Loading...
CC - Item 4L - Development Impact Fee Justification Studys M F Q~Q CO RAND \9j9 LJ ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 26, 2008 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY SUMMARY In 1987, the California Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1600, or the Mitigation Fee Act, that established a uniform process for formulating, adopting, imposing, collecting, accounting for, and protesting developer impact fees. Impact fees are charges assessed by local governments against new development projects that attempt to recover the cost incurred by government in providing the public facilities required to serve the new development. Impact fees are only used to fund facilities, such as roads, schools, and parks, that are directly associated with the new development. They may be used to pay the proportionate share of the cost of public facilities that benefit the new development; however, impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. Given that the City is in the process of updating its General Plan, proposals were solicited for a Development Impact Fee Study in the interest of establishing a development impact fee program for streets and transportation, general government, law enforcement, libraries, parks, wastewater treatment, and public art in the City of Rosemead. In completing such a study, all projects and needs must be identified and a methodology developed with a nexus justifying the fees that are established in compliance with AB 1600. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with W illdan Financial Services to provide a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Rosemead, in accordance with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code sections 66000 to 66025) in the amount of $50,860. ANALYSIS Development impact fees are charges assessed to new development projects to help offset the costs of providing the necessary public services to serve the new development, i.e., streets and transportation, general government, law enforcement, libraries, parks, wastewater treatment, and public art. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: City Council Report August 26, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Staff solicited proposals from seven (7) firms who, at one time, specialized in development impact fee justification studies. Those firms were: GRC Urban Futures Bureau Veritas Keyser Marston Associates Willdan Financial Services HR&A Revenue Cost Specialists, LLC Willdan was the only company who continues to offer this type of-service and was willing to submit a proposal. Willdan Financial Services is one of California's leading firms for development impact fee programs. Willdan's staff has been key participants in providing impact fee analyses for over 50 public agencies across California, including experience with numerous public agencies in Los Angeles County and the San Gabriel Valley. The cost to have this study prepared is $50,860. FISCAL ANALYSIS Because many of the proposed projects are directly in or near the City's redevelopment project areas, it is being proposed that the cost for this study be split equally between the Community Development Commission ($25,430) and the General Fund ($25,430). Funds were budgeted in the FY 2008-09 General City and CDC budgets to pay for this study. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared by: Michelle G. Ramirez Economic Development Administrator AssislanyCity Manager Attachment A- Willdan Financial Services Proposal I "WILLDAN ' Financial Services July 21, 2008 Mr. Oliver Chi ' City Manager City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Blvd. ' Rosemead, California 91770 Re: Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 1 Dear Mr. Chi: Willdan Financial Services, formerly MuniFinancial, is pleased to submit this proposal to provide a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Rosemead, in accordance with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code sections 66000 to 66025). We are ideally suited to ' undertake this project and support City staff for the following reasons: Experienced Project Team - Willdan has selected Mr. Robert Spencer, a nationally recognized leader ' and expert in facility and financial planning and economic analysis to lead our team. Mr, Spencer is supremely qualified, having provided these types of services for more than 20 years to over 300 public agencies in California and the nation, which will be demonstrated further in this proposal. Mr. Jeff Kay will serve as project Manager for this study. Mr. Kay is well qualified for this project having managed ' dozens of development impact fee studies for public agencies throughout California. Depth of Experience - Willdan Financial Services is one of California's leading firms for development ' impact and utility connection fee programs. Willdan's staff has been key participants in providing impact and connection fee analyses for over 50 public agencies across California, including experience with numerous public agencies in Los Angeles County and the San Gabriel Valley. ' Firm Stability and Support - Willdan Financial Services is one of the largest public sector financial consulting firms in the United States. In our 20-year history, we have helped hundreds of public agencies and nonprofit organizations successfully address a broad range of financial challenges. With ' over 70 employees, we have the resources to assure your project will be conducted to the highest quality standards. Key Study Issues - Having carefully reviewed the City's key project issues we have developed a ' comprehensive and thoughtful approach to this project. Summarized below are the considerations that will be addressed by our analysis, as well as our approach: li Issue #1: Assess Facility Demand Resulting from Infill and Intensification Development Although many development impact fee studies focus on the facility demand resulting from green-field development, we recognize that that City of Rosemead will experience development of a different nature. To devise of a fee program that responds to the City's specific needs, we anticipate focusing on the need for incremental expansion of public facilities to accommodate increased service demand from high-density, mixed use projects. Engineering I Geotechnical Environmental 1 Financial 1 Homeland Security 951.587.3500 1 800.755.6864 1 tax: 951.587.3510 27368 Via Industria, Suite 110, Temecula, CA 92590 1 www.willdan.com 11 ty of R: u;y 21. 2006 -tqe 2 Issue #2: Determine New Development's Fair-Share Cost Allocation for Future Facility Needs When cities are near or have reached full geographic build out, it is often infeasible to hold new ' development responsible for the entire cost of planned public facility and infrastructure projects. Accordingly, we will devote particular attention to allocating responsibility for future projects between existing and future development. New development's cost burden will be consistent with its share of ' demand for, and benefit from, the planned projects. Issue #3: Maintain Flexibility in the Determination of Facility Categories ' Public agencies in California have used impact fees to fund a wide variety of public facilities and the Mitigation Fee Act allows for substantial flexibility in defining facility categories. Because this study represents the City of Rosemead's first experience with development impact fees, we intend to maintain flexibility in terms of the definition of facility categories. As the study progresses we will work ' closely with City staff to ensure that the facility categories used are consistent with future needs and result in a fee program that is easy to implement. ' Willdan is excited about this opportunity to use our team's skills and expertise to assist the City of Rosemead. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Mr. Kay at (510) 832- 0899 or via email to jkay@willdan.com. ' Sincerely, Willdan Financial Services Brian Jewett ' Vice President and Group Manager 11 11 11 11 0 9 *WILLDAN Financial Services TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 1 Public Facilities Financing In California 1 Local Situation 1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH 2 Project Objectives 2 Summary of Approach 2 Related Approach Issues 5 SCOPE OF SERVICES 7 Task Plan 7 Meetings 10 Required Agency Staff Support 10 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 11 Introduction to Willdan Financial Services 11 Financial Consulting Services Group 11 Development Impact Fee Experience 12 PROJECT SCHEDULE 18 FEE FOR SERVICES 19 PROJECT TEAM 20 The City of Rosemead's Team 20 Project Management 20 CLIENT REFERENCES 25 Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study i N%/WILLDAN Financial Services Project Understanding This section provides background in public facilities financing in California. We also discuss our understanding of the situation surrounding the City of Rosemead's need for a development impact fee study. 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 (4) dominant trends stand out: ■ 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; ■ Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; ' Steep reductions in federal and state assistance; and ■ Permanent shifting by the State of local tax resources to the State General Fund to offset deficit spending brought on by recessions. t 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 and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. 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. Local Situation The City of Rosemead is nearing phyical build out but expects to experience future development in the form of intensification and infill projects. The increases in service population resulting from future development will create a need for expanded inventories of City facilities in order to maintain acceptable service levels in the future. Accordingly, the City is now considering an impact fee program that would recover new development's fair cost share of future facility construction, acquisition, or expansion. Given that a great deal of future development in the City will consist of mixed-use developments, we propose preparing an impact fee program that will reflect differing impacts by land use type while remaining simple to implement for projects that contain multiple uses. We anticipate working carefully with City staff to determine the facilities needed to accommodate new development. In some instances, we will rely on City planning documents, such as a citywide traffic study, to identify road segments that will reach inadequate levels of service and require improvements. In other cases we will identify appropriate policy standards, such as park acres per thousand residents, to determine future development's fair share obligations. Throughout the study, we intend to work closely with the City to ensure that the fee program is implementable and reflective of the City of Rosemead's policies and priorities. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study J J • • WWILLDAN Financial Services Project Objectives and Approach This section explains the project objectives, our approach to development impact fee programs, and how that approach would be applied to the City of Rosemead. Project Objectives The objective of this project is to create an impact fee program consistent with the General Plan. To accomplish this objective this study will: ■ Develop technically defensible fee justification based on the reasonable relationship and deferential review standards; ■ Provide a schedule of maximum-justified fees by land use category; ■ Provide a survey of impact fee amounts in comparable jurisdictions; • Provide comprehensive documentation of all assumptions, methodologies, and results, including findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 to 66025). Summary of Approach This section describes our approach to impact fee programs. The section is followed by a discussion of policy issues that often arise in the development and implementation of these programs. General Methodology Willdan Financial Services' 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 financial and engineering 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 the 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 (4) steps followed in an impact fee study include: 1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities; 2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities; 3. 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 4. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the public facilities fee schedule. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study O/WILLDAN Fnancial Services 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 (1) capture the total demand often associated with major public facility investments, and (2) 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 over-supply 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: • 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. ' ■ 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. ■ 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. Identifying New Development Facility Needs and Costs We have a number of approaches that can be used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development. Often there is a two step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocated 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 because of the specialized technical analysis required to identify facility needs. If facility master plans do not exist we often develop a preliminary plan for the purposes of the fee program based on interviews with staff and our extensive experience with other facility funding plans. If additional facility planning is needed, in most cases we can still document a technically ' defensible fee program by extrapolating existing facility standards based on projected growth. Regardless of the level of facility planning we have the flexibility to develop a technically defensible fee program based on available information. ' There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned facilities costs: the existing inventory method, the system plan method, and the planned facilities method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has ' engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 3 t • • iWWILLDAN Financial Services The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below: Existing Inventory Method The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows: Current Value of Existing Facilities = $/unit of demand Existing Development Demand ' Under this method, new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long- range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan 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: t 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 serve existing development. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used for the master facility plan. System Plan Method This method calculates the fee based on the ratio of: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development: Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities 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 together achieve the desired level of service. Police substations, civic centers, and regional parks provide examples of similar facilities. The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies. Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. Calculating the Fee Schedule 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. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 11 1 1 0 0 *KWI LLDAN Financial services Related Approach Issues Funding and Financing Strategies In our experience one of the most common problems with impact fee programs, and with many capital improvement plans, 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 capital improvement plans 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 cooperation with financial advisors and underwriters we have developed specific underwriting criteria so that fees can be used to pay back borrowing as long as 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 development feasibility may be compromised by the proposed fees; ■ Gathering similar data on the 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 capital improvement plan (CIP). The CIP should remain financially feasible to maintain realistic expectations among developers, policy-makers and the public. Our proposed scope includes a fee burden analysis (second bullet point, above). The remaining strategies will be addressed in our final report. 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. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study io/WILLDAN Financial Services Park Impact Fee Versus Quimby In-lieu Fee We always consider the advantages and disadvantages of a separate statutory authority to " " ' collect a fee for parks, the Quimby in-lieu fee for parkland acquisition (California Government Code section 66477). The Quimby in-lieu fee has distinct advantages in situations where the existing park standard is below three acres per thousand. In this situation the agency can require new development to provide parkland or pay a fee at the three-acre level without the agency being required to correct existing deficiencies. In addition, Quimby fees can be used to renovate and refurbish parks, a use of funds typically not allowed for impact fees. Program Implementation Fee programs require a certain level of administrative support for successful implementation. Our final report will include recommendations for appropriate procedures such as: ■ Regularly updating development forecasts; ■ Regularly updating fees for capital project cost inflation: ■ Regularly updating capital facility needs based on changing demands; • Developing procedures for developer credits and reimbursements; and • Including an administrative charge in the fee program. w L' 11 1 u Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study -IO/WILLDAN Financial Services 1 Scope of Services Below is our proposed scope of services described in detail by task. We explain how we will accomplish each task and identify associated meetings and deliverables. This scope of services includes preparing the documentation necessary to adopt the following seven (7) impact fees: ■ Streets and Transportation ■ Police ■ G l G t enera overnmen ■ Wastewater ■ Library ■ Parks ■ Public Art Following the task plan is a description of our involvement in meetings and our expectations of support from agency staff. We want to ensure that our scope of services is responsive to the City of Rosemead's needs and specific local circumstances. We will work with the agency to revise our proposed scope based on input prior to approval of a contract, and as needed during the course of the study. Task Plan 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. Bring policy issues to staffs 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 capital improvement plans to identify needed facilities; ■ Types of facilities to be funded by each fee; 1 ■ Land use categories for imposition of fees; ■ Nex s a r rminin h t d t f ilit t d d g u pp oac o e e ac an y s ar s; ■ 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 concems and strategies. Meetings: One (1) meeting to initiate the project, discuss data needs, and begin discussion of applicable policy issues. Deliverables: (1) Information requests, (2) revised project scope and schedule (if needed), (3) brief summary of policy decisions (if needed). 7 Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 1 WILLDAN Fvtancial Services TASK 2: IDENTIFY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE ' GROWTH Objective: (1) Identify estimates of existing levels of development, and (2) identify a projection of future growth 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. Consult with the agency 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. Agency 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. 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 scope of services and budget. Obtain approval of estimates and projections from agency staff prior to proceeding. Meetings: None. Deliverables: Memorandum to agency 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 altemative 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 on 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. See Facility Standards above for explanation of types of facility standards (demand, design, and cost standards). Agency staff to provide policies, inventories, and project lists. Meetings: None. Deliverables: None. 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 Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 8 VV/WILLDAN Financial Services general description of planned facilities is available through the planning horizon, agency 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). See explanation above under Identifying New Development Facility Needs and Costs. 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 agency experience, local market data such as land transactions, consultant team experience from prior projects. Inflate older cost estimates to base year using appropriate cost indices. Scope of work does not include additional engineering analysis to identify total facility needs, existing deficiencies, or cost estimates. Meetings: None. Deliverables: None. 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 (5) years. There are two (2) 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 I credited against new development's impact fee contributions, possibly including taxes paid to finance facilities. Identify anticipated alternative funding based on information from agency 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. Meetings: None. Deliverables: None. TASK 6: CONDUCT COMPARATIVE FEE SURVEY 1 Objective: To assess the proposed fee amounts relative to those in comparable jurisdictions. 1 Description: Provide a measure of the economic feasibility of proposed fee program by comparing proposed fee amounts to those in comparable or competing jurisdictions. Consult with agency staff to identify up to five (5) jurisdictions to survey. Gather data on impact fees including fees imposed by regional agencies. Building permit and other processing fees will not be included in the analysis because these fees typically do not vary substantially among jurisdictions. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study J 1 11 • • Meetings: None. Deliverables: None (results included in final report). TASK 7: CALCULATE FEES AND PREPARE REPORT iWWILLDAN Financial Services 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 agency staff to review that document each step of the analysis, including schedule of maximum justified fees by facility type land use category. Following one (1) round of comments from agency staff on the quantitative analysis and fee schedules, prepare administrative draft report. Following one (1) round of comments on administrative draft, prepare public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public and elected officials. Prepare final report if necessary based on one (1) round of comments received on the public draft report. Submit up to 10 bound copies of each report. If requested post report on corporate web site for public access. Provide legal counsel with copies of fee resolutions and ordinances used by other jurisdictions, if requested. Meetings. Two (2) meetings: one (1) to review the initial project results and one (1) to present the report at a public hearing for adoption. Deliverables: Draft report tables, administrative draft report, public draft report, final report (if needed), and slide presentation (if needed). Meetings The Project Manager will attend meetings accompanied by the Principal-in-Charge, as needed. We will work with agency staff to set up meetings to keep the project on schedule. Phone conferences are not considered meetings for the purposes of this scope. Additional meetings may be requested for an additional fee based on our hourly billing rates. Required Agency Staff Support To complete our tasks on schedule, we will need the cooperation of agency staff. We suggest that the agency assign a key individual as project manager for the agency. We will expect the agency's project manager to (1) help resolve policy issues, (2) coordinate responses to requests for information, and (3) coordinate review of work products. To meet the schedule outlined below we will expect responses to policy issues and information requests within five (5) business days. If there are delays on the part of the agency we will need to adjust our project schedule accordingly. We will keep the agency's project manager informed of data or feedback we need to keep the project on schedule. Willdan Financial Services will endeavor to minimize the impact on agency staff in the completion of this project. 1 10 Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 1 • WW I LLDAN Financial Services Qualifications and Experience Introduction to Willdan Financial Services Willdan Financial Services is a customer-oriented firm that delivers quality financial and economic services to public agencies and, ultimately, to the public. Willdan Financial Services is one of the largest public sector financial consulting firms in the United States, with corporate headquarters in Temecula and regional offices in Oakland, Lancaster and Sacramento, California; Memphis, Tennessee and Orlando, Florida.. Since 1988 we have helped over 800 public agencies successfully address a broad range of financial challenges, such as financing the costs of growth and generating revenues to fund desired services. Willdan Financial Services assists local public agencies with long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling, cost allocations, development impact fees, rate studies, and property tax audits. In addition, we assist local public agencies with arbitrage rebate, investment consulting, municipal disclosure, and special district administration. Willdan Financial Services has the largest special district formation and administration practice in the nation. We are known as the preeminent municipal disclosure firm as well as a major provider of arbitrage rebate services. The firm currently has a staff of over 70 dedicated professionals with the range of expertise necessary to provide high-quality service to our clients. Given the breadth and depth of expertise among our staff, Willdan Financial Services is able to offer clients a full range of financial services: Financial planning and revenue enhancement, including financial projections and policy analysis, plus rate, user fee, and cost allocation studies; Capital improvement planning and financing, including infrastructure financing plans and impact or connection fee studies; Economic and fiscal policy analysis of proposed projects and plans, including government reorganizations studies; Special district implementation and administration, including district formation and voter campaigns, plus administrative services such as levies and delinquency management, and Federal compliance services for bond issues such as continuing disclosure and arbitrage rebate analysis. Many of our projects have an engineering component as well, highlighting the benefits of Willdan Financial Services as one division of Willdan Group, Inc. Our affiliate firm, Willdan, is a leading engineering consulting firm consisting of over 500 personnel in the Western United States. Willdan provides contract staff for building, planning and engineering departments plus a range of civil engineering services. With the combined expertise of our firms we can provide a comprehensive approach to our clients' financial, economic and public facility engineering challenges. Financial Consulting Services Group Willdan Financial Services has been built on deep, continuing relationships with local government department staff. With hundreds of ongoing client relationships in finance, engineering and other services, we have been consistently called upon to assist staff with a range of special projects. In response to this need, the Financial Consulting Services Group was created with experienced staff in offices in both northern and southern California. 11 Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 1 • • "WILLDAN 'Financial Services Our work incorporates excellent public communication strategies and skills. As voter approval becomes the norm for revenue measures, we offer expertise in communicating persuasive ' information to the targeted group, whether developers, land owners or the general electorate. We provide clearly written report summaries, on-point public presentations and strong meeting facilitation skills. The table below provides an overview of Financial Consulting Services Group services. 1 Development Infrastructure Financing Developmelit Inip,3ct & Utility Connectiori Infrastructure & Puhlic r cilities Firancing Fees for Capital Facilities Plans Real Estate Market Analysis & Development Capital Improvement Plans Special District Formation Assistance Community Facilities Districts, including Special Tax Analysis Proposition 218 Benefit Analysis Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Fire Suppression Districts Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 Bridge & Thoroughfare Districts 1913/1915 Act Bonded Assessment Districts Refunding Bond Analysis & Reporting Construction Acquisition Services Notice & Ballot Preparation & Mailing Fees and Rate Studies User Fee Analysis Utility Rate Modeling Cost Allocation Studies I Blldciet Plannino Economic and Fiscal Policy Analysis LAFCO Annexation. Consolidation, or New Financial Modeling, Budget Analysis, & Governmental Agency Formation Studies Feasibility Studies F iscal Impact Analysis of projects, plans, & olicies Economic Development & Economic Impact Studies Development Impact Fee Experience ' Willdan Financial Services is one of California's leading firms for development impact fee programs. The firm has broad experience reviewing and structuring impact fee programs for cities, counties, special districts, and school districts. For these clients, our firm has provided nexus documentation to support fees funding a full range of public facilities, including utilities (water, wastewater and storm drainage), roadways and transit, parks, fire, police, health clinics, and other government facilities such as civic center and corporation yards. ' Our depth of experience in this arena has led us to develop a range of creative, defensible programs for our clients. To increase the flexibility of impact fee programs we have justified a single fee that funds a wide range of facilities, from parks to fire stations (Cities of Gilroy and Roseville). We also specialize in development of fee programs that span multiple jurisdictions to ' fund regional facilities (Counties of El Dorado, Fresno, San Luis Obispo, and Solano). Our staff Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 12 IO/WILLDAN Financial Services have served as expert witnesses for local agencies defending their fee programs, while no fee program developed by Willdan Financial Services has been challenged in court. Finally, clients have engaged our firm to examine critical policy issues often raised by impact fee programs, and to communicate these issues to elected officials, the development community, and the public. To address the effect of fees on economic growth we have performed development feasibility and real estate market studies, conducted fee comparison surveys, and compared public facility funding methods among local agencies. A partial listing of the jurisdictions for which Willdan Financial Services has conducted development impact fee studies includes: Willdan Financial Services Development Impact Fee Studies Partial Client List Cities (67 total) City of Soleda(_i City of Antioch City of South San Francisco City of Bellflower City of Stockton City of Beverly Hills City of Tracy City of Brea City of Visalia Cit of Calimesa Town of Wickenburg, AZ City of Carpinteria Town of Windsor City of Coachella Town of Yucca Valley City of Covina City of El Centro Counties (15 total) City of Emeryville County of El Dorado City of Dublin County of Fresno Town of Eagar, AZ County of Kern City of El Monte County of Kings City of El Segundo County of Madera City of Fresno County of Merced City of Gilroy County of Placer City of Glendale County of Riverside City of Grass Valley County of Sacramento City of Hawthorne County of San Joaquin City of Hercules County of Shasta City of Hollister County of Solano City of Huntington Beach County of Stanislaus City of Indian Wells County of Tulare City of Kingsburg County of Yolo City of Lake Elsinore City of La Mesa Fire Districts (19 total) City of Lancaster Alpine Springs Water District City of Livermore East Contra Costa Fire Protection District City of Long Beach Contra Costa County Fire Protection District City of Monterey Diamond Springs Fire Protection District City of Mountain View Foresthill Fire Protection District Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 13 F, I 1 I l t s • i WWILLDAN Financial Services Willdan Financial Services Development Impact Fee Studies Partial Client List City of Oakley Herald Fire Protection District City of Oceanside Keyes Fire Protection District City of Oxnard Mt. Diablo Fire Protection District City of Palmdale North Tahoe Fire Protection District City of Phoenix, AZ Oakdale Rural Fire Protection District City of Pittsburg Rincon Valley Fire Protection District City of Pleasant Hill Salida Fire Protection District Town of Portola Valley San Miguel Fire Protection District City of Redding San Ramon Fire Protection District City of Redlands Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District City of Redwood City Suisun Fire Protection District City of Reedley Truckee Fire Protection District City of Rialto Westport Fire Protection District City of Richmond West Stanislaus Fire Protection District City of Rocklin City of Rolling Hills County Transportation Agencies (5 total) City of Roseville County of Alameda Congestion Management Agency City of San Carlos Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority City & County of San Francisco San Diego Association of Governments City of San Jose Shasta County Regional Transportation Agency City of San Leandro Tehama County Regional Transportation Agency City of San Luis Obispo City of Santa Clarita Other Local Agencies (5 total) City of Santa Rosa Coachella Valley Association of Governments City of Sebastopol Dixon Library District City of Shasta Lake San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency City of Sierra Madre Stockton-San Joaquin Library District Tehachapi Valley Recreation & Parks District Willdan Financial Services has specific expertise preparing development impact fee documentation as part of a comprehensive public facility financing plan. Our approach includes: Close coordination with public agencies, developers and public interest groups to devise a consensus approach; Sensitivity to equity concerns between new and existing development, as well as between different land uses and phases of development; Developing strategies to maintain project financial feasibility; and Providing the technical analysis necessary for project participants to resolve policy issues. Public facility financing continues to change dramatically due to state constitutional amendments and the public's reluctance to pay for growth. In response, we have been at the forefront in Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 14 • • WWILLDAN Financial Services developing new approaches, such as smart growth strategies, area-wide fee programs and special use fees for affordable housing. Our staff remains up-to-date on the latest legislative actions and court decisions affecting this rapidly changing field, and is sought out by attorneys for expert witness services. Project Summaries ' Willdan Financial Services over 50 public agencies presented below. staff have been key participants in providing impact fee analyses for across California. Summaries of selected project experience are County of Solano Public Facilities Fee: Willdan Financial Services prepared a 2004 Public Facilities Fee Update for Solano County in April 2004. The study was an inflation update of the previous complete update to public facilities fee program. It documented the cost in 2004 dollars of expanding public facilities to serve new development while maintaining the existing standard per capita. New development's fair share contribution of these costs was calculated in the form of a public facilities fee. We also prepared a 2005 inflation update for all fee categories, including: Countywide Public Protection; Health and Social Services; Library; General Government; Sheriffs Patrol and Investigation; and Courts. County of Kings, Public Facilities Impact Fee Study: As part of a public facilities impact fee study in 2004, Willdan Financial Services assisted the County of Kings by preparing documentation to enable the County impose a public facilities fee to fund library facilities to accommodate new development. The County of Kings provides countywide library services. The report presented an analysis of the need for facilities to accommodate development throughout the unincorporated areas of the County of Kings. It also supported the County's request that incorporated cities within the County implement County impact fees on their behalf. City of Stockton, Public Facilities Fee Update: The City of Stockton adopted its original fee program in 1988. The fees were not increased until 2003 when Willdan Financial Services assisted the City with an inflation increase of the fee program. In 2004 we completed a full update of the fee program identifying facilities and improvements needed to serve future development and the relevant unit cost estimates. Fee areas included: Transportation Facilities; Park Facilities, Fire Facilities; Police Facilities; City Hall Facilities; Community Center Facilities; and Library Facilities. City of Gilroy, Public Facilities and Infrastructure Financing Program: The City of Gilroy was faced with the challenge of funding facilities to accommodate growth through nine different impact fee revenue streams. The restrictions on each fee limited the City's flexibility to meet the needs of a community estimated to double in size over the next 40 years. Willdan Financial Services developed a creative approach to the fee program that combined five of the nine fees into a single public facilities fee to fund fire, general government, libraries, parks, and police facilities. The statutory findings required for the fee were based on an extensive and detailed analysis of the City's land, building, and equipment inventory and projects included in its long-range capital improvement budget. The fee totaled $16,200 per dwelling unit and will provide $305 million in funding. City of Livermore, Park Facilities Impact Fee Study: Working with City staff and the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, prepared an analysis of the need for park facilities to accommodate new development and documenting the reasonable relationship between development and a park facilities fee to fund these facilities. The resulting fee replaced and improved upon the existing Quimby Act in-lieu fee. City of Fresno, Urban Growth Management (UGM) Program Re-Engineering: Fresno's UGM program was a state-of-the-art funding program for public facilities at the time of its adoption in 1975. When the City engaged Willdan Financial Services the program was in jeopardy, suffering under the weight of its own complex facility funding system that included 120 active fee accounts. The program was not adequately funding developer credits, excluded large areas of the City, and lacked statutory findings. Willdan Financial Services conducted a policy analysis and provided technical expertise to enable the City to re-engineer its program, integrating the best aspects of "next generation" development impact fee programs. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 15 iV*/WILLDAN Financial Services City of Redding, Comprehensive Public Facilities and Infrastructure Financing Program: Even with an existing impact fee program, the City of Redding was challenged by the need to finance a range of public facilities and infrastructure needed to accommodate growth. The City needed to rationalize and update its fee program for traffic, fire, parks, sewer, water, and storm drain. Most of the City's fee documentation was out of date and some of it was open to legal challenge. For roads, the City had a range of separate benefit districts, many of which were not providing sufficient funding. Anticipating concerns from the development community regarding higher fees, the study recommended implementation steps to minimize economic impacts. City of Hercules, Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Prepared a comprehensive development impact fee study including parks, traffic, public protection and general public facilities to accommodate new development. City of Tracy, Citywide Impact Fee Program: As the City of Tracy developed, it adopted a separate impact fee program for each new specific plan area. After a decade of fast growth, this approach became too cumbersome and difficult to manage, particularly for funding citywide facilities such as cultural centers, city administration, and corporation yards. The City engaged Willdan Financial Services to develop a single citywide impact fee program for all public buildings to replace the existing specific area fees. Willdan Financial Services provided a simple, defensible approach so the City could shift existing impact fee fund balances to the new program, and recognize existing vested development rights. City of San Marcos, Public Facility Financing Fee Update: For this multidisciplinary study, we completed an analysis of the build out circulation element streets, traffic signal interconnect system, traffic signals, drainage, environmental mitigation, NPDES, technological improvements, and habitat conservation improvements. The circulation element streets also involves an additional five freeway interchanges. We submitted a draft report identifying each improvement location, sizing and cost and we presented the updated fees and findings in two public workshops. City of Kingsburg, Development Impact Fee Update: Working through City staff, ' Willdan Financial Services prepared a study identifying facilities and improvements needed to serve future development. Facility fee areas included: transportation, fire, police, city hall, specialized recreation, corporation yard, library and water. ' City of Novato, Development Impact Fee Update: We completed a report in 2002 updating the costs and nexus findings for the following facility categories: streets and intersections, recreational and cultural facilities, civic facilities, transit facilities, corporation yard, ' general government systems, drainage, and open space. The study included a comparison of fees against 14 neighboring and regional communities. City of Carpinteria, Comprehensive Update and Development Impact Fee: ' Willdan Financial Services conducted a comprehensive update of the City's development impact fee program. Since the adoption of the program in 1994, several of the original capital improvement projects have been completed and new projects have been identified. In addition, the City has adopted an updated General Plan and completed a new Capital Improvement Plan. ' Fee categories included streets and roadways, interchanges and bridges, traffic control, law enforcement, general facilities, and storm drainage. This study also included a comparison of proposed fees to other city development impact fees in the region. ' City of Palmdale, Public Facilities Impact Fee Study: We prepared an A81600 report identifying the projects, costs and nexus for various public facilities required to support new development in the City of Palmdale. The City initially adopted a fee for fire facilities. We updated ' our initial report to address a variety of other public facilities for City Council consideration in late 2002. City of Pleasant Hill, Comprehensive Fee Study: Assisted the City with the ' establishment of a park impact fee and update of the traffic mitigation fee. Traffic fee established Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 16 • WWILLDAN Financial Services based on existing development's investment in facilities to date. Park fee based on a depreciated value to allow fee revenues to be used for rehabilitation of facilities. San Diego Association of Governments: We were engaged by the San Diego Association of Governments last year to advise on development of a countywide transportation impact fee. Countywide Traffic Mitigation Fee, Los Angeles County: Willdan Financial Services is participating in an ambitious project to develop a countywide transportation mitigation fee for Los Angeles County and all 88 cities in the County. The fee is being developed to fund critical funding gaps in the County's transportation program. The project included an extensive outreach effort through multiple channels (COGS, City Councils, individual meetings with key officials). City and County of San Francisco, Transit Development Impact Fee: The City and County of San Francisco pioneered the use of impact fees to fund transit facilities and services in the 1980s. The City contracted with Willdan Financial Services as part of a team led by NelsonlNygaard to update and expand the fee that had been limited to office development in the downtown only. We developed the nexus analysis to expand the fee citywide and impose it on all nonresidential land uses. Willdan Financial Services developed a simple but defensible approach to the statutory reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that resulted in a tripling of revenue to the City. City of Chula Vista, Transportation Development Fee Update: We prepared the fifth update to this fee that was first adopted in 1985. The fee includes approximately $185 million in street and intersection improvements needed by nearly 19,000 future anticipated dwelling units. The current fee of $6,240 per dwelling unit increased to $8,180 as adopted by the City Council in August 2002. Other previous work for the City has included fees for drainage, sewer and other general public facilities. We have also routinely completed periodic fee updates for the city. Dixon Unified School District Library District, Library Facilities Fee: In 2004 Willdan Financial Services prepared an impact fee study documenting the relationship between new development in the District and the amount of library facilities the District needs to accommodate growth through the year 2020. The study also identified the cost of facilities that existing development needed to contribute in order to bring the libraries facilities up to the facilities standards envisioned in the new master plan. The study included calculation of library facilities fees by land use type. We have recently completed a 2005 inflation update of this fee schedule. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 17 0 0 WILLDAN Financial Services Project Schedule We will deliver the draft report tables described at the beginning of Task 6 within four (4) months after receiving authorization to proceed. We will deliver the administrative draft report within one (1) month following review and approval by City staff of the report tables. We will develop specific project timelines following consultation with and in concert with City staff. We can work with the City to shorten this schedule if necessary. City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Analysis Project Schedule Month Month Month Month Month 1 2 3 4 5 Task 1. Identify and Resolve Policy Issues Task 2. Identify Existing Development and Future Growth Task 3. Calculate Facility Standards Task 4. Determine Potential Facility Needs and Costs Task 5. Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives Task 6. Comparative Fee Survey Task 7. Prepare Report Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 18 ~ • i ~WILLDAN F nancial Services Fee for Services 1 _ Willdan Financial Services will complete the scope of services described in this proposal for a 1 fixed price fee of $50,860. This fee includes direct expenses incurred during the course of work, including travel expenses and materials. Additional assumptions are discussed below. The City can fund the cost of the study with revenue from development impact fees. 1 Our proposed fee for services assumes the following: This fee includes the following seven (7) facility categories: streets and transportation, general government, police, libraries, parks, wastewater, and public art. Additional analysis beyond these facility fee program categories may require a cost adjustment. We will not need to conduct additional engineering analysis, such as traffic or water system modeling to identify new facilities. We will not need to provide engineering expertise to update facility cost estimates. This fee includes a total of three (3) meetings or presentations. Additional meetings may be requested for an additional fee. We will invoice the City of Rosemead no more than monthly based on percent completion by task. Invoices will include a description of services as well as a summary of costs to date by task. City of Rosemead Development Impact Fees Study Team Member: R. Spencer J. Kay J. Young Principal-in- Project Total charge Manager Senior Anal st Hour Rate: $ 190 $ 135 $ 90 Hours Cost Task 1: Identify & Resolve Policy Issues 16 24 16 56 S 7,720 Task 2: Identify Existing Development & Future Growth 4 12 24 40 4,540 Task 3: Calculate Facilities Standards 4 18 40 62 6,790 Task 4: Determine Potential Faculty Needs & Costs 4 18 40 62 6.790 Task 5: Identify Funding & Financing Alternatives 4 12 20 36 4,180 Task 6: Comparative Fee Survey 4 8 30 42 4,540 Task 7: Prepare Report and Present Findings 12 48 56 116 13,800 Estimated Labor Hours: 48 140 226 414 $ 48,360 Reimbursable Expenses: 2.500 Total Cost: $ 50,860 Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 19 • • *WILLDAN Financial Services Project Team The City of Rosemead's Team Mr. Robert Spencer, a Principal Consultant in the Oakland Office of Willdan Financial Services's Financial Consulting Services Division, will serve as principal-in-charge of the study. He will oversee the quality of work products and assure timely completion of the project. He will also provide technical oversight to the project. Mr. Spencer has more than 20 years of infrastructure financing and impact fee experience consulting to local agencies throughout California. We propose Jeffrey Kay as Project Manager. Mr. Kay is a Project Manager in Financial Consulting Services at Willdan Financial Services. He will organize and direct consultant tasks, provide quality control for work products and ensure that the deliverables are completed on time and within budget. He will be the City's day-to-day contact and will be present at key meetings. ' Additional analytical support will be provided by Mr. Jonathan Young of our Oakland office, as needed. Project Management As a successful consulting firm, we understand the importance of project management and team support. Willdan Financial Services has successfully guided diverse consultant teams through many projects for the benefit of our clients. The goal of project management is to achieve the client's objectives on schedule and within budget. To accomplish this, we employ a variety of tools to monitor project status and to establish effective communication with the client and between project team members. Project Monitoring. The project manager monitors budget status through our online ' accounting system. The system captures project labor costs, overhead and direct expenses on a weekly basis. Project managers continually monitor the budget and compare costs to work ' performed to date. In our experience, the system is an invaluable tool for reducing cost overruns and budget amendments, a tool often not found in other consulting firms. Financial Consulting Services principals and project managers meet weekly to assess the status of each project and to direct staff. These weekly meetings allow staffing constraints to be ' identified early and resources reallocated to keep projects on budget and on schedule. These meetings also provide a forum for applying the group's collective expertise to solving difficult analytical issues that arise in complex projects. Client Communication. To remain informed about project status, clients can choose among several communication options based on their preferences. We can provide regular updates by e- mail, phone call, meetings, or project status memos. The status memo is particularly effective because it documents work completed to date, status of remaining tasks, and identification of ' outstanding issues that require input from the client. Quality Control. The principal in charge and project manager assigned to the project provide quality control and quality assurance. The project manager reviews interim and final work products before transmittal to the client to ensure that they meet Willdan Financial Services's quality standards. The principal in charge reviews the final work product, including reports and quantitative models, to provide a second level of quality control and assurance. ' We are confident that our experienced team will provide the levels of attention and work performance that the City of Rosemead desires. Team member resumes follow for your review. ' Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 20 1 • • Robert D. Spencer Principal Consultant Robert D. Spencer is a Principal Consultant in the Financial Consulting Services group at Willdan Financial Services. He is an economist with extensive experience assisting public agencies with the development of sound financial and economic policies. Much of his work is related to infrastructure financing and public services funding to serve a community's growth or revitalization. Based on this expertise, Mr. Spencer has assisted agencies with land use policy, growth management, economic development, and business regulation. Development Impact Fees Mr. Spencer is one of California's leading experts on development impact fee programs, He has been engaged by over 100 cities, counties, special districts, and school districts to assist with fee programs to fund a wide range of public facilities: utilities (water, wastewater and storm drainage); streets, transit, bicycle & pedestrian facilities; public works, fire, police, and administrative facilities; parks, open space, and habitat conservation; and affordable housing. Mr. Spencer's assistance to local agencies includes preparing capital improvement plans, documenting statutory nexus findings, facilitating stakeholder involvement, and analyzing economic impacts of fee programs. He has supported adoption of regional fee programs that require the participation of multiple jurisdictions. Mr. Spencer has provided expert advice to the plaintiff (City of Stockton) in a court case regarding a sewer connection fee that settled prior to trial. Recent significant projects include: WWILLDAN Financial Services 20 Years Experience Areas of Expertise Infrastructure Funding & Financing Public Services Funding • Economic Analysis Education Master of Public Policy, Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, with concentration in Urban Economic Development • Bachelor of Arts in Economics, Colorado College Professional Affiliations Urban Land Institute ■ National Impact Fee Roundtable Teaching and Speaking Experience National Impact Fee Roundtable, moderator and speaker (various topics), 2002-2007. • Development of a regional transportation fee for two counties and five cities in Shasta and Tehama counties to widen Interstate 5: and • Comprehensive update to City of Fresno's urban growth management (impact) fee program including fire, police, parks, and traffic facilities. Funding and Financing Plans for Public Facilities, Infrastructure, and Services Mr. Spencer has prepared funding and financing plans for proposed development projects, specific plans, and master plans. His plans provide a strategy for financing backbone facilities, integrating various funding sources, and allocating costs fairly across all benefiting land uses. Recent significant projects include: • Preparing a public facilities financing plan for the Oasis Roao Specific Plan for the City of Redding. The plan required $100 million in Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study "Planning In Financially Difficult Times. Creative Approaches to Funding and Managing Resources," California Planning Foundation workshop, June 11, 2004. • "Takings and Exactions: Imposing Conditions on Development Without 'Going Too Far," University of California at Davis Extension, 2002- 2004. 21 • N4/WILLDAN Financial Services funding including $50 million in financing for backbone facilities to • accommodate 2,500 dwelling units and 3.1 million square feet of retail use; and • Advising Tehama County and Sutter County on public facilities ' financing and urban services funding plans. The Tehama project included 3,700 dwelling units and the Sutter project included 17,500 units and 50 million square feet of commercial and industrial space. ' Fiscal Impact Analysis Mr. Spencer has managed over 50 fiscal impact studies for a broad range of ' public agency clients. He focuses on helping clients understand the public service fiscal impacts of land use policy decisions. Mr. Spencer has also managed the development of proprietary fiscal impact analysis software to ' provide clients with a user-friendly program designed to help them conduct their own fiscal impact studies. Much of Mr. Spencer's fiscal impact analysis work has been as an "honest broker," providing objective analysis to both ' sides (city and county) in property tax sharing negotiations for annexations and incorporations. Recent significant projects include: ' • Fiscal impact analysis of the Delhi Specific Plan for Merced County for 3,200 dwelling units and 3.2 million square feet of commercial and industrial space, • Ongoing fiscal impact analysis services for the City of Roseville related to re-zonings, specific plans, and annexations, and Property tax sharing analysis and negotiations for Sacramento ' County related to city incorporations and annexations. Economic Development and Impact Analysis ' Mr. Spencer's experience in the area of economic impact analysis and development policies includes project manager of an Economic Development Strategy for the City of Roseville. The study was used in conjunction with a General Plan update and was based on extensive quantitative analysis of the City's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The study included ' an implementation plan and budget for an ongoing economic development program. Financial Analysis and Revenue Enhancement Mr. Spencer's experience in the area of comprehensive financial planning includes development of a 10-year financial plan for the Truckee-Donner ' Public Utilities District. The plan provided guidance to the Board and staff in making financial decisions that support the District's long-term financial stability. The plan included financial analysis, policies, and recommendations. ' The District received a long-range financial modeling tool for continued use developed as part of the plan. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study "Effective Local Approaches for Promoting Smart Growth: Financing and Planning Strategies," Urban Land Institute and the Association of Bay Area Governments, September 26, 2003. 22 ' Jeffrey Kay, AICP Project Manager ' Jeffrey Kay is a Project Manager in Willdan Financial Services' Financial Consulting Services' Oakland office. His responsibilities include supervising analysts on development impact fee studies and preparing fiscal impact analyses. Prior to joining Willdan Financial, Mr. Kay worked as a research analyst for the ' Urban Strategies Council in Oakland, CA. His responsibilities included ll ti d l i ti ti t l d t t i i t i i co ec ng an ana yz ng s n ng a s ca a a per a o econom c opportun ty, housing, crime, and real estate development in the Bay Area. ' Related Experience In-Lieu Fee Programs *WI LLDAN Financial Services Areas of Expertise • Development Impact Fees • Fiscal Impact Analyses Project Highlights • County of Tulare • City of Long Beach • Greenfield Fire Protection District Education County of Santa Clara: Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan - • Masters of Regional Currently assisting the County with identifying suitable funding alternatives, Planning, University of developing an impact fee, and constructing a financing plan for implementation North Carolina, Chapel of its proposed Habitat Conservation Plan. Hill: Dual City of Fresno: Affordable Housing Policy Study - Project manager for a Concentrations in review of current and potential policies to promote affordable housing. Modeled Regional Economic the costs and benefits of several policy options including inclusionary zoning Development and and an in-lieu jobs-housing linkage fee. Community Development Impact Fees Development City of Shasta Lake: Prepared development impact fee and Quimby in-lieu fee study for parks and recreation facilities. Counties of Kern, Shasta, Tulare and Yolo: Prepared analysis and documentation for countywide development impact fee programs covering a comprehensive range of facility categories. Counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, and ShastalTehama: Conducted or ' assisted with multi-jurisdictional, regional impact fee studies for transportation improvements. City of Long Beach: Project manager for development impact fee study for public safety facilities. City of Coachella: Prepared a citywide impact fee study for a eight facility ' categories. Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Roseville: Conducted several fiscal analyses pertaining to development projects. Prepared analysis comparing the fiscal ramifications of existing and proposed zoning. ' City of Sacramento: Prepared a fiscal impact analysis of a proposed annexation. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study • Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, Vassar College (Correlate Sequence: Urban Studies) Professional Affiliations • American Planning Association 23 NVWILLDAN t Financial Services Jonathan Young ' Analyst Jonathan Young is an Analyst in the Financial Consulting Services Areas of Expertise division at MuniFinancial, and works from the firm's Oakland office. Development Impact ' His responsibilities include collecting data, performing analysis, and Fees writing reports for development impact fee studies, fiscal impact Funding and analyses, and funding and financing plans. Financing Plans ' Prior to joining MuniFinancial, Mr. Young worked at Abt Associates Fiscal and Economic Analysis Inc., providing policy analysis and program support to clients in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Coast Guard. Project Highlights Related Experience: County of Shasta ' Development Impact Fees • City of Redding County of Shasta: Calculated development impact fees for the City of Long Beach justice system, public health facilities, libraries, parks and open ' space, sheriffs department, traffic, and general government Education facilities. Bachelor of Arts, ' City of South San Francisco: Supporting analyst for a study updating traffic impact fees in the City's growing area, located east College of US-101. Shasta County Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), Interstate 5 Fee Program Study: This project involves the development of a regional impact fee program to fund mainline ' improvements on 1-5 in the Counties of Shasta and Tehama. The project work plan includes calculating impact fees, identifying ' possible outside funding sources, and public outreach. Funding and Financing Plans ' City of Redding, Oasis Road Specific Plan: Developed a financing plan for public facilities needed for a large multi-use specific plan area. County of Placer Fire Services: Service delivery and funding plan for fire protection services in the Sunset Industrial Area within the County of Placer. Calculated potential special assessments for 1 funding of service delivery options. Fiscal Impact Analysis ' Parc Anaheim Specific Plan: Fiscal impact analyses of development under alternative specific plan proposals in Anaheim. Affordable Housing ' City of Long Beach, Affordable Housing Study: Calculated inclusionary zoning in-lieu fees, commercial linkage fees, and ' condo conversion fees. Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 24 0 0 *WILLDAN Financial Services Client References Client relationships are extremely important to us. We encourage you to contact any or all of the clients listed below regarding our commitment to personalized service and performance. 1401 Draper St KincisburQ, CA 93631 Kuss Branson, rlnance ulrector 311 Vernon St. Roseville, CA 95678 Tel: (916) 774-5320 Richard Smelser, City Engineer 7351 Rosanna St Gilroy, CA 95020 Tel: (408) 846-0260 Christopher Foss, Economic Development Director 100 Civic Center Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Tel: (925) 833-6652 Proposal to Provide Development Impact Fee Study 25 ■ t a s it. AIN 1L .r //~~RR i s ♦i w ' ! it ~l ,j IA r ~F r~ ` r t}.. ~1 1 ri J i 4 ~fl: 4 ' yam; F'.i.116 6.