scope and schedule (if needed); and 3) brief summary of
policy decisions (if needed).
Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth
Objective: Identify estimates of existing levels of development; as well as a projection of future growth consistent
with current planning policy.
Description: Identify base year for estimating existing levels of development and for calculating facility standards
based on existing facility inventories (see Task 3). Include entitled development that would be exempt
from fee program.
COMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 10 Impact Fee Study Update
IN/TRUSTED.
19
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 the City's 2035 General Plan and from regional metropolitan
planning agencies, including Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), and other
available sources.
Develop approach for converting land use data to measure facility demand. For example, identify
population and employment densityfactors 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. Willdan will obtain approval of estimates
and projections from City staff prior to proceeding.
Deliverables: Memorandum to City staff summarizing estimates of existing development and projections for new
development.
Task 3: Determine Facility Standards
Note: Conduct Tasks 3, 4, and 5 separately for each facility and fee type. Conduct tasks concurrently because
of the effect of facility standards (Task 3), facility needs (Task 4), and alternative funding (Task 5) on
the fee calculation.
Objective: Determine standards to identify facilities required to accommodate growth.
Description: Identify and evaluate possible facility standards depending upon the facility type, current facility
inventory data, and available facility planning documents. Consider use of:
• Adopted policy standards (e.g. General Plan, master facility plans listed above);
• Standards derived from existing facility inventories; or
• Standards derived from a list of planned facility projects.
City staff to provide policies, inventories, and project lists.
Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs
Objective: Identify the type, amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate growth and correct deficiencies,
if any.
Description. Quantify total planned facilities based on growth projection from Task 2 and facility standards from Task
3. Express planned facilities in general quantities such as acres of parkland, or as a specific list of
capital projects from a master facility plan. Location of planned facilities may or may not be specified.
If only a general description of planned facilities is available through the planning horizon, City staff
should provide a list of specific capital projects for use of fee revenues during the short term (e.g. five
years).
Distinguish between: facilities needed to serve growth (that can be funded by impact fees); and 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) to calculate the fee schedule.
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 Willdan experience from prior projects.
Inflate older cost estimates to base year using appropriate cost indices.
COMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 11 Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives
Objective: Determine the extent of alternative (non -fee) funding available for new facilities.
Description: If impact fees are going to only partially fund a capital project, the Mitigation Fee Act requires the agency
report on the anticipated source and timing of the additional funding every five years. There are two
types of alternative funding sources that we will identify:
1. Funding from non -impact fee sources to correct existing deficiencies; and
2. Funding from new development other than impact fees that must be credited against new
development's impact fee contributions, possibly including taxes paid to finance facilities.
Identify anticipated alternative funding based on information from City staff or note that funds are still
to be identified based on a list of probable funding alternatives. If fees will fund debt service include
financing costs in the total cost of facilities.
Assume facilities to be funded predominantly on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Task 6: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report
Objective: Provide technically defensible fee report that comprehensively documents project assumptions,
methodologies, and results.
Description: Generate fee schedule to apportion facility costs to individual development projects. Use facility costs
per unit of demand multiplied by demand by land use category based on data developed in prior tasks.
Prepare draft report tables for City staff to review that document each step of the analysis, including
schedule of maximum justified fees by facility type land use category.
Following one round of comments from City staff on the quantitative analysis and fee schedules,
prepare administrative draft report. Following one round of comments on the administrative draft,
prepare public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public and elected officials. Prepare final
report if necessary based on one round of comments received on the public draft report. Submit up to
ten bound copies of each report. If requested, post report on our website for public access.
Provide legal counsel with copies of fee resolutions and ordinances used by other jurisdictions.
Meetings: Two public hearings to present the report for adoption.
Deliverables: Draft repot tables, administrative draft report, public draft report, final report (if needed), and slide
presentation (if needed).
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. 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.
Coordination
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City staff. We suggest that the City 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.
COMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 12 Impact Fee Study Update
M/,O,TRUSTED.
a)/
d k E
a a) 'E
0-
:3
o
m m
%e=
k\CL
%
\ .§ /
.E E }
£0
a) C
kk§
o@—
> '� §
-0
ca$2
=§2
% CL.k
2 § a
o a)
kk/
CTS a)
cu
cn Cl)
2k o
/k)
0 as
E '\ E
_&—
5Ln§/
a)
a0ff
E§>S
Ems/
s ®—
SO
i�Eaa
�ot�
§/ :W
—0 C:
0)
[m22
mob: _
) o $
coo m E
.Eu3$
kƒ/ /
°
\/
§ .q J
E §
0 .E \ /
E0�
.o/%
.� 0\e7
�
ef7§
/E3\
P-
o
n
2
2
E
co
k
�
�
e LO
co
2
.
2 CO
k �
_
LO
.
m
2
_
-
)
U
\
\ cli
e
ƒ f
,
§
co
'
®
/
e�
E �
.
3 n
e
2
(D
a)
§
>
■
Cl)
0
§
q
:
0
%
w
06
k
/
\
E
o
0
$
c
.7
w
k
f
2
f
cn
k
k
E
k
)LL
k
2
$
col
E
k
\
2
§
asCL
c
L
k
U-
k
w
@
7
a§
W
o
cz
a-
(r
a)
E
CL
k
@
&
�
—
3
3
3
U
�
w
co
F
d
/ \
2
z
2
Required Documentation
Insurance Acknowledgement
Acw
Empower Results®
October 10, 2018
City of La Quinta
Attn: Bryan McKinney, PE, City Engineer
Design and Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Re: Willdan Financial Services
Insurance Acknowledgement
Dear Mr. McKinney,
Commercial Risk Solutions
Consiniction Services Gmup
At the request of our client, Willdan Financial Services, the following acknowledgement has
been drafted for the City of La Quinta, California. Aon acknowledges that upon receipt of a
request from Willdan Financial Services, a certificate of insurance that includes the necessary
endorsements prescribed in Exhibit E, Insurance Requirements, of the City's Agreement for
Contract Services will be provided. It is our understanding that the following policy 1units will
be required:
Commercial Auto Liability (at least as broad as ISO CA 0001) - $1,000,000 (per accident)
Errors and Omissions Liability, - $1,000,000 (per claim and aggregate)
Workers' Compensation (per statutory requirements), including a Waiver of Subrogation
Please feel free to contact me, Jemiifer Nguyen -Account Specialist 11, directly at (949) 608-
6362, or via email at jennifer.nguyen(a;aon.com to discuss in more detail.
Best Regards,
4M-1
I
t C —
Jcrlrii fer Nguyen
Account Manager
Commercial Risk Solutions I Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc.
707 Wilshire Boulevard I Suite 2600 1 Los Angeles, CA 90017
t+1.213 630 3200 I aon.com
License No. 0363334
**/COMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 14 Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
Non -Collusion Affidavit Form
Cv 016a
— GEM nfib, DESERT —
NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT FORM
Must be executed by proposer and submitted with the proposal
I, Chris Fisher (name) hereby declare as follows:
I am Vice President of ,WIldan Financial Services ,
(Title) (Company)
the party making the foregoing proposal, that the proposal is not made in the
interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company,
association, organization, or corporation; that the proposal is genuine and not
collusive or sham; that the proposer has not directly or indirectly induced or
solicited any other proposer to put in a false or sham proposal, and has not
directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any proposer
or anyone else to put in a sham proposal, or that anyone shall refrain from
proposing; that the proposer has not in any manner, directly or indirectly,
sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the
proposal price of the proposer or any other proposer, or to fix any overhead,
profit, or cost element of the proposal price, or of that of any other proposer, or
to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the agreement of
anyone interested in the proposed agreement; that tall statements contained in
the proposal are true; and, further, that the proposer has not, directly or
indirectly, submitted his or her proposal price or any breakdown thereof, or the
contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative hereto, or paid, and
will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company, association,
organization, proposal depository, or to any member or agent thereof to
effectuate a collusive or sham proposal.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Proposer Signature:
Proposer Name: Chris Fisher
Proposer Title: Vice President
Company Name: Willdan Financial Services
Address: 27368 Via industria Ste 200 Temecula CA 92590
78-495 Calle Tampico Lo Quinta, CA 92253 760.777.7000
COMPREHENSIVE. 15 Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
Appendix
Resumes for Willdan's proposed project team are presented on the pages that follow.
Carlos Villarreal
Project Manager
Education Mr. Carlos Villarreal is proposed to serve in the role of project manager due to his experience
Master of Public documenting nexus findings for development impact fees, preparing capital improvement plans,
Policy, Richard and facilitating stakeholder involvement, and analyzing the economic impacts of fee programs. He has
Rhoda Goldman supported adoption of fee programs funding a variety of facility types, including, but not limited to
School of Public transportation, parks, library, fire, law enforcement and utilities.
Policy, University of
California, Berkeley Related Experience
Bachelor of Arts,
City of Morgan Hill, CA — Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project
Geography, University
manager for a study to update the City's existing nexus study, including general government, fire,
of California, Los
police, parks and recreation, library and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included
Angeles; Minor in
stakeholder outreach. The City has once again engaged Willdan and Mr. Villarreal is serving as the
Public Policy and
project manager on the project.
Urban Planning
City of Santa Clara, CA — Parks Fee Update: As assistant project manager to Mr. Edison, Mr.
Areas of Expertise
Villarreal collected the necessary data to update the City's park impact fee. This project included a
Fiscal Impact
demographic analysis and estimation of the cost of acquiring and improving public park land.
Analyses
City of Upland, CA — Impact Fee Study Update: Conducted a study to update the City's impact
Development Impact
fee program, including general government, regional transportation, water, sewer, storm drain and
Fees
park fees. Traffic fees were established within the San Bernardino Associated Governments'
Public Facilities
(SANBAG) guidelines to provide a local funding source for improvements of regional significance.
Financing Plans
City of Alameda, CA — Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as the lead project
GIS Analysis
analyst for this engagement to update the City's impact fee program. He coordinated with the City
12 Years' Experience
to gather the pertinent data for the project, and was instrumental in preparing the nexus study, in
addition to participating in the presentation to stakeholders and the City Council
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.
County of San Benito, CA — Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: In the role of project manager,
Mr. Villarreal assisted the County of San Benito with the preparation of an updated and expanded
impact fee program. The fee programs included: 1) Capital Improvements Impact Fee; 2) Road
Equipment Impact Fee; 3) Fire Mitigation Impact Fee; and 4) Park and Recreation Impact Fee.
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.
Rodeo -Hercules Fire Protection District, CA — Fire Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served
as project manager for the District's fire impact fees update. The fee will be charged in two
jurisdictions, the City of Hercules and the unincorporated community of Rodeo. The fees were
adopted by the City Council in September 2009 and were presented to the Board of Supervisors in
December 2009. At present, Mr. Villarreal is assisting the District with an update to their fire impact
fee.
COMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 16 Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
of Quinta
County of Los Angeles/City of Santa Clarita, CA — Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Study: Mr.
C. Villarreal Villarreal assisted with the development of an impact fee program to fund law enforcement facilities
Resume Continued 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.
Kern Council of Governments, CA — Regional Alternative Funding Program: Mr. Villarreal
served in the role of project manager for the establishment of this program, which consisted of a
deficiency analysis and nexus study to fund transportation projects in Kern County.
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.
City of Sierra Madre, CA — Public Facilities Fee Study: Willdan was retained to prepare impact
fee documentation for the City of Sierra Madre. The impact fee documentation included several fee
categories, including a park facilities fee and a Quimby In -Lieu Fee for parkland dedication. The
analysis documented two separate park -related fees; one based on the Quimby Act and the other
based on the Mitigation Fee Act. The City would collect the fee based on a standard of 3.0 acres
per 1,000 residents if the development was subject to the Quimby Act land dedication requirement.
For all other development, the City would collect based on the existing standard through the
Mitigation Fee Act. The City would only collect one of the two fees depending on which fee was
appropriate.
COMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVA71VE. 17 Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
James Edison
Principal -in -Charge
Education Mr. James Edison specializes in the nexus between public and private, with expertise in public-
Juris Doctorate, Boat private partnerships, and the benefits of economic development to municipalities and state,
Hall School of law, provincial, regional and national governments. He possesses deep expertise in land use
University of economics, with a specialty in finance and implementation, including fiscal impact and the public
California, Berkeley 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
Master Public Policy, studies; fiscal impact evaluations; new government formation strategies; and the creation of impact
Richaard and Rhoda fees assessments, and special taxes to fund infrastructure and public facilities. He has conducted
Public Policy, Universitt Goldman School y numerous evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of specific plans and consulted on a wide
y
of California, Berkeley variety of land use planning topics related to community revitalization and the economic and fiscal
impacts of development.
Bachelor of Arts, magna As a former bond attorney, Mr. Edison understands the legal underpinnings and technical
cum laude, Harvard
University 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
Professional developers and project finance.
Registrations
Related Experience
Member of State Bar,
California City of Morgan Hill, CA — Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison managed the update of
the City's existing nexus study, which included general government, fire, police, parks and
Licensed Real Estate recreation, library and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder outreach.
Broker, California The City has once again engaged Willdan to update their impact fees.
Affiliations City of Santa Clara, CA — Parks Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal -in -charge of the
Council of Development City's park impact fee update. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the
Finance Agencies cost of acquiring and improving public park land.
CFA Society of City of Alameda, CA — Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team
San Francisco updating the impact fee programs of the City of Alameda and creating a separate impact fee
program for Alameda Point, the former Alameda Naval Air Station.
Congress for the County of Tulare, CA — Countywide Impact Fees: Mr. Edison served as project manager for a
New Urbanism
study that involved the creation of an impact fee program for the County. The study includes a
Urban Land Institute range of facilities including public protection, library and parks, as well as a transportation facilities
impact fee, with different fees calculated for two zones in the County.
Seaside Institute City of Fremont, CA — Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team in
ternational Economic the successful update of the impact fee programs for the City of Fremont. The effort included an
InDevelopment Council update of the City's transportation impact fee program and capital improvement program.
County of Riverside, CA — Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the effort to
20 Years' Experience 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.
City of Manteca, CA — Fire Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the capacity of project
manager for the update of the City's fire services impact fee program.
City of Pacifica, CA — Park Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as the City's project manager to
update their park fee to include new costs and to impose fees for home expansion/remodels, in
addition to new development.
,YVCOMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 18 Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.
''pity of La Quinta
J. Edison County of Imperial, CA — Solar Farm Fiscal and Economic Analysis: Mr. Edison was engaged
Resume Continued by the County of Imperial to evaluate the fiscal and economic impacts of a series of proposed solar -
voltaic facilities (or "solar farms") on land near the Town of Calipatria, which is within the County.
For each, Mr. Edison calculated the tax revenues and service expenditures accruing to the County
from development of the project. He also estimated the economic impacts of the project using
IMPLAN, including the impact of the construction and ongoing operation of the solar farm, along
with the negative impact of the removal of the project site from agricultural production.
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.
City of Foster City, CA — Gilead, Chess Drive, and Mirabella Fiscal Impact Studies: The City
of Foster City hired Mr. Edison to provide an evaluation of the fiscal impact of three specific plans
in the City. He evaluated the impact on services of each plan, the anticipated new revenues and
expenditures, and the necessity for new public facilities to serve the projects.
City of Vallejo, CA — Costco Expansion Urban Decay, Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis:
In response to the City of Vallejo's request, Mr. Edison examined the economic impact of a
proposed expansion of an existing Costco. The analysis included projections of the impact on sales
tax, employment, property tax and the net impact to the City's budget. Based on the analysis, the
City Planning Commission approved the Costco expansion.
City of Vallejo, CA — Service Island Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis: The City of Vallejo
engaged Mr. Edison to provide an analysis of the fiscal impact of the annexation of three
unincorporated areas within the boundaries of the City of Vallejo, areas commonly called "service
islands." Solano County LAFCO requested the City examine the impact of annexation as part of a
larger annexation proposal by the City. He provided an examination of the fiscal implications of the
annexation of each area, including population, business activity, and the likely revenues and costs
associated with adding each area to the City.
County of Placer, CA — Bohemia Lumber Site, Fiscal Impact and Urban Decay Analysis: The
County of Placer engaged Mr. Edison to examine the fiscal impact and potential urban decay
effects from the development of the former Bohemia Lumber site into a retail center. Mr. Edison
prepared the analysis and presented the results to the County Board of Supervisors.
City of Redding, CA — Oasis Towne Centre Financing and Fiscal/Economic Impact Analysis:
Hired by the Levenson Development Company (LDC) to assist with an economic/fiscal impact study
and a financing plan for the Oasis Towne Center, a retail development of approximately one million
square feet in Redding, California. Mr. Edison advised LDC on how to structure the financing of the
development to provide public benefits fro the project and minimize the need for public resources.
He prepared an economic and fiscal analysis and negotiated a series of service plans and fiscal
mitigation measures with the City of Redding. Mr. Edison also prepared a financing plan for
infrastructure needed not only for the immediate project but also for development within the entire
Oasis Road Specific Plan area.
COMPREHENSIVE. Proposal for a Development
INNOVATIVE. 19 Impact Fee Study Update
TRUSTED.