2200 - Willdan Financial Services - Comprehensive User Fee and Environmental Impact Fee Study ,
44114
47
CIVIC PRIDE
9
,�CRPORATED 195
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FEE
STUDY (WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES)
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is,made and entered into this this 27th day of October, 2020
(Effective Date) by and between the City of Rosemead, a municipal organization
organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at
8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, California 91770 ("City") and Willdan Financial Services
(WFS) with its principal place of business at 27366 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula,
CA 92590 ("Consultant"). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to
herein as "Party" and collectively as "Parties."
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant.
Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain
professional services required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing comprehensive user
fee/environmental impact fee analysis to public clients, and is licensed in the State of
California and is familiar with the City.
2.2 Project.
City desires to engage Consultant to render comprehensive user
fee/environmental impact fee analysis ("Services") as set forth in this Agreement.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Scope of Services and Term.
3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to
furnish to the City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and
customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the comprehensive user
fee/environmental impact fee analysis services necessary for the City, herein referred to
WSF
Page 2 of 11
a "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in
accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for an one year time
period from October 27, 2020 until the study is done, unless earlier terminated as provided
herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of the Agreement, and
shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines.
3.2 Responsibilities of Consultant.
3.2.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The
Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will
determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the
requirements of this Agreement. City retains Consultant on an independent contractor
basis and not as an employee. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different
services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel
performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be
employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and
control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel
in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required
by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such
additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax
withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation
insurance.
3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement. Consultant represents that it has the
professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance
with such conditions. In order to facilitate. Consultant's conformance with the Schedule,
City shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of City,
Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the
Schedule of Services.
3.2.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall be subject to the approval of City.
3.2.4 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to City
that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement.
Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute
other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval of City. In the event
that City and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, City shall
be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause. As discussed below, any personnel
who fail or refuse to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, or who are
determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or
WSF
Page 3 of 11
timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property, shall be
promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant at the request of the City.
3.2.5 City's Representative. The City hereby designates the Finance
Director and Community Development Director, or his or her designees, to act as its
representative for the performance of this Agreement ("City's Representative"). City's
Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under
this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other
than the City's Representative or his or her designee.
3.2.6 Consultant's Representative. Consultant will designate to act as its
representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative").
Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the
Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall
supervise and direct the Services, using his/her best skill and attention, and shall be
responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the
satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.
3.2.7 Coordination of Services: Consultant agrees to work closely with
City staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to City's staff, consultants
and other staff at all reasonable times.
3.2.8 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees: Consultant shall
perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent
with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same
discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled
in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that
all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the
Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and
subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature
that are legally required to perform the Services, including a City Business License, and
that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this
Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement,
Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from
the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the
Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein.
3.2.9 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of
and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any
manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA
requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all
violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and
without giving written notice to the City, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs
arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officials, directors,
officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification
WSF
Page 4 of 11
provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged
failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
3.2.10 Insurance: Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning
of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit B
attached to and part of this agreement.
3.2.11 Safety: Contractor shall execute and maintain its work so as
to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the
Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of
employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work
is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited
to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions
in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways,
scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures,
trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing
apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C)
adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures.
3.3 Fees and Payments.
3.3.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including
authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement and shall not
exceed Sixty-Four Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Dollars ($64,470.00). Extra
Work may be authorized in writing, as described below, and will be compensated at the
rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.3.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to City a monthly
itemized statement which indicates work completed and Services rendered by Consultant.
The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the
initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as
appropriate, through the date of the statement. City shall, within 45 days of receiving
such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon.
3.3.3 Reimbursement for Expenses: Consultant shall not be reimbursed
for any expenses unless authorized in writing by City.
3.3.4 Extra Work: At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may
request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any
work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project,.
but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution
of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work
without written authorization from City's Representative.
3.3.5 Prevailing Wages: Consultant is aware of the requirements of
WSF
Page 5 of 11
California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code
of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1600, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the
payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on "public
works" and "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the
total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such
Prevailing Wage Laws. City shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rates
of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall
make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft; classification or type
of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request,
and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project
site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers,
employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.4 Accounting Records.
3.4.1 Maintenance and Inspection: Consultant shall maintain complete
and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this
Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a
representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make
transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this
Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings,
and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final
payment under this Agreement.
3.5 General Provisions.
3.5.1 Termination of Agreement.
3.5.1.1 Grounds for Termination: City may, by written notice
to Consultant,..terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without
cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the
effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination.
Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have
been adequately rendered to City, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further
compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.
3.5.1.2 Effect of Termination: If this Agreement is terminated
as provided herein, City may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished
Documents/ Data and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection
with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to
provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days ofthe request.
3.5.1.3 Additional Services: In the event this Agreement is
1
WSF
Page 6 of 11
terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms and
in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.
3.5.2 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such
other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
CONSULTANT:
Willdan Financial Services
27366 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
Attn: Chris Fisher
Tel: (800) 755-6864
CITY:
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Attn: Finance Director/Community Development Director
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed,
forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and
addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate
notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.5.3 Ownership of Materials and Confidentiality.
3.5.3.1 Documents & Data; Licensing of Intellectual Property:
This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use,
modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual
property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other
documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including
but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on
computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under
this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to
agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any
Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant
represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all
Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to
Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant
or provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the
Documents and Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes
intended by this Agreement shall be at City's sole risk.
3.5.3.2 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications,
WSF
Page 7 of 11
plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data,
written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to
Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held
confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of
City, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is
otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City's name or
insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the
Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other
similar medium without the prior written consent of City.
3.5.4 Cooperation; Further Acts: The Parties shall fully cooperate with one
another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be
necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.5.5 Attorney's Fees: If either party commences an action against the
other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with
this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover
from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and all costs of such action.
3.5.6 Indemnification: To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant
shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and
agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs,
expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons,
including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged acts,
omissions or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents,
consultants and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the
Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all
consequential damages and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses.
Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such
aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or
instituted against City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers.
Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered
against City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers, in any
such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse City and its
directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal
expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the
indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to
insurance proceeds, if any, received by the City, its directors, officials officers, employees,
agents or volunteers.
3.5.7 Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire Agreement
WSF
Page 8 of 11
of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior
negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by
a writing signed by both parties.
3.5.8 Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of California. Venue shall be in Los Angeles County.
3.5.9 Time of Essence: Time is of the essence for each and every
provision of this Agreement.
3.5.10 City's Right to Employ Other Consultants: City reserves right to
employ other consultants in connection with this Project.
3.5.11 Successors and Assigns: This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties.
3.5.12 Assignment or Transfer: Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate,
or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein
without the prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void,
and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by
reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.5.13 Construction; References; Captions: Since the Parties or their
agents have participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this
Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or
against any Party. Any term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be
deemed calendar days and not work days. All references to Consultant include all
personnel, employees, agents, and subcontractors of Consultant, except as otherwise
specified in this Agreement. All references to City include its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The
captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference
only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this
Agreement.
3.5.14 Amendment; Modification: No supplement, modification, or
amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by
both Parties.
3.5.15 Waiver: No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any
other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver,
benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other
Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.
3.5.16 No Third Party Beneficiaries: There are no intended third party
beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.
3.5.17 Invalidity; Severability: If any portion of this Agreement is declared
WSF
Page 9 of 11
invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.5.18 Prohibited Interests: Consultant maintains and warrants that it has
not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant
warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than
a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or
making of this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees
or subconsultants to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the City's Filing Officer as
required under state law in the performance of the Services. For breach or violation of
this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the
term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or
her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any
present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3:5.19 Equal Opportunity Employment: Consultant represents that it is an
equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor,
employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin,
handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited
to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment
or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all
relevant provisions of City's Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan
or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.
3.5.20 Labor Certification: By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.5.21 Authority to Enter Agreement: Consultant has all requisite power and
authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement.
Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal
power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.
3.5.22 Counterparts: This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each
of which shall constitute an original.
3.6 Subcontracting.
3:6.1 Prior Approval Required: Consultant shall not subcontract any
portion of the work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without
prior written approval of City. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them
subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.
WSF
Page 10 of 11
CITY OF ROSEMEAD WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
By ,1, 1j_4610.1(61D2-6 By: ,4/7/
9Z4
oria Molleda, CityManager Date Date
Name: k\ouk c 'er
Attest
irr
0/2aza Title: v 1 C2 ?cdc#
Eriickka Hernandez, City Clerk Date ka111 ao�O
[If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES, President
OR Vice President AND Secretary, AND
CORPORATE SEAL OF CONTRACTOR
REQUIRED]
Approved as to Form: By:LUQ/eul_
/ / S
l .bobv2> Name: ��� C h `)itY1i't
Rachel Richman Date
City Attorney
Title: Ac3 4tOta " SpC(e-4.01(
WSF
Page 10of11
CITY OF ROSEMEAD WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
By: By: % ' l Z 7/ o
Gloria Molleda, City Manager Date D to
Name: h\OeCA- V;61Ne,c--
Attest:
Title: v\C P(esid.N\A-
Ericka
Hernandez, City Clerk Date \a1-1la-oav
[If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES, President
OR Vice President AND Secretary, AND
CORPORATE SEAL OF CONTRACTOR
REQUIRED]
Approved as to Form: By: '
n�
Name: `\.ebe In Son`r-Hi
Rachel Richman Date
City Attorney
Title: I\SS S\01,1* �C(r✓�al
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES/ RATE SCHEDULE
See Attached.
A-1
` WI LLDAN
FINANCIAL SERVICES
September 25, 2020
Mr. Scott Miller
Finance Director
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
Re: Proposal to Conduct a Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive Fee Study, and Development Impact Fee
Study for the City of Rosemead
Dear Scott:
Following the extended shutdown of much of the economy as a result of the COVID outbreak, now more than ever
municipalities throughout California are challenged with doing more with less. As cities are faced with limited financial
resources to address numerous competing priorities and objectives,they are always striving to maintain high standards
of service to their communities. Considering this, it is critical for the City of Rosemead ("City")to ensure that its fees for
requested services have been developed and updated to ensure maximum appropriate cost recovery, so that the
revenues generated by fees cover the cost of those services to the greatest extent possible. City Staff, and ultimately
the City Council, need a clear understanding of standards, service levels and the associated costs.
Recognizing this, the City has responded by soliciting proposals for a Cost Allocation Plan (CAP), Comprehensive Fee
Study (User Fee), and Development Impact Fee Study (DIF).The User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan will ensure
that the City's fees for requested services have been developed and updated to ensure maximum appropriate cost
recovery, so that the revenues generated by fees cover the cost of those services to the greatest extent possible,
including the costs of both direct services and indirect overhead support. The Development Impact Fee Study will
support the implementation of fees charged to developers that ensure they pay their fair share of facilities impacts
generated by their projects, and that these fees are defensible and supported with appropriate assumptions and
analysis as required by the Mitigation Fee Act. Following are specific advantages that Willdan brings to the City for
these studies:
Experience with the City of Rosemead— Willdan successfully partnered with the City of Rosemead on the City's
previous Development Impact Fee Study.Through this engagement the City can be assured of the level of commitment,
professionalism and expertise that we bring to this project. Where possible, we will leverage our knowledge of your
operations and key staff to facilitate and expedite our work;focusing less time on data gathering and more on
analysis, allowing City staff to focus their time on direct City operations.
Extensive Experience with Similar Work for Southern California Area Cities—Willdan has worked recently with
numerous cities in relative proximity to the City of Rosemead on Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and
Development Impact Fee projects, with objectives very similar to those for this study. This local experience enables
us to bring valuable perspective and insight from other local cities'approaches to fees and their policies on
fee setting and subsidies and will also assist us in conducting meaningful and efficient fee comparisons.
Recent studies include Paramount, Signal Hill, Lynwood, Monterey Park, Cerritos, Irvine, Chino Hills, and Claremont,
with ongoing studies in Cudahy, Arcadia, West Hollywood, El Monte and Fullerton.
Unique Combination of Services and Expertise/Public Engagement—Willdan Financial Services ("Willdan") is a
team of nearly 80 professionals who provide essential financial consulting services throughout California, and the
United States. Willdan has provided the requested services to municipal clients for two decades; and is the only firm
providing these types of consulting services that also has a long history of providing contract staff support to public
agencies for the delivery of municipal services. This direct experience as "agency staff' provides us with firsthand
understanding of City operations and is uniquely useful in determining the full effort associated with service delivery
and in developing a fee schedule that is easy to communicate and implement. We are also one of the only firms who
combine Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee and Development Impact Fee expertise and experience under one
roof, without the need to team with other consultants — ensuring a seamless coordinated execution of this
important project for the City.
T 951.587.3500 800.755.6864 I F 951.587.3510 888.326.6864 127368 Via Industria,Suite 200,Temecula,CA 92590 I www.willdan.com
Mr Scott Miller,Finance Director --
City of Rosemead _
Proposal to Conduct a Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Study
September25, 2020
Page ii
Broad Experience with Impact Fee Programs Statewide and Across the Country— To complement our local
experience, Willdan has wide experience with the range of impact fees charged in the region and the state, and the
typical pros, cons and challenges of each, both in implementation and management. Willdan will be pleased to bring
its expertise and range of perspectives to the City's process of considering financial, practical and policy issues in
deciding on its future impact fee program.
Collaborative Approach and User-friendly Models and Reports — Willdan prides itself on working closely with
City staff to develop an approach that is targeted toward your specific objectives and accounts for your reality, and
then working together with you to gather first-hand information regarding the processes and tasks required to provide
services to those requesting them.
This is a distinct advantage we will bring in our approach with the City of Rosemead.A collaborative approach
ensures we clearly understand your goals and challenges,and just as importantly,you understand the process
and the results. We have included one full day of on-site data gathering and staff interviews to ensure we obtain the
information we need efficiently and accurately, with limited need for follow-up.
We create user-friendly Excel-based models that the City can retain and conduct our analysis and develop the model
collaboratively with City staff. Rather than using an inflexible proprietary software program, we construct our models
from the ground up, mirroring the City's budget format wherever possible. As a result, the information contained in
our models is easy for City staff to interpret, and the familiar software ensures ease of navigation.
This also allows for easy .on-the-fly adjustments and updates, inclusion of updated budgets, or changes in
organizational structure. Created directly from the models, our reports clearly and graphically illustrate full and
recommended levels ofcost recovery and projections of revenue for fee programs, break down the costs into direct
and indirect overhead categories, and present the fee methodologies.
Our models and project approach are geared toward delivering work on schedule and presenting results at public
meetings and council workshops.
The Willdan Team is experienced at communicating complex analytical results in a manner that is easy to understand
by non-finance-oriented individuals and facilitates discussion. We have coordinated or participated in numerous public
and staff workshops regarding fees and cost of service-based charges.
We are excited about this opportunity to serve the City of Rosemead. To discuss any aspect of our proposal, please
contact me; my contact information is provided in the table below.
Contact Information
Principal-in-Charge
Chris Fisher
Vice President
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200.
Temecula, CA 92590
Tel#: (800) 755-6864 I Email: CFisherWilldan.com
As a Vice President of Willdan Financial Services, I am authorized to bind the firm to the terms of this proposal,as well
as the subsequent agreement.
Sincerely,
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
l C
Chris Fisher
Vice President-Group Manager
Financial Consulting Services
1 ,
r N.
I
COMPREHENSIVE. INNOVATIVE. TRUSTED. r.-`
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Felly&Development Impact Fee Study ■ `yi
Table of Contents
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH 1
Project Understanding 1
Project Methodologies 2
Cost Allocation Plan Methodology 2
Comprehensive User Fee Study Methodology 3
Development Impact Fee Methodology 5
Related Approach Issues 7
Work Plans 9
Full and OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan 9
Comprehensive User Fee Study 11
Development Impact Fee Review 15
Development Impact Fee Study— Optional Full Study Scope 16
City Staff Support 18
Project Schedules 19
Cost Allocation Plan 19
Comprehensive User Fee Study 20
Development Impact Fee Study 21
Project Management and Quality Assurance 22
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Process 23
EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE 24
Firm Profile 24
Willdan Financial Services 24
Staff Continuity 25
Project Dedication 25
Professional Expertise 25
Unique Combination of Services and Expertise/Public Engagement 25
Similar Studies 25
References 28
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 28
Development Impact Fee 29
Combined Studies 30
Project Manager& Key Staff 31
Project Team 31
Resumes 31
SCHEDULE OF FEES 43
Cost Allocation Plan 43
Comprehensive User Fee Study 43
Development Impact Fee Review 44
Development Impact Fee Study— Optional 44
Notes 45
Additional Professional Services 45
111Y W I LLDAN
iii
City of Rosemead, California -'
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Felly&Development Impact Fee Study
Project Understanding and Approach
Project Understanding
Willdan Financial Services ("Willdan") is confident that we can meet the City of Rosemead's request for services for a
Full and OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive User Fee Study, and Development Impact Fee Study.
The overall objective of this project will be to develop an updated schedule of fees for City services, that
accounts for the true costs of providing those services.
The end products will include user-friendly Excel-based models, which City staff will retain, and which can be easily
updated to add or remove services and/or costs, update budgets in future years, determine the proper allocation of
expenditures, and on-going full cost of services provided by the City. Most importantly, we will ensure that the results
and recommendations are clear and understandable, defensible, and easily implementable.
For these studies, we will meet directly with departmental representatives at the City at the beginning of the project, to
discuss the approach and process for the studies. Discussions will include ways to combine tasks and efforts among
the cost allocation plan and user fee study components to maximize efficiencies and ensure adherence to specified
timelines.
A key building block of the calculation of updated fees is the development of defensible indirect overhead rates that
reflect the cost of support services provided by the City's central service departments to the operating groups that
provide end-user services to the public and customers of the City.
The completion of a CAP is a key component and first step in the analysis
necessary to calculate the cost of providing services. A well thought out Rather than a costly and
CAP.ensures that indirect costs associated with central overhead inflexible proprietary software,
services, such as finance or city clerk, are appropriately allocated which can require expensive
to operating departments, and ultimately included as a cost licensing fees,Willdan builds
component of fees for services. We will work collaboratively with City models utilizing Excel,from the
staff to identify the overhead support services that are provided to ground up, employing the City's
operating departments in Rosemead and develop a fair and defensible budget as the gauge.This
means of allocating these costs. Our unique model allows us to provide model, which is then the City's
a CAP that will also be compliant with 2 CFR Part 200 Federal regulations
related to cost reimbursement and grant funding, formerly known as OMB to retain, gives City Staff the
A-87 and 2 CFR Part 225 guidelines, which have now been superseded control to make on-the-fly
by the Omni Circular. The new circular did not completely overhaul the adjustments and updates.
guidelines, and the intent is still the same, but it did add new limitations
to consider and incorporate into a compliant CAP.
For the Comprehensive Fee Study, we will work directly with personnel at the City who provide services and interact
directly with residents and customers, to understand the personnel and procedures involved. By carefully examining
these processes,we will be able to identify associated costs such as direct staff costs(salaries and benefits)associated
with personnel involved in the activities, and appropriate overhead allocations from both the department and city levels.
For the Impact Fee Study, Willdan will review the previous work prior to the kick-off meeting to determine what has
changed in terms of facilities and needs for the fee categories. We will also communicate with the City in advance of
the kickoff to determine whether there is any initial policy direction or guidance on new fees. We will update the
demographics and present the City with the facilities list and discuss the current status for each fee type. We will work
with the City to implement an impact fee program that ensures that new development pays its fair share of infrastructure
while being mindful of the overall fee burden on new development.
For a successful and effective engagement, it is important to have a thorough understanding of specific City policies
and objectives, the structure and organization of the City, and the relationships between the central and operating
departments. We bring years of successful experience working directly with hundreds of cities throughout California.
Willdan possesses the resources, practical experience, creative thinking, and collaborative consulting skills necessary
to complete this important project. Key distinct advantages that Willdan brings to the City include the following:
On-site Data Gathering
Our experience has taught us that working together, via face-to-face discussions, is the most efficient and thorough
way to ensure that results are accurate, and that studies are completed in a timely manner, which again, is critical in
this proposed engagement.
W(WILLDAN i`1.:
City of Rosemead, California -
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe€ dy&Development Impact Fee Study J �'
Consequently, through on-site interviews with your staff, Willdan will collect the majority of required data for studies.
This method is better than the typical "time and motion surveys" that are provided to agency staff when studies like
these are conducted.This process ensures that we gather the data we need in one coordinated step, rather than having
to go through repeated follow-up and clarification.
This approach and the dedication of our staff will help ensure we meet the City's timeline and objectives and
provide important information to City staff and the Council as soon as possible.
Public Engagement
Our models and project approach are geared toward delivering our work on schedule and presenting our analysis
results at public meetings and Council workshops. While we understand that the City Council and local business
community may be generally supportive of increasing fees where necessary, it will be important to present
recommendations to them in a way that clearly demonstrates the rationale and supporting analysis.
The Willdan Team is experienced at communicating complex analytical,results in a manner that is easy to understand
by non-finance-oriented individuals and facilitates discussion. Our proposed principal-in-charge for this engagement
has coordinated or participated in numerous public and staff workshops regarding fees and cost of service-based
charges. As previously mentioned, our objective is to provide useful, detailed information, and present
recommendations to the City Council and public in a way that clearly demonstrates the rationale and supporting
analysis. Our experience ensures that we can meet this objective.
User-friendly Models and Reports
Willdan prides itself on creating user-friendly Excel-based models that the City can The model will be
retain and conducting our analysis and developing the models collaboratively developed to allow the
with City staff. With City staff's immediate input and collaboration, Willdan will p
design extremely flexible, intuitive Excel-based models. In the future, as the City City to run "what-if"
assumes new responsibilities, modifies existing processes, and/or eliminates scenarios to address
unnecessary services or programs, the models will be capable of adding or deleting possible changes in
funds, objects, departments, programs, staff positions, and activities. Willdan staffing levels,
understands that issues facing the City are unique; consequently, we design our working hours, etc.
models to match your immediate and desired needs to ensure that end-results
exceed staff expectations rather than using an inflexible proprietary software.
These models are then the City's to retain, after our services are completed, and allows for the creation of
revenue projections, highlighting potential new revenues, and levels of subsidy.
A key element of these studies is presenting results and recommendations in a straightforward manner, that allows
Council and staff to confidently make fee setting policy decisions and understand the impacts of those decisions. Rather
than using an inflexible proprietary software program, we construct our models from the ground up, as previously
discussed, mirroring the City's budget format wherever possible. As a result, the information contained in our models
are easy for City staff to interpret, and the familiar software ensures ease of navigation. As the models are being
designed and constructed, we will work together with City staff to determine the best and most effective features to
include.After the project is completed,we will provide training,so that staff can independently and efficiently evaluate the
effects of changes in certain factors. Created directly from the models, our reports clearly and graphically.illustrate the
full cost recovery level of fee programs and provide projections of revenue from fee programs.
Project Methodologies
The following describes our proposed approach, and work plan to prepare an Cost Allocation.Plan, Comprehensive
User Fee Study, and Development Impact Fee Study.
Cost Allocation Plan Methodology
The purpose of this cost allocation plan engagement is to ensure that the City of Rosemead is maximizing the recovery
of indirect costs from identified operating departments, as well as enterprise and other chargeable funds and capital
projects. Furthermore, a sound cost allocation plan is a foundational element of a user fee study, and the development
of internal hourly rates, including CIP billing rates. We will work closely with staff in identifying the proper balance of
allocation factors appropriate for the City.
To achieve the maximum cost recovery objective, the City must have a method of identifying and distributing
administrative costs that is fair, comprehensive, well documented, and fully defensible. A cost allocation plan coupled
with comprehensive overhead rates will enable the City to achieve this goal.
WWILLDAN 125
City of Rosemead, California ■
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe+ ly&Development Impact Fee Study
The allocation models utilize an iterative method which is the most accurate allocation methodology. Unlike a direct or
"step-down" methodology, an iterative method uses the chosen distribution bases and allocates central service costs
iteratively until all allocable costs have been distributed.
Using this method, the model can detail the allocation for each central function individually for complete transparency
and accountability, while removing bias that might result from the order in which allocations occur in a step-down
approach.A direct methodology is essentially a one-iteration methodology, while a step-down method is typically only
two iterations and is less precise and unable to accurately track the allocations from start to finish.
Approach for Managing the Project
Willdan's"hands-on" supervision of Cost Allocation Plan studies, include the following methods:
Effective Project Management — Principal-in-Charge Chris Fisher will manage the entire project with an eye
toward high responsiveness, while ensuring that all stakeholders are "on board" with the direction of the project,
as well as with the final results. Mr. Fisher will ensure that regular status updates are provided to City staff,
conference calls are scheduled, and that in-person meetings are conducted (as necessary).
Adherence to Time Schedule —Willdan recognizes that the use of"timelines" is highly effective in meeting all
required deadlines. To keep the project on schedule, there are several tasks that must be completed in a timely
manner. Therefore, we will present a project timeline at the kick-off meeting that should be closely followed.
Although the establishment of an experienced project team and a detailed project timeline work extremely well in
general, Willdan understands that outside influences can create uncontainable situations for everyone involved in the
project. In rare circumstances like these, our team quickly adapts to changes, and communicates our recommended
schedule adjustments to the City.
Approach in Communicating with the City
Willdan staff is accustomed to interfacing with local government councils, boards, staff, community organizations, and
the public in general in a friendly and helpful manner; we are always mindful that we represent the public agency.
We are sensitive to the need of delivering a quality product, with the highest level of service and professionalism.
Therefore, as the work on the project progresses, we understand that it will be necessary for our staff to work closely
with you and City personnel. To accomplish this, we employ a variety of tools, including monitoring project status and
budget costs; and ensuring effective communication through several options that are based on the City's preferences.
Experience with Development Service Processes
A unique aspect of our firm is our relationship with our Engineering Division. For many agencies throughout California
and other Western states, this division provides contracted services in planning, engineering, and building and safety.
When conducting cost recovery studies, we regularly consult with our engineering and land-development staff of
experts on development-related issues. By working with our planners, engineers, and building officials, we understand
development-related agency service procedures and workflow functions, which often make the entire user fee study
process smoother for your staff.
Comprehensive User Fee Study Methodology
To comprehensively update fees,the City should develop a comprehensive user fee schedule that accurately accounts
for the true cost of providing services. Once the study is complete, the fee study model must be flexible so that the City
can add, delete, and revise fees in the future. To meet this goal, we will bring our expertise and unique perspectives
to your fee study by approaching the project with these three principles:
1)Defensibility
Our user fee projects have not been legally challenged since the inception of this practice area in our firm. We have
accomplished this by closely working with legal counsel familiar with user fee studies, our engineering division and with
agency staff. In this way, we can tailor the,correct approach to ensure full cost recovery combined with a sound and
reasonable basis for each user fee you implement:
While Proposition 218 does not directly apply to non-property-related fees, we employ principles from this important
constitutional article to make certain that your user fee and rate schedule is developed with fairness, equity, and
proportionate cost recovery principles in mind. With the addition of Proposition 26, Willdan will review each analyzed
user fee for compliance and appropriateness to ensure continued defensibility.
2)Project and Staff Time
The City must have a sound and technically defensible fee schedule to ensure costs are appropriately recovered, as
applicants approach the City for its services. Our standards and approaches serve to get to the issues of your fee study
quickly.
*. W I LLDAN' 3 ,=I
I
City of Rosemead, California •- 1 -
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fee Jy&Development Impact Fee Study ,X` '
Starting with the project kick-off, we will make certain that your staff understands the purpose and scope of the study
and its corresponding on-site departmental interview. As Willdan is able to communicate directly with the service
providers, this face-to-face interaction provides valuable time estimates.
3)Responsiveness
We take great pride in providing responsive service to our client agencies. Frequent communication is critical to a
successful user fee study experience. We will provide a list of data requirements in advance of the project kick-off.
Due to this simple step, the introductory meeting can focus on the survey input process, answering questions,
determining policy goals, and defining next steps in the project. We will follow up weekly with you at each step in the
fee study process to make sure that staff"buys in"to the fee study approach and results.
Approach
Our approach to preparing the user fee study and documentation for Rosemead includes:
Close coordination with your staff to devise a consensus approach. Different programs and/or different service
delivery methods will necessitate different approaches. We will discuss specific pros and cons with City staff as we
determine which methods work best for each fee category;
Strict adherence to key legal and policy issues with regard to user fees, including the percent of cost recovery that
the City seeks to achieve. A user fee shall not be set higher than the reasonable cost of providing a fee-generating
service. Our approach provides you with a fee schedule that achieves maximum legal cost recovery while ensuring
that each fee is supported by technically defensible documentation; and
Technical analysis necessary to ensure State compliance, and to anticipate and resolve potential policy issues
using a combination of industry standards as well as City specific methods.
As described below, there are two basic approaches to calculating user fees:
Approach 1:Case Study Method
This is also sometimes referred to as a cost build-up Central
approach. Using a time and materials approach, the Services
"Case Study Method" examines the tasks, steps and Overhead
City staff involved:in providing a particular `unit' of
service, such as a permit review, and then uses that
information to develop estimates of the actual labor
and material costs associated with providing a unit of
service to a single user. It is often used when a
service is provided on a regular basis, and staff and
other costs associated with the service can be
segregated from available budget data.
g Departmental � Fully-Burdened
A typical case study fee model should comprise the Overhead 1.� Hourly Rate
following three general cost layers: _
1) Central Services Overhead: This category may
involve such costs as labor, services, and supplies
that benefit more than one department, division, or
project. The exact benefits to specific areas are ;._
impossible to ascribe to a single activity. _,__
Examples are purchasing, human resources, and
liability insurance.As part of the user fee study, these
costs are calculated in the overhead cost review. Personnel
Costs
2) Department Overhead: This category may
include expenses related to such items as office .
supplies, outside consultants, and membership dues.
It may include management, supervision, and
administrative support that are not provided to a direct fee-generating service. Typically, these items are charged, on
an item-by-item basis, directly to the department, division, or project.
3) Personnel Costs: This category refers to direct salary and benefit costs of staff hours spent on providing a fee-
generating service (e.g., on-site building inspector).
11' W I LLDAN [-ii 4
City of Rosemead, California r- -
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User &Development Impact Fee Study '<<oj
Approach 2:Average Cost Method
This is also sometimes referred to as a programmatic approach, because it looks at costs at a program level, and then
allocates them to participants on an occurrence basis. By taking total service costs across a substantial sample period
(a year) and dividing by the total number of service units delivered over that same period, costs per unit of service is
estimated.
This approach is useful when services or programs are provided in a more aggregate manner,where it might be difficult
to identify a specific sequence of steps associated with one user or participant; or where it is not feasible to cost-
effectively segregate costs associated with specific activities.
Development Impact Fee Methodology
Study Objectives
The objective of this project is to update/establish the City's development impact fees pursuant to State law, which
requires an update every five years. It is expected that Willdan will update fees for up to four impact fee categories.
During the kickoff discussion we will confirm the categories to be addressed in the study, and then update our scope
and fee accordingly.
On consultation with the City, Willdan the City may want to consolidate some categories for ease of administration and
efficiency in facility financing, but ultimately the structure of the impact fee program will be the City's decision.
To accomplish this objective, this study will:
Develop technically defensible fee justifications, 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 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of
local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
1. The passage of a string of tax limitation measures starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the
passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
2. Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and
businesses;
3. Steep reductions in Federal and State assistance; and
4. Permanent shifting by the State of local tax resources to the State General Fund to offset deficit spending brought
on by recessions.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of"growth pays its own way."This policy
shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and taxpayers onto new development. This
funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development
impact fees, also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners
or registered voters and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property.
Development 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.
1111 W I LLDAN 5
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fee ,dy&Development Impact Fee Study ,,
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: (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 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 (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning;
2) Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example park
improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for office space. Design standards are typically not
explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our
approach incorporates current-facility design standards into the fee program to reflect the increasing construction
cost of public facilities; and
3) Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth
based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly
developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed
based on a single measure (cost or value), useful when disparate facilities are funded by a single fee program.
Examples include facility costs per capita, per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
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 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 because of 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 below:
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing
development as follows:. -
CurrentValueofExistingFacilities
Existing Development Demand = $/unit of demand
r W I LLDAN
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fey&Development Impact Fee Study
Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the samestandard currently serving existing
development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing
development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available.
Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are
identified through an annual Capital Improvement Plan ("CIP") and budget process, possibly after completion of a new
facility master plan.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new
development as follows:
CostofPlannedFacilities
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:
ValueofExisting Facilities+CostofPlanned Facilities = /unit of demand
Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and
new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station
will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together to achieve the desired level of service. Police
substations, civic centers, and regional parks are examples of similar facilities.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies. Often, facility standards
based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than existing facility standards.This method enables
the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The
local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities, required to correct the deficiency, to
ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.
Calculating the Fee Schedule
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 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.
11 WI'LLDAN 7
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Feny&Development Impact Fee Study ■ �'
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 development exaction burden 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.
Our proposed scope will include an analysis of neighboring and comparable jurisdictions.
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; Developing procedures for developer credits and.
Regularly updating fees for capital project cost inflation; reimbursements; and
Regularly updating capital facility needs based on Including an administrative charge in the fee
changing demands; program.
Required City Data
We will work with the City to identify data regarding existing land uses, development projections and other demographic
assumptions needed for the study. We anticipate that much of this information will come from the City's General Plan,
but we will also identify other sources that can be used in the analysis. We will require the City to provide us with a
facility inventory of owned City facilities, by anticipated fee category, and planned capital facilities, by fee category for
any facility category that the City wishes to investigate.
r
W I LLDAN f
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fee,__^.dy&Development Impact Fee Study
Work Plans
Our proposed work plans, described in detail by task, are provided below.We propose to maximize efficiency and cost-
effectiveness by combining meetings and data gathering efforts between the cost allocation plan and user fee study
wherever possible.
We explain how each task will be accomplished and identify associated meetings and deliverables. We want to ensure
our scope provides quality and clarity and is responsive to the City's needs and specific local circumstances. We will
work in concert with the City to adjust scopes as needed during the course of the studies.
Full and OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan
This proposed scope of services addresses the completion of both the full and OMB compliant versions of the Cost
Allocation Plan (CAP). We have noted where activities specific to the OMB compliant plan occur.
Task 1: 'Initial Document Request
Objective: Initial due diligence.
Description: Prior to the kick-off call, relevant documentation will be obtained and reviewed in order to enhance our
understanding of the City's current cost allocation plan and internal structure of the agency. A written
request for specific data will be sent to the City. The data provided in this task will provide the building
blocks for later model development.
Our request may include (but is not limited to):
Detailed budget and accounting data;
Prior year's financial data, salary, position and staffing data;
Organizational structure;
Prior cost allocation plan and/or user fee documentation and models; and
Data related to various allocation bases that may be incorporated as part of the methodology, i.e.
City Council agenda frequencies by department,AP/AR transactions by department, IT equipment
distribution by department, etc.
Deliverables: Willdan: Submit information request to City.
City: Provide requested data to Willdan (prior to Task 2, Kick-off Call/Refine Scope). We will follow up
with the City to confirm in writing the data that we have received, or which is still outstanding.
Task 2: Kick-off Conference Call/Refine Scope 1
Objective: Confirm project goals and objectives. Identify and discuss policy issues raised by the study and
determine appropriate fee categories.
Description: Willdan will identify and discuss policy issues typically raised by these studies and address data gaps
in order to gain a full understanding of the City's goals for the cost allocation plan. We will establish
effective lines of communication and processes for information gathering and review.
We will also discuss costs that may not be allocable for OMB purposes, and the potential impact on
the OMB version of the CAP.
During this call, we will ask that the City assign a project manager to serve as its primary contact. The
selected City project manager will ensure that available data is provided to Willdan in a timely manner,
thereby maintaining adherence to the project's schedule.
We will obtain and review the current cost allocation methodology and discuss with City staff. The
objective of this review is to determine specific areas of focus as they relate to the City's objectives,
and to discuss and evaluate current and potential allocation factors.
Meetings: One (1) project kick-off conference call to initiate the project, discuss data needs and methodologies
and to address policy issues.We would propose to conduct the user fee study kick-off during this same
call, to maximize efficiency and cost effectiveness of staff and Willdan time.
Deliverables: Willdan: If needed, a revised project scope and schedule.
City: Provide further data requirements and select/introduce City's project manager.
g
1IV W I LLDAN I ;
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Feny&Development Impact Fee Study
rias(3: Gather Staffing Information and Develop Cost Allocation Plan Model
Description: This task involves the gathering of specific information, directly from City staff, through interviews and
discussion, related to the functions served by indirect staff and the departments served by their
activities. This task also focuses on the development of, and/or adjustment of existing, allocation
bases, and the development and testing of a model that will ultimately be used to calculate the proper
cost allocations derived from data gathered in prior tasks.
The model will be developed to incorporate any recent changes in the provision of City services, and
fully allocate central service costs.
The model will also be developed to allocate only those costs eligible under 2 CFR Part 200. This is
accomplished by loading relevant data into the model, identifying which costs are not allocable under
the OMB guidelines. The OMB Super Circular compliant model is valuable as the City may receive
Federal or State grant funding that mandates compliance with Federal OMB regulations.
We will utilize budget and organizational information, and other required information gathered from
City staff to complete the work in this task. Specific discussions will be held to discuss bases, how
central overhead services are provided to and utilized by other departments, cost categories and
allocation criteria, and how these will factor into the overall cost allocation methodology.
The model and methodology will also produce indirect cost rates. These rates will be suitable for a
variety of uses, including incorporation into the User Fee Study's personnel rates, billing to CIP
projects, and in the OMB Super Circular compliant CAP, to Federal grants.
Meetings: Online meetings with staff to understand structure and operations as model and allocation bases are
developed. Key staff will be interviewed to best understand central overhead staffing and functions and
the departments served.
Deliverables: Willdan: One (1) user-friendly model in Microsoft Excel format that provides both a full cost allocation
plan and an OMB Super Circular compliant cost allocation plan.
!Task 4: Test and Review Cost Allocation Methodology
Objective: Test and review model and results with City.
Description: The draft cost allocation plan model will be reviewed with City staff, and adjusted as necessary, to
ensure that preliminary allocations provide an accurate depiction of how the central overhead costs
should be borne by the operating programs and funds. Over the past several years, we have
successfully integrated online meetings by using WebExTM as an element to our approach. This allows
us to remotely guide staff through the model review and allows you the opportunity to interactively
change inputs and test approaches.
Meetings: One (1) online meeting and demonstration with City Staff to review the model.
Deliverables: Willdan and City: Draft cost allocation plan model review.
'Task 5: Prepare and Present Draft Report
Objective: Prepare the draft cost allocation report.
Description: This task involves the draft report preparation. The cost allocation plan's background, model
methodologies, and results will be discussed; calculations and supporting data will be presented
textually and in easily understood tables and provided to the City.
Meetings: One (1) online meeting to present the draft report to City Staff.
Deliverables: Willdan: Draft report for City review and input.
City: Review of draft report, with comments, and edits.
•
ITask 6: Discuss and Revise Report
Objective: Review of draft report, cost distribution methods, and model.
Description: An in-depth review of the draft report and model will be conducted to arrive at an optimum allocation
method for each expenditure type.
WW I LLDAN r i
10
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fee ,dy&Development Impact Fee Study 1
Often, through the course of an engagement, comments usually revolve around issues of
understandability; appropriate levels of enterprise funds' cost recovery, etc.; ease of calculation; and
overhead costs' distribution methods.
Our reports are structured to include both the full and OMB compliant plan, but in the course of review
if a separate report is desired for each or just one of the plans, they will be split.
Following a round of comments from City staff concerning the draft report, the final report will be
prepared for presentation to the Council.
Meetings: One (1) conference call with City staff to review the report with changes and revisions.
Deliverables: Draft report, and revised draft/final report.
Task 7: Prepare and:Present Final'Report and Model
Objective: Prepare and present the final report to City Council. Educate City staff on the operation and use of the
model for future modifications.
Description: This task is the culmination of the cost allocation plan project. Based on staff comments on the draft
report, Willdan will prepare the final report for presentation to City Council.
Meetings: One (1) meeting with the City Council to present the final plan if necessary. This meeting would be
held in conjunction with the presentation of the user rate study results.
We will also provide staff training on the operation and use of the model.
Deliverables: Willdan: Provide one (1) electronic PDF file copy of the final report and models (full and OMB Super
Circular compliant); and five (5) bound copies, and one (1) unbound copy to the City. Using Microsoft
Word and Excel, an updateable electronic copy of the study and models, as well as related schedules,
will also be provided on CD/ROM.
Comprehensive User Fee Study
1Task 1: Initial Document Request
Objective: Initial due diligence; obtain study-related data.
Description: Prior to the kick-off meeting, we will obtain and review relevant documentation to further enhance our
understanding of the services, fees, and rates to be studied. A written request for data will be sent to
the City. Please note that Time Survey data is not part of this request and will be gathered during the
on-site interviews described in Task 5.
We will request information and documentation on current fees and fee programs, activity levels, and
budget and staffing information (to the extent not already available) related specifically to programs
and activities which have associated fees, and for which the City has this level of detail.
Deliverables: Willdan: Submit information request to City.
City: Provide requested data to Willdan (prior to Task 3, Kick-off Meeting/Refine Scope). As with the
cost allocation plan, we will follow up with the City to confirm receipt of requested data and information
and highlight data elements that are outstanding.
[Task 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees �
Objective: Willdan will identify a schedule of fees and methodology for calculating the fees.
Description: Based on the results of the initial document request and independent research, incorporate into our
model the existing fees, provided by the City, to comprise the parameters of the fee study.
Meetings: It is possible that a conference call with the City may be necessary to discuss new fees to implement
or existing fees that may no longer be required.
Deliverables: Willdan: One(1) draft list of current fees based on initial data provided (to be discussed and finalized
during the kick-off call).
City: Review completed fee schedule with comments/revisions to be discussed during the kick-off
meeting.
1IIW ILLDAN
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe y&Development Impact Fee Study
!Task 3: Kick-off Conference Call/ Refine Scope
Objective: Confirm goals and objectives for the User Fee Study. Identify and resolve policy issues typically raised
by a User Fee Study, address gaps in data, and refine appropriate existing or new fee categories
(based on Task 2).
Description: Verify our understanding of the City's goals, the City's cost-recovery policy for user fees, and to fill any
gaps in data/information necessary for the project. It is important for the City and Willdan to identify
and address any foreseeable problems and maintain open communication throughout the process.
During this call, we will ask that the City identify a project manager who will serve as the primary
contact for the project.The project manager shall have responsibility for ensuring that all available data
is provided in a timely manner, thereby maintaining adherence to the project's schedule.
Meetings: One(1) project kick-off call to initiate the entire project, discuss data needs, and address policy issues.
This will be held in conjunction with the kick-off for the cost allocation plan. As mentioned in the cost
allocation plan work plan, we suggest combining the kick-off calls to increase efficiency.
Deliverables: Willdan: 1) Revised project scope and schedule(if needed); and 2) brief summary of policy decisions
(if needed).
City: 1) Provide further data needs; and 2) determine/introduce City's project manager.
!Task 4: Develop User Fee Model
Objective: Develop and test model.
Description: This task involves the development of the model ultimately used to calculate the departmental fees,
based on data and information gathered in previous tasks and in the Time Survey Interviews described
in Task 5. To ensure that City policies are met through the imposition of the calculated fees, the model
will be formatted to include appropriate costs.
Key model inputs will include staff and allocated overhead costs per position, and relevant budget data
on salaries and benefits. Most of this information will be developed during the cost allocation plan
phase of this project and will be incorporated directly into the user fee model. We will request
clarification and/or additional data if necessary.
The model will build upon the cost allocation plan results, to provide an allocation of administrative and
overhead costs to fee related activities and departments providing services to customers, so that fees
and billable rate schedules incorporate applicable costs. Furthermore, the fees and rates charged to
customers will also reflect the cost of the services being provided, to the extent possible given policy
and/or political considerations.
Deliverables: Willdan: One (1) user-friendly model in Microsoft Excel format, which, when finalized, City staff can
use to calculate fee changes annually, or as often as deemed appropriate by the City Council.
(Task 5: Time Survey Interviews and On-site Information Gathering I
Objective: Meet with City staff to complete Time Surveys and understand service delivery processes.
Description: In order to assist staff with the completion of the survey worksheets, we will schedule one (1) full day
of on-site meetings with staff; however, the number of meetings needed may vary depending on the
number of staff and departments involved.
The Willdan Team will conduct interviews with supervisors/managers, as well as other staff, as
deemed appropriate and/or necessary, from each department involved in the user fee study to
determine the average time required by City staff to provide each of the services for which a fee is
collected.
The fee model is designed so that full cost recovery fees are calculated immediately upon input of staff
time. These full costs are also compared to current cost recovery levels. This will allow Willdan and
City staff to conclude with a final meeting to review the draft full cost recovery fees, and adjust any
times as necessary, once all information has been compiled and input into the fee model. We will
schedule the interviews with staff to minimize any disruption to their normal workflow.
Meetings: One (1) full business day of on-site meetings/staff interviews. In light of ongoing public health
mandates associated with COVID-19,we will discuss with the City whether these meetings need to be
conducted via WebEx or Zoom.We have been using these tools during the course of the shutdowns and
they have proven effective and successful.
Deliverables: Willdan and City: Time surveys and draft full cost recovery fees.
1f1I WILLDAN 12
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe y&Development Impact Fee Study
,Task 6: Common Fees Comparison
Objective: Examine selected user fees charged by up to five (5) comparable cities in Los Angeles County, or
jurisdictions that are similar to the City of Rosemead.
Description: We will access and use our knowledge of other jurisdictions to benchmark the City's five (5) most
common fees or highest yielding fees with comparable jurisdictions agreed.
Fee schedules are rarely readily or directly comparable from agency to agency due to definitional and
operational differences. For example, a grading permit in one jurisdiction may include the plan check
service, while the same permit in another jurisdiction may not, resulting in similar sounding services
with widely varying costs. For this reason, Willdan takes a selection of the City's most commonly used
and/or highest yielding fees.
The survey will contain the following, a comparison of common or similar fees and charges used by
the City and other jurisdictions; current and proposed fees and charges unique to the City of
Rosemead; fees and charges used by other public entities not currently used in the City; and If
possible, identify characteristics and processes unique to the City that account for significant variances
in fees and charges used by other jurisdictions.
Deliverables: Willdan: Recommendations provided in Task 8 will incorporate the data gathered during our
examination.
'Task 7: Review of,Development Tax and Business License Tax
Objective: Review current City taxes for business licenses and development/construction and provide feedback.
Description: We will request City policies/ordinances/resolutions, and other documentation as available, related to
these mechanisms. We will discuss the taxes with staff to determine whether there are specific
questions or areas of concern and whether they are achieving their objectives.
To the extent possible, depending on available information, we will provide feedback based on 3 to 5
similar neighboring cities with similar tax mechanisms; examining those cities' policies, approaches
and structures as compared with Lomita.
Deliverables: Willdan: Recommendations provided in Task 9 will incorporate the data gathered during our
examination.
'Task 8: Data Analysis and Final User Fee Schedule
Objective: Incorporate information obtained from on-site surveys to fully develop model.
Description: We will update the model, based on information received during the on-site surveys, to generate a
comprehensive user fee schedule. In addition, it is very common that a supplemental data request may
be necessary, based on new fees identified that the City is not currently collecting. Where appropriate,
we will suggest and discuss with staff alternate approaches to existing fee programs(i.e. building fees)
and suggest potential areas where fees could be collected where they are not currently.We will present
the full cost recovery level for fees, both current and projected under the new calculated fees, and
revenue projections, given certain assumptions about the levels of subsidy for different fees. Current
levels of cost recovery will be compared to actual full costs calculated during the course of this study.
Cost will be calculated at reasonable activity levels and include all appropriate direct and indirect costs
and overhead. We will review fee programs for compliance with Propositions
218 and 26.
in developing the fee schedule, we will make recommendations for new fees where appropriate, based
on our experience with other cities. Some areas for new fees may be due to changes in law(legalized
cannabis), or for activities that the City finds itself performing regularly, but for which no fee is collected.
Where possible,we will incorporate discussion of the City's economic development policies, and where
these may intersect with fee programs, for instance setting fees in a manner that encourages certain
activities.
The user fee data analysis and model development may take three (3) to four(4)weeks with frequent
correspondence with City staff to discuss current cost recovery amounts, necessary to recover full cost
and frequency activity.
Meetings: One(1) meeting, as necessary, to gather additional input, complete analysis and finalize fee schedule.
Please see the note in Task 5 regarding in-person meetings.
Deliverables: Final user fee model for City Council presentation and discussion.
WWILLDAN 13
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User FeEly&Development Impact Fee Study ■
!Task 9 Prepare and Present Draft Report
Objective: Prepare draft report.
Description: This task involves the preparation of the draft report that discusses the study's background, the
methodologies utilized in the study, and the results and presentation to various stakeholder groups.
As noted below, meetings may occur during this or the next task as appropriate. The calculations used
to generate the user fee study will be included textually, as well as in easy to understand tables.
Individual fee summaries by department and a comprehensive fee schedule will be included. The draft
report will include the following:
Key results and findings;
Basic descriptions of each service;.
The full cost of each service and current cost recovery levels;
Costs broken down graphically into indirect and direct components, with a graphic display of the
level of cost recovery;
Fee recommendations with associate levels of cost recovery;
Projections of potential fee revenue;
Assessment of reasonableness of each City's costs;
Review of reasonableness of current consultant cost structure (for Building Division services);
As appropriate, recommend alternative methodologies for building permit fee calculation; and
Summary and recommendations.
The objective of the report is to communicate the recommendation of appropriate fees, which include
the appropriate subsidy percentage for those fees where full cost recovery may be unrealistic.
Meetings: One(1)conference call with City staff,to present draft results address questions and receive feedback.
Deliverables: Willdan: Draft report for City review and comment.
City: Review of draft report, with comments and edits.
•
ITask 10: Revise Draft Report/Determine Cost Recovery Levels for Recommended Adoption
Objective: Review of draft report and fee model.
Description: The goal of this task is to conduct an in-depth review ofthe draft report and model, incorporate
feedback and changes as a result of previous discussions, and arrive at an optimum fee structure.
Often through the course of an engagement, City staff will volunteer insightful likes and dislikes
regarding the existing fee structure. We listen to this feedback carefully because your staff members
know the community best. Comments usually revolve around issues of:
Understandability; Appropriate levels of cost recovery; and
Fairness to applicants; Full cost recovery hourly rates.
Ease of calculation;
When adjusting fee recovery levels, we believe it is important to address these concerns.
Following one (1) round of comments from City staff on the draft report and feedback from City staff,
we will prepare the final report for presentation to the City Council.
Meetings: One (1) online demonstration (WebEx) to review the report and model, with any revisions.
Deliverables: Draft report, revised draft/final report.
Task 11. Prepare and'"Present Final Report/Train Staff on Model
Objective: Prepare and present final report to City Council. Train staff on the operation and use of the model for
future modifications.
Description: This task is the culmination of the entire project. Based on staff comments received regarding the draft
report, we will prepare the final report for presentation.
Meetings: One (1) meeting with City Council to present the results and adopt the updated fee schedule. We will
also provide staff training on the operation and use of the model on the same day, during regular
business hours.
1IY WI'LLDAN 14
City of Rosemead, California .
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fee.`,.dy&Development Impact Fee Study ,
Deliverables: Provide one (1) electronic PDF file copy of the final report and models; and, if requested, provide five
(5) bound copies, and one (1) unbound copy to the City. Using Microsoft Word and Excel, an
updateable electronic copy of the study and models, as well as related schedules,will also be provided
on CD/ROM.
Development Impact Fee Review
Willdan will consider and recommend modifications to the existing program structure. In addition to the services for
which the City presently charges fees, the study shall identify and recommend other potential impact fees consistent
with the City's goals and objectives. This is not a full scope impact fee study and analysis, but rather the development
of recommendations and next steps for the City's Development Impact Fee programs and fees.
Task 1: Identify andResolve Policy Issues
Objective: Identify and resolve policy issues raised by the review.
Description: Review agency documents related to existing capital planning policies and funding programs including
existing impact fees. Bring policy issues to City staff's attention, as appropriate, during the project and
seek guidance prior to proceeding. Potential policy issues include:
Potential new impact fees for consideration;
Adequacy of General Plan and other public facility planning policies (e.g. level of service
standards); impact fee ordinances and resolutions, and prior nexus studies;
Availability of existing public facility master plans and CIPs to identify needed facilities;
Types of facilities to be funded by each fee;
Land use categories for imposition of fees;
Nexus approach to determining facility standards;
Nexus approach to allocating cost burden among land uses, including need for separate fee
zones;
Potential alternative funding sources, if needed;
Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and
Implementation concerns and strategies.
Deliverables: (1) Information requests; (2) revised project scope and schedule (if needed); and (3) brief summary of
policy decisions (if needed).
!Task 2: Comparison
Objective: Provide a comparison of the current and proposed impact fees to those of comparable/surrounding
jurisdictions.
Description: Typically, this would be neighboring jurisdictions, and a few that are nearby and comparable to the
City. Willdan will compare a total of five jurisdictions to be selected by the City. Typically, Willdan
prepares an analysis of fees charged to a series of prototype developments(such as residential, retail,
etc.) in order to provide an "apples to apples" comparison, but the exact methodology will be set in
consultation with the City. This comparison will be limited to five other jurisdictions.
;Task 3: Prepare Technical Memorandum j
Description: Provide a technical memorandum that summarizes Willdan's findings and outlines a roadmap to future
actions to consider(such as a fee update study, adoption of additional fee categories, etc.).
Deliverables: We will provide up to five(5) hard copies of the technical memorandum, one(1) unbound copy, and a
copy in Microsoft Word.
:Task 4: Meetings
Objective: The project manager or other necessary Willdan staff will attend project meetings. A member of the
impact fee project team will attend up to two meetings throughout this portion of the City's engagement.
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.
W [ii]WILLDAN
City of Rosemead, California y`
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe y&Development Impact Fee Study ■ .f
Development Impact Fee Study— Optional Full Study Scope
Willdan will review current fees, and complete the analysis necessary to recommend updated fees, consider and
recommend modifications to the existing program structure, cost components, and fee amounts. In addition to the
services for which the City presently charges fees, the study shall identify and recommend other potential impact fees
consistent with the City's goals and objectives.
=Task 1 Identify and,Resolve Policy-Issues
Objective: Identify and resolve policyissues 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 City staff's attention, as appropriate, during the project and
seek guidance prior to proceeding. Potential policy issues include:
Potential new impact fees for consideration;
Adequacy of General Plan and other public facility planning policies (e.g. level of service
standards); impact fee ordinances and resolutions, and prior nexus studies;
Availability of existing public facility master plans and CIPs to identify needed facilities;
Types of facilities to be funded by each fee;
Land use categories for imposition of fees;
Nexus approach to determining facility standards;
Nexus approach to allocating cost burden among land uses, including need for separate fee
zones;
Potential alternative funding sources, if needed;
Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and
Implementation concerns and strategies.
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: (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 City staff to identify growth projections to a defined long-range planning horizon (10 to 30
years). Projections provide a basis for determining the facilities needed to accommodate growth (see
Task 4). Consider projections from regional metropolitan planning agencies and other available
sources-City staff to provide estimates and projections by zone if needed.
Develop approach for converting land use data to measure of facility demand. For example, identify
population and employment density factors to convert population and employment estimates to
dwelling units and building square footage. Select appropriate approach for eachimpact fee
based on:
Available local data on facility demand by land use category;
Approaches used by other agencies; and
Support for other agency policy objectives.
Changes to estimates and projections during subsequent tasks could cause unanticipated effort and
require an amendment to the scope of services and budget. Obtain approval of estimates and
projections from City staff prior to proceeding.
W'WILLDAN 16
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe y&Development Impact Fee Study ■ ,f
Task 3. Determine Facility Standards
Note: Conduct Tasks 3, 4, and 5 separately for each intended facility and fee type. Conduct tasks
concurrently because of the effect of facility standards(Task 3), facility needs(Task 4), and alternative.
funding (Task 5) on the fee calculation.
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: (1) adopted policy
standards (e.g. General Plan, master facility plans); (2) standards derived from existing facility
inventories;or(3)standards derived from a list of planned facility projects. City staff to provide policies,
inventories, and project lists.
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 facilitystandards from
Task 3. Express planned facilities in general quantities such as acres of parkland, or as a specific list
of capital projects from a master facility plan.
Location of planned facilities may or may not be specified. If only a general description of planned
facilities is available through the planning horizon, City staff to provide a list of specific capital projects
for use of fee revenues during the short term (e.g. five years).
Distinguish between: (1)facilities needed to serve growth (that can be funded by impact fees);and (2)
facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies (that cannot be funded by impact fees). Use one of
three cost allocation methods (existing inventory, system plan, or planned facilities).
Gather planning-level data on new facilities costs based on lump sum project cost estimates, or unit
costs and project quantities (acres, building square feet, lane miles, etc.). Consider recent City
experience, local market data such as land transactions, and consultant team experience from prior
projects. Inflate older cost estimates,to base year using appropriate cost indices.
This scope of work does not include additional engineering analysis to identify total facility
needs, existing deficiencies, or cost estimates.
'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. Scope does not include a cash
flow analysis to analyze effect of timing of fee revenues on financing costs.
Task 6:' Comparison _ !
Objective: Provide a comparison of the current and proposed impact fees to those of comparable/surrounding
jurisdictions.
Description: Typically, this would be neighboring jurisdictions, and a few that are nearby and comparable to the
City. Willdan will compare a total of five jurisdictions to be selected by the City. Typically, Willdan
prepares an analysis of fees charged to a series of prototype developments(such as residential, retail,
etc.) in order to provide an "apples to apples" comparison, but the exact methodology will beset in
consultation with the City. This comparison will be limited to five other jurisdictions.
r
W I LLDAN 1 it
City of Rosemead, California -
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe y&Development Impact Fee Study ■ 3�
!Task 7: Calculate.Fees and Prepare Report
Objective: Prepare a 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 (1) round of comments from City 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. If
requested, post report on our website for public access.
Provide legal counsel with copies of fee resolutions and ordinances used by other jurisdictions.
Deliverables: We will provide up to five (5) bound copies of the draft report, one (1) unbound copy, one Microsoft
Word copy; and up to five(5)bound copies of the final report, one(1) unbound copy, and one Microsoft
Word copy.
Task 8: Meetings
Objective: The project manager or other necessary Willdan staff will attend project meetings. A member of the
Impact project team will attend up to four meetings throughout the Impact Fee Study portion of the
City's engagement. 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.
City Staff Support
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City staff. We suggest that the City of Rosemead assign a key
individual to represent the City as the project manager who can function as our primary contact. We anticipate that the
City's project manager will:
1) Coordinate responses to requests for information;
2) Coordinate review of work products; and
3) Help resolve policy issues.
Willdan will endeavor to minimize the impact on City staff in the completion of this project. We will ask for responses
to initial information requests in a timely manner. If there are delays on the part of the City, we will contact the City's
project manager to steer the project back on track.We will keep the City's project manager informed of data or feedback
we need to keep the project on schedule.
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.
i
WWI LLDAN Ei1
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fee Study&Development Impact Fee.Study
Project Schedules
Willdan understands time is of the essence for the City of Rosemead to begin this engagement. These schedules can only be met with the cooperation of City
staff. Delays in responding to our requests for data and review will result in corresponding delays to the project schedule. If that is the case, we will notify the
City immediately of the possible impact on the schedule.
Cost Allocation Plan
City of Rosemead
Full and OMB Cost Allocation Plan
Project Schedule
•
October November December
Scope of Services 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28
r.— i_ i....I I"1...............1 n...........♦ i'f'•'e,,:a'fii_w___
Task 2: Kick-off/ Refine Scope (conference call) 12
Task 3: Gather Staffing Information and Develop Model (conference call) z ; 3
Task 4: Test and Review Cost Allocation Methodology (conference call) i` 4
Task 5: Prepare and Present Draft Report (meeting) «a + 5
Task 6: Discuss and Revise Report (conference call) L 6
Task 7: Prepare and Present Final Report/Train Staff on Model (meeting) ;d 7
Legend:
1: Information Request 5: Draft Report
2: Revised Project Scope and Schedule (if needed) 6: Revised Draft Report/Final Report
3: User-friendly Model in Microsoft Excel 7: Final Report —Hard and Electronic Copies
4: Draft Cost Allocation Plan Model Review
WWI LLDAN ' 191
City of Rosemead,California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fee Study&Development Impact Fee Study
Comprehensive User Fee Study
1 y o - osemea •
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Project-Schedule
October November December January '21 February
. _
Scope of Services 5 12 1 9 2 9 16 2 3 7 1144 21 28 4 111 1 1 8 15 22
.-1 J_--
Task 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees ! ; 8
Task 3: Kick-off/ Refine Scope (web meeting/conference call) Mi 2
Task 4: Develop User Fee Model 13
Task 5: Time Survey Interviews and Information Gathering (web meetings) 9
Task 6: Common Fees Comparison 10
Task 7: Review of Development Tax Business License Tax -
Task 8: Data Analysis and Final User Fee Schedule (conference calls) _ 4
Task 9: Prepare and Present Draft Report (conference call) 5
Task 10: Revise Draft Report/Determine Cost Recovery Levels (conference call) L _.16
Task 11: Prepare and Present Final Report/Train Staff on Model (meeting) 7
Legend:
1: Information Request 6: Revised Draft Report/Final Report
2: Revised Project Scope and Schedule (if needed) 7: Final Report _Hard and Electronic Copies
3: User-friendly Model in Microsoft Excel 8: Draft List of Current Fees
4: Draft Fee and Rate Model Review 9: Time Surveys and Draft Full Cost Recovery Fees
5: Draft Report 10: Common Fee Comparison
WW1 LLDAN 201
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fee Study&Development Impact Fee Study
/7779-T
Development Impact Fee Study
City of Rosemead
Development Impact Fee Review
Project Schedule
October November December January '21 February
ScopeofServices 5 ' 12 : 19 26 2 9 ' 16' 2330 7 ; 14. 21 ;28 4 1118 25 1 8
-1M
Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth
Task 3: Determine Facility Standards
Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs
Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives
Task 6: Comparison
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report
Task 8: Meetings
}
111. W I LLDAN ' 21
City of Rosemead, California ■
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe ly&Development Impact Fee Study !%
Project Management and Quality Assurance
At Willdan, we utilize a Project Management Process/Approach that ensures projects are completed on time, within
budget and most importantly yield results that match our clients' expectations. We will document discussions leading to
important policy decisions and/or the choice of critical assumptions used in constructing the analysis and model.
Following key stakeholder discussions, we will schedule a call to summarize findings and direction with City staff, to
make certain that we are in agreement with stated objectives, and that feedback is incorporated as appropriate.
Project Management
ti:Iliii oiX 00
aillfr EMI
tral
Define the project Plan the project Manage the project Review the project Communicate the
project
Identify the project 'Collaborate with the Manage the Reviewall work Communicate with the
scope,set project team and execution of the product and client regarding work
objectives, list client staff,and project. deliverables. status and progress.
potential constraints, agree upon timeline
document to meet the Direct:existing and Utilize structured Ensure client is in
upcoming project quality assurance receipt of regular
{ assumptions. estimated project tasks. process involving up status updates.
{ timeline.
Define a course of to three levels of
Control and monitor Schedule regular
action and develop Assign workload work in progress: review"at,the peer conference calls to
an effective functions to level, project touch base.
communication plan. appropriately Provide feedback to manager level.
Provide a forum for qualified staff to client and project Procure executive, Inform client of.
ensure milestones team. ,
roadblockswork _i
applying the team's are met, on time. officer level'review. outside of projected
collective expertise Identify and resolve
to solving difficult Pre-schedule quality deviances from scope.
analytical issues that control meetings project timeline.
arise in complex . with project team to
projects. maintain the -
progressive motion
of the,project.
Through the process of providing regular updates and conducting status conference calls, potential issues
will be highlighted, discussed and resolved. Any deviances from the project timeline will be identified and
plans will be developed for course corrections. If necessary, changes in approach or strategy will be
discussed with City staff, to meet the needs of the City of Rosemead. In doing this, we will ensure the
project stays on track and evolves, based upon current thinking and outside dynamics.
11VW ILLDAN ` I
! 22 {
City of Rosemead, California ✓� 3
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fel dy&Development Impact Fee Study •
Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Process
Our quality control program is incorporated as a required element of Willdan's day-to-day activities. There are three
levels of reviews incorporated for our deliverables:
1) Peer review;
Quality Assurance Analyst Prepares
2) Project Manager review; Manager Review T; Deliverables.
and • I;
3) Final quality assurance U P.
manager review.
Quality
Peer reviews involve one Analyst Revises Data 0 Assurance Peer Review of
analyst reviewing the work of based on PM Review Levels of 0 Deliverables
another, while project Review
manager reviews are
conducted prior to delivery to 0
the quality assurance
manager. The quality
assurance manager then Project Manager Analyst Revises Data
performs a final review. This Reviews based-on Peer Review
assures that our final product
has been thoroughly evaluated for potential errors; thus, providing quality client deliverables, and high levels of integrity
and outcomes.
The primary mission of our quality control plan is to provide staff with the technical and managerial expertise to plan,
organize, implement, and control the overall quality effort, thereby ensuring the completion of a quality project within the
time and budget established.
Quality Assurance Goals
Goal Lead Task
•
Establish a set of planned and systematic actions for maintaining a
high level of quality in the professional services performed;
Emphasize quality in every phase of work;
Quality Assurance/ Ensure efficient use of resources;
Control Process Chris Fisher
Establish a consistent and uniform approach to the services
performed; and
Implement appropriate quality control measures for each work task
of the project.
Contract deliverables;
Specific quality control procedures;
I Chris Fisher,
James Edison, Special quality control emphasis;
Quality Control Plani Tony Thrasher& Budget and manpower requirements;
Robert Quaid, CPA
Overall project schedule and budget; and
Project documentation requirements.
* WI LLDAN i 23
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fr dy&Development Impact Fee Study ■ '� �
Experience and Expertise
Firm Profile
Willdan Financial Services, a California Corporation, is an
operating division within Willdan Group, Inc. (WGI),which was i , r ,> ^5
founded in 1964 as an engineering firm working with local
governments. Today, WGI is a publicly traded company °g Iz
�t � i l,�7T-�,x �a$I
Funded. 964 �rIMi�fil'iCeSie. ^,
(WLDN). WGI, through its divisions, provides professional . _°� i .�.. _®
technical and consulting services that ensure the quality, ,
value and security of our nation's infrastructure, systems, l -
facilities, and environment. The firm has pursued two primary ��'i i 'ii�; � 1,.500+
a '' .-
service objectives since its inception—ensuring the success • ,� Municipal/Government pal/GovernmentClients-.
of its clients and enhancing its surrounding communities.
Experience
A financially stable company, Willdan has annual revenues in across I
excess of $400 million and approximately 1,400 employees 1699
'
working in more than a dozen states across the U.S. Our 3. m_ Sates aYears a
employees include a number of nationally recognized Subject
Matter Experts for all areas related to the broadest definition 100+ �
of connected communities—six of whom are committed to . [:/3
contribute their expertise throughout the duration of the user Fee Studies, OMB Compliant and
Citywide Cost Allocation Plans in the Past 5 Years
City of Rosemead's Fee Study engagement.
Membefs of Municipal NI-nicipel
Willdan has solved economic, engineering and energy6overnm�nt. Managemenf Maeiasetrtenot
9 9 California Society Finance Association of Association of
.
challenges for local communities and delivered industry- FinanceOficess of Municipal OfficersNorthern Southern
Association California California
leading solutions that have transformed government and CSMFO GFOA MMANC MMASC .}
commerce. Today, we are leading our clients into a future " ` _"
accelerated by change in resources, infrastructure, MULTI ; s9..
.,- '
technology, regulations and industry trends. SKILLED �� .
TEp►M 9 PE :CONS `
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. Since that time, we have helped over 1,500 public
agencies successfully address a broad range of financial challenges, such as financing the costs of growth and
generating revenues to fund desired services.
Our staff of nearly 80 full-time employees supports our clients by conducting year-round workshops and on-site training
to assist them in keeping current with the latest developments in our areas of expertise. Willdan assists local public
agencies by providing the following services:
Willdan Financial Services
�., ,
, . ,�, ° .Services
Utility rate and cost of service studies; Development impact fee establishment and analysis;
User fee studies; Municipal Advisory Services;
Cost allocation studies; District administration;
Real estate economic analysis; Feasibility studies;
Tax increment finance district formation and Housing development and implementation strategies;
amendment; Arbitraae and Continuing Disclosure Services:
Property tax audits; Debt issuance sunnort: and
Economic Development Strategic Plans Long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling.
WWI LLDAN j 24-,
City of Rosemead, California
~ 1
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fei jdy&Development Impact Fee Study /
Staff Continuity
Mr. Fisher has been assigned to serve as the City's representative; he has It is important to note that
been selected for this role due to his extensive experience, which includes Mr. Fisher has been with Willdan
the preparation and supervision of numerous fee studies, as well as his for more than 21 years, ensuring
experience presenting to governing bodies, stakeholders, and industry the City of Rosemead of continuity
groups. and dedication in staffing during
the completion of the project.
Project Dedication
Willdan's Financial Consulting Services group is composed of a team of over 20 senior-level professional consultants.
While each member of the project team currently has work in progress with other clients, the workload is at a
manageable level with sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the City specific to the schedule and budget for this
engagement.
Professional Expertise
Unique Combination of Services and Expertise/Public Engagement
Willdan has provided User Fee and Impact Fee services to municipal clients for over 20 years; and has prepared
comprehensive impact fee studies, user fee studies, as well as cost allocation plans, and OMB compliant cost allocation
plans for clients throughout California, and the United States. Since 1998, we have developed the expertise to
successfully integrate this service into the Financial Consulting Services group's primary functions.
Willdan's Financial Consulting Services staff has assisted well over 100 California government agencies with the
development and/or update of all fee types. Each project has required defensible documentation and thorough
coordination of fee program changes for different agency departments and stakeholders within the business community.
In some cases,Willdan has been required to negotiate fees with stakeholders and, on occasion,defend them in meetings
and public forums.
We are particularly strong in advising our clients on the advantages and disadvantages of different fee schedule
structures (citywide versus multiple-fee districts/zones; more versus fewer land-use categories; etc.) and methods of
fee calculation that are based on the City's and stakeholder priorities and applicable regulations that comply with
Proposition 26 and Proposition 218.
Our record of success within the industry provides assurance of the professionalism and capability we will bring to this
engagement. A team composed of project managers and analysts develop and/or, update user fee studies, cost
allocation plans and development impact fees. Willdan has extensive experience with the range of fees charged in the
region and the state, and the typical pros, cons and challenges of each,, both in implementation and management.
Willdan will be bring its expertise to the City's process of considering financial, practical and policy issues in deciding on
its future fee program.
Similar Studies
Listed in the table below, is an abbreviated list of the public agencies in which similar services are currently in progress,
or have been completed, in the previous five years by the project team included within this submission.
5 Year Cost of Services Study Experience
Agency Impact Fee Study User Fee Study ° Cost Allocation Plan
City of Alameda, CA
City of Arcadia,CA
City of Banning, CA ..__._
'City of Bell,.CA
City of Bell,Gardens, CA
City of Bellflower, CA
City of Belmont, CA
City of Blythe, CA
:City-of Brea, C ►
City of Carpinteria, CA �
I WILLDAN 25
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User F�dy&Development Impact Fee Study ■ ,�'
5 Year Cost of Services Study Experience
Agency Impact Fee Study User Fee Study Cost Allocation Plan
It,`: City of Cerritos, CA l
City of Chino Hills,.CA
, City.of:Claremont CA. '
,
City of Coalinga, CA
f` •City.of Colton, CA.
: City of Commerce, CA
€ City.of Compton, CA
E City of Corona, CA
City of-Cudahy, CA
' City of DeSoto,TX. ... .
I City of Diinuba,CA' , -
.
'.:Cityof El Centro,CA
I -City,of.El'Cerrito, CA.
City of El Monte,CA ,
. City of Emeryville, CA. I
City of Encinitas,CA
£City of Fillmore, CA
City;of Fountain Hills,-AZ
x City of Fremont, CA
. City of-Galt,CA ; _
City of;Gardena,,CA
City of Garden Grove, CA 1
City of Gilroy, CA
. s° City of Glendale,.AZ
I', City of Hawthorne, CA
It City of Hayward,.CA I..:...
! , City,of Hesperia, CA
-
I City of Hollister, CA , '
t { 4 City of Indian Wells, CA' - ,
City of Irvine,CA
I., City of Irwindale;'CA
l' City of La.Mesa, CA I
City of La Mirada, CA , - .
I City of La Puente, CA "
I. Cit. of,LagunaHills, CA 1
City g:
City of Lake Elsinore, CA
City of Los Angeles
City,of Lynwood, CA . `'
City of Menifee, CA .
City of Mission Viejo,CA - `i l
City of Missouri City,TX I
. .; .City of Montebello, CA- ,
i
' City of Monterey.Park, CA
City of Monterey, CA ,,
City of Morgan Hill, CA
City ofMurrieta,:CA` I
I. City of Napa, CA -
City of National City, CA ,
City ofOroville, CA l
71
,{ WILLDAN 16 1
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive,User Ferry&Development Impact Fee Study
5 Year Cost of Services Study Experience
Agency Impact FeeStUdy User Fee Study CostAllocation Plan
City of Pacifica, CA
City of Palm Desert, CA
City of Patterson, CA
City of Petaluma, CA
City of Pismo Beach, CA
City of Pittsburg, CA
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
City of Rialto, CA
City of Richmond, CA
City of Rocklin, CA
City of Rosemead, CA
City of St. Helena, CA
City of Salinas, CA
City of San Anselmo, CA
City of San Bruno, CA
City of San Fernando, CA
City of San Jacinto, CA
City of Santa Ana, CA
City of Sierra Madre, CA
City of Signal Hill, CA
City of Soledad, CA
•City of South San Francisco, CA
City of Sunnyvale,TX
City of Surprise,AZ
City of Tehachapi, CA
City of Temecula, CA
City of Tulare, CA
City of Twenty-Nine Palms, CA
City of Union City, CA
City of Upland, CA
City of Watsonville, CA
City of West Covina, CA
City of West Hollywood, CA
City of Yucaipa, CA
County of Los Angeles, CA
County of Riverside, CA
County of Sacramento, CA
County of San Benito, CA
County of San Diego, CA
County of Stanislaus, CA
County of Tulare, CA
Kentuckiana Works, KY
San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, CA
Town of Loomis, CA
Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Town of Paradise Valley,AZ
Truckee Fire Protection District, CA
r -
MV W I LLDAN 27
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe y&Development Impact Fee Study ■
References
Below are recent project descriptions, including client contact information, that are similar in nature to those requested
by the City of Rosemead engagement. 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.
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
City of Chino Hills, CA
Full Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study
The City of Chino Hills engaged Willdan to complete a comprehensive Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User
Fee Study. Willdan staff met with City staff to verify the City's objectives for the study, independently gathered most of
the necessary data for the development of the CAP model and methodology and worked directly with City staff to gather
additional detail or clarify information where necessary. We worked City staff to understand the various functions served
by indirect staff in various City departments, and which operating departments or funds they served. We worked directly
with City staff to develop and verify allocation bases and make adjustments through several iterations of the CAP model
as necessary.
We developed a cost of service analysis and model that updated existing fees and incorporated new fees and used it
to create an updated comprehensive fee schedule.
Willdan is currently providing updates to the study.
Client Contact: Ms. Christa Buhagiar, Finance Director
14000 City Center Drive, Chino Hills, CA 91709
Tel#: (909) 364-2642 I Email: cbuhagiar@chinohills.org
City of Irvine, CA
Comprehensive User Fee Study,Cost Allocation Plan&OMB Cost Allocation Plan
Willdan completed a comprehensive user fee study and full cost allocation plan for the City of Irvine. The cost
allocation plan was also OMB compliant, whereas the user fee study focused on the community development/
planning, city clerk, public safety, and public works departments.
In addition to identifying the true costs of City-provided services,Willdan staff worked with each department to identify
opportunities in recovering costs of services for which no fee had previously been collected.
Willdan also conducted the City's previous study, as well as updates to the studies.
Client Contact: Ms. Amy Roblyer, Senior Management Analyst— Fiscal Services
One Civic Center Plaza, Irvine, CA 92606
Tel#: (949) 724-6255 I Email: aroblver• cit ofirvine.or.
City of Murrieta, CA
Cost Allocation and OMB Compliant Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study
Willdan was engaged by the City of Murrieta to complete a full and OMB compliant cost allocation plan and the
preparation of a comprehensive user fee study. Our primary objective for the cost allocation study was to ensure that
general government costs were fairly and equitably allocated to appropriate programs and funds, which are based on
tailored and well thought out allocation factors.
For the comprehensive user fee study, the primary objective was to ensure that fees for requested services were
calculated to account for the full cost of providing the services, and set appropriately, given City policy and financial
objectives. A concerted focus was put on achieving near or full cost recovery for the Building & Safety, Planning, Fire,
and Public Works fees. The analysis also justified measured increases in some of the fees associated with the other
departments. We also supported the City in answering questions from, and participating in several meetings with, the
local Building Industry Association representative,to explain the approach to the study,the data used, and the analytical
methodology.
Willdan was recently re-selected to provide an update to the User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan.
Client Contact: Ms. Stacey Stevenson, Administrative Services Director
1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562
Tel#: (951) 461-6004 I Email: sstevenson@murrietaca.gov
111/ WI LLDAN ' 28
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User F y&Development Impact Fee Study ■
Development Impact Fee
County of Riverside, CA
Comprehensive Impact Fee Study
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: Ms. Serena Chow, Administrative Services Manager
3403 10th Street, Suite 400, Riverside, CA 92501
Tel#: (951) 955-6619 I Email: schowrivcoeda.org
ci
County of Stanislaus, CA
Willdan assisted the County with an update to the existing impact fee program. The program is made up of a range
of facilities including public protection, library and park facilities. Fees are collected by all cities on new development
within the County's jurisdiction.
The study also includes 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.
Client Contact: Mr. Keith Boggs, Assistant Executive Officer
1010 10th Street, Suite 6800, Modesto, CA 95354
Tel. #: (209) 652-1514 I Email: boggsk@stancounty.com
City of Pismo Beach, CA
Willdan assisted the City of Pismo Beach with an update to their impact fee program. The program included the
following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements,
wastewater, traffic and general government/administrative facilities. This project was warranted due to the amount of
time that had elapsed since the prior update, coupled with the adoption of new and revised public facility master plans
that complemented the updated impact fees.
Prior to fee program adoption, Willdan held a stakeholder meeting to inform the public about the project, and to solicit
feedback from the development community.
Client Contact: Ms. Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director
760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Tel#: (805) 773-7010 I Email: nfeeserpismobeach.orq
I City of Santa Clara, .CA.
Willdan was contracted to update the City's existing park impact fee. The City faced a unique challenge as their park
fee dated back many years and was not aligned with the City's newly adopted General Plan. Willdan utilized the
information specific to parks contained within the City's current Capital Improvement Plan, as well as demographic
information within the City's General Plan. Willdan prepared a nexus study establishing the fee that could be charged
to new development, which was adopted by the City Council, and is currently in effect.
Willdan was recently retained by the City in August of 2018 to prepare a nexus study to update the In-lieu Parkland
Dedication Fee under the Quimby Act, and the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee under the Mitigation Fee Act.
Client Contact: Mr. Jim Teixeira, Director of Parks and Recreation
1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Tel#: (408) 615-2260 I Email:jteixeirasantaclaraca.gov
WWILLDAN 29
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User FUdy&Development Impact Fee Study ■
Combined Studies
E County of San Benito, CA
Comprehensive Impact Fee Study&User Fee Study
Willdan prepared a Comprehensive User Fee Study for the County of San Benito. The team reviewed existing user
fee programs, and based upon conversations with staff, made suggestions, as necessary, for fees that may need to
be added to the County's fee schedule for which fees were not currently being charged. We developed a cost of
service analysis and model that updated existing fees and incorporated new fees and that were used to create an
updated comprehensive fee schedule.
Willdan has assisted the County of San Benito with their development impact fees since 2007. Most recently, we
updated and expanded the impact fees charged by the County on new development. Willdan prepared the study and
presented the results at a stakeholder meeting and before the County Board of Supervisors. The fee categories
included: 1) Capital Improvements Impact Fee, including the Law Enforcement Fee and the Jail and Juvenile Hall
Fee; 2) Road Equipment Impact Fee; 3) Fire Mitigation Impact Fee; and 4) Park and Recreation Impact Fee.
Client Contact: Ms. Dulce Alonso, Management Analyst
481 4th Street, 1st Floor, Hollister, CA 95023
Tel#:(831)636-4000lEmail:dalonso a..cosb.us
City of Laguna Hills, CA
Cost Allocation Plan Update,Comprehensive User Fee Study&Park Impact Fee Study
The City of Laguna Hills was seeking an outside consultant to complete a review and update of their current cost
allocation plan and the preparation of a comprehensive user fee study for the development of its master list of fees.
Our primary objective for the cost allocation study was to ensure that general government costs were fairly and
equitably allocated to appropriate programs and funds, which are based on tailored and well thought out allocation
factors. For the Fee Study, the primary objective was to ensure that fees for requested services were calculated to
account for the full cost of providing the services, and set appropriately, given City policy and financial objectives.
Upon completion of the update to the cost allocation plan, Willdan utilized the final report to complete the
comprehensive user fee study.
Willdan also 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
underbothapplicableActs.
User Fee&CAP Client Contact: Ms. Janice Mateo-Reyes, Finance Manager
24035 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Tel#: (949) 707-2623 l Email: JReyes(a�ci.laguna-hills.ca.us
Impact Fee Study Client Contact: Mr. David Chantarangsu, AICP, Community Development Director
24035 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Tel#: (949) 707-2670 I Email: dchantarangsu@lagunahillsca.gov
WWI LLDAN i30
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fd,_ Jdy&Development Impact Fee Study
Project Manager & Key Staff
Our management and supervision of the project team is very simple: staff
every position with experienced, capable personnel in sufficient numbers to The team presented within this
deliver a superior product to the City, on time and on budget. With that proposal has worked collectively
philosophy in mind, we have selected experienced professionals for this on numerous projects,such as the
engagement. We are confident that our team possesses the depth of one requested by the City of
experience that will successfully fulfill your desired work performance. Rosemead; an established work
Our employees know and understand the problems facing local government practice between the team
under the current economic climate, and we have oriented our practice to
members has been forged,this
support an agency's modified budget policies and public service priorities. proven long-standing system has
benefited our clients.
Project Team
Key Team Member Project Role Responsibility to the Rosemead Engagement
Ensure client satisfaction, flow of communication,
and management of the project
Technical guidance;
'Chris Fisher Principal-in-Charge Project oversight;
Quality assurance &control; and
Meeting and presentation attendance.
Task Oversight;
Model development and review;
I " Development Impact Fee Study Produce key elements of the analyses;
James Edison I
IE ProjectManagerResponsible for project deliverables;
Report evaluation; and
Meeting and presentation attendance.
Task oversight;
Model development;
Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Produce key elements of the analyses;
.Tony Thrasher Technical Project Manager g Responsible for project deliverables;
Report preparation and evaluation; and
Meeting and presentation attendance.
Collect, interpret, and disseminate key data;
Development Impact Fee Study Model development;
Carlos Villareal Lead Analyst y Report preparation; and
Meeting and presentation attendance
Collect,interpret, and disseminate key data;
Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Assistance with model development;
Pnti Patel l Technical Project Manager 3 1 9 Report preparation; and
Meeting and presentation attendance.
Robert Quaid, CPA.
Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Third party reviewer;and
Technical Project Manager Report evaluation.
Resumes
Resumes for Willdan's project team are presented on the following pages.
t P
11V'WILLDAN 31
City of Rosemead, California -.
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe, ,idy&Development Impact Fee Study
Chris Fisher
Principal-in-Charge
Education Mr. Chris Fisher, Vice President and Group Manager of Willdan's Financial Consulting Services
San Francisco State group, will serve as Principal-in-Charge for the City of Rosemead's project. He will also share his
University, Bachelor of extensive knowledge related to cost-of-service principles with members of the project team.
Science, Finance
Mr. Fisher joined Willdan in April of 1999, and during that time has managed an array of financial
Areas of Expertise consulting projects for public agencies in California, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Florida,
Cost of Service coordinating the activities of resources within Willdan, as well as those from other firms working on
Analyses these projects. He is one of the firm's leading experts for special district financing related to public
infrastructure, maintenance, and services, including public safety.
Multi-disciplinary Team
Management Related Experience
Mr. Fisher was, or is currently serving as, the principal-in-charge for the following multi-disciplined
Special District cost of service fee study (Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study, and Development Impact Fee
Formations Study) engagements. Due to his extensive experience managing multi-disciplinary teams, his
primary responsibilities include planning, overseeing, supporting, and coordinating the project
Client Presentations team, and maintaining client contact and satisfaction through all phases of the studies.
Proposition 218 City of Banning, CA City of Bellflower, CA
City of Compton, CA City of Cudahy, CA
Affiliations
California Society of uity or ti ivionte, LA lacy or 1-uimore, LH
Municipal Finance City of Gilroy, CA City of Irwindale, CA
umcers City of Laguna Hills, CA City of Lake Elsinore, CA
Municipal Management City of Petaluma, CA City of Richmond, CA
Association of City.of St. Helena, CA City of Salinas, CA
City of San Bruno, CA City of San Fernando, CA
Maga PRINe#3 City of San Jacinto, CA City of Twenty-Nine Palms, CA
Treasurers Association County of San Benito, CA Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
21 Years'Experience City of Murrieta, CA-Cost Allocation& OMB Compliant Plan and Comprehensive User Fee
Study: Mr. Fisher served as the project manager on the City's fee study. The primary objective for
the cost allocation study was to ensure that general government costs were fairly and equitably
allocated to appropriate programs and.funds. The City has recently re-engaged Willdan to
conduct an update to both studies.
City of Irvine, CA — OMB Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Willdan
completed a cost allocation plan and user fee study for the City of Irvine. Mr. Fisher managed and
provided quality assurance to this project, ensuring the accuracy of the models, as well as the final
reports. He also presented the results to the City's Finance Commission and to the City Council.
City of National City, CA-Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User
Fee Study, and ISF Allocation Study: Mr. Fisher served as the principal-in-charge for the City of
National City's Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee, and ISF
Allocation Study.
City of Signal Hill, CA -Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: As principal-in-charge, Mr.
Fisher oversaw the development and review of a Full and OMB compliant cost allocation study and
a comprehensive user fee and rate study for the City's master list of fees.
City of Palm Desert, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:
Mr. Fisher is the principal-in-charge for the ongoing full cost allocation plan and user fee study.
Willdan's work includes the gathering of necessary data and information, interviews with City Staff
to identify overhead support services and how they are used and interviews to gather information
related to fee-based services. We are also developing financial models to calculate overhead
allocations and personnel rates and the full cost of services for which fees are charged. We are
working with Staff to finalize cost recovery targets, prepare reports and present the results.
V ' WILLDAN 32
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fdy&Development Impact Fee Study ■ f�
City of Indian Wells, CA— User Fee Study: Mr. Fisher was the principal-in-charge for the City's
C.Fisher user fee study for the Administrative, Building, Planning and Public Works Departments. Our team
Resume Continued gathered and confirmed data, met with City Staff to discuss the City's overhead support structure
and how operating activities use and benefit from overhead support services. We conducted
interviews to gather information related to fee-based services to be used in calculating the full cost
of providing services. We developed financial models to calculate overhead allocations and the full
cost of services and worked with Staff to develop fee-setting recommendations. We prepared
reports and presented the results and met with the development community to address their
questions about the study's methodology and results.
City of Union City, CA — Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study & Overhead Cost Allocation
Plan: Mr. Fisher served as the principal-in-charge for the City's fee study. He oversaw the
development of an overhead cost allocation plan, OMB compliant cost allocation plan, as well as a
comprehensive user fee study.
City of Belmont, CA—Master Fee Study and Cost Allocation Refinement: Mr. Fisher served as
the project manager for Willdan's work with the City of Belmont and the Belmont Fire Protection
District's fee study. Willdan completed a Master Fee Study and an analysis and review of the
existing Cost Allocation Plan for the City of Belmont, and a Fee and Rate Study for the Belmont
Fire Protection District.
City of Pittsburg, CA —Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Mr. Fisher provided policy
guidance and quality assurance to the City's update and development of a comprehensive user fee
study for the development of a master user fee and rate schedule and a cost allocation plan to
recover overhead costs related to central service activities.
City of Hayward, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Mr. Fisher served as the
project manager for the City's full overhead cost allocation plan and OMB A-87 cost allocation plan,
along with a comprehensive master user fee study. He worked with the City and Willdan staff to
gather the necessary data and is overseeing Willdan's development of the cost allocation model.
The City has a complicated and detailed budget and the cost allocation plan that Willdan developed
is tailored to their structure and includes provision for several Internal Service Funds.
City of Salinas, CA — Comprehensive Fee Study and Full Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Fisher
served as the project manager for the City of Salinas engagement, to prepare an OMB A-87-
compliant full cost allocation plan and comprehensive fee study for the development of a master list
of fees. Mr. Fisher led an all-departments overview meeting, where the framework and general
process was reviewed, and global practical and policy questions were addressed. Immediately
following the overview meeting, individual meetings were held with representatives from each
departmentto discuss their specific fee related activities and gather necessary information to
update fees.
City of DeSoto, TX — User Fee Study: Mr. Fisher served as the principal-in-charge for City's
Comprehensive User Fee Study.
iiiVW , 33�€
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fey&Development Impact Fee Study ■ 'f
Tony Thrasher
Technical Project Manager–Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Education Due to his cost allocation and user fee analyses experience, Mr. Tony Thrasher has been selected
Bachelor of Science in to serve as Technical Project Manager for the City's User Fee Analysis engagement. Currently, Mr.
Economics; California Thrasher is a Senior Project Manager within the Financial Consulting Services group, whereby his
State Polytechnic responsibilities include managing projects and conducting fiscal analyses for cost allocation plans,
University, Pomona user fees, and utility rate studies.
Areas of Expertise Mr. Thrasher's prior employment was as a financial analyst working in bond, equity, and mortgage-
Cost Allocation Plans backed security markets for Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, and Deutsche Bank. His
experience includes portfolio accounting, differential analysis, and forecasting.
Fiscal Analysis for Related Experience
User Fees and Rates -
City of Chino Hills, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:
District Administration Mr. Thrasher is serving as the technical project manager for the City's Cost Allocation Plan and
Services Comprehensive User Fee Study. He is working directly with the City contact throughout the
engagement.
Utility Rate Studies City of Mission Viejo, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher was
assigned to work with the City on this project, providing analytical support, gathering data, working
11 Years'Experience with staff to make refinements, and developing cost allocation and fee models to ensure full-cost
recovery for building and safety, planning, community development, and public works departments.
City of Indian Wells,CA—User Fee Study: Mr.Thrasher served as the technical project manager
for the City's Administrative, Building, Planning and Public.Works Departments. The study involved
the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and
analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and
calculation of individual service costs cost recovery levels.
City of Palm Desert, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:
Mr. Thrasher is currently serving as the technical project manager for the City's full cost allocation
plan and user fee study. He is directly responsible for the creation of both models for the study,
gathering and verification of the data, managing the analysts working to support him and presenting
results to the City.
City of Bellflower, CA — OMB Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study
Update: In Willdan's initial engagement with the City, Mr.Thrasher provided analytical support,with
his primary duties including finalizing model figures and generating reports. In the subsequent
update of both the CAP and the Fee Study, Mr. Thrasher assumed a lead technical role, working
directly with the client to develop a new Cost Allocation Model, update the comprehensive fee
model, and resolve policy and fee setting issues. He was directly responsible for delivery of reports
and presentations to the City.
City of National City, CA—Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User
Fee Study, and ISF Allocation Study: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project manager for
the City of National City's Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee,
and ISF Allocation Study.
City of Irvine, CA—OMB Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Serving
as the project's analyst, Mr. Thrasher provided analytical support; and designed micro-level
allocation models to ensure full-cost recovery for public safety, public works, community
development, community services, and administrative departments.
City of Cerritos, CA — Development Services User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher served as the
technical project manager for this engagement, whereby he designed micro-level allocation models
to ensure full-cost recovery for building and safety, planning, community development, and public
works departments.
City of Richmond, CA—Cost Allocation Plan& User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher is serving as the
project manager for the City of Richmond's fee study.
1iW I LLDAN 34 i
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User F y&Development Impact Fee Study ■
City of Petaluma, CA — Overhead Cost Allocation Plan and OMB Circular Plan, User Fee
T. Thrasher Study, CIP Rate Analysis, and Hourly Overhead Rate Study: Mr. Thrasher provided analytical
Resume Continued support for this engagement. His primary duties were to work with City staff to gather data, provide
assistance to the project manager, and produce reports. The City has hired Willdan for multiple
updates since we completed the original study.
City of Salinas, CA—Full Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher
provided analytical support for the City of Salinas OMB A-87-compliant full cost allocation plan and
comprehensive fee study engagement. He worked closely with City staff to gather and analyze data
to produce reports, participated in multiplemeetings, and assisted the City appointed Project
Manager in the adoption of the new fees.
City of Hayward,CA—Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: For this project, Mr. Thrasher
provided analytical support, and was largely responsible for the development of the models. Primary
duties include gathering and verifying necessary data, finalizing model figures and generating
reports. The City hired Willdan to complete the original Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee
Study, and has subsequently hired us for updates to both studies.
City of Monterey, CA — Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Thrasher is serving as the technical project
manager for the City of Monterey Cost Allocation Plan engagement and updates. He is assisting in
the development of the City's general overhead allocation plan, whereby he applies his expertise
on alternative allocation methods. The City hired Willdan for the original study, and has since
hired us for multiple updates.
City of Galt, CA — Cost Allocation Plan: As the assignedtechnical lead, Mr. Thrasher worked
directly with City Staff to develop the Cost Allocation Model and report and worked with Staff to test
and adjust the model and methodology where appropriate before finalizing. Following completion
of the initial CAP, he worked with the City to update the model for the subsequent budget update.
City of DeSoto,TX—User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project manager for
City's Comprehensive User Fee Study.
City of Missouri City,.TX — Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan: Mr.
Thrasher served as the technical project manager for City's Fee Study.
City of Mesquite, TX — Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project
manager for City's Cost Allocation Study.
City of Surprise,-AZ — Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project
manager for the 2017 Cost Allocation Plan to identify the City's costs related to rendering internal
central support services, and the allocation of those costs to operating departments.
Kentuckiana Works,KY—Cost Allocation Plan: Mr.Thrasher was the technical project manager
for Kentuckiana Works Cost Allocation Plan.
r
3 , ;,, WILLDAN 35
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fel y&Development Impact Fee Study f'
Priti Patel
Project Analyst—Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Education Ms. Priti Patel is a Senior Analyst within the Financial Consulting Services group, whereby she
Bachelor of Arts; supports project managers in conducting utility rate analyses, fee studies, cost allocation plans,
Business monitoring Proposition 218 compliance, and forming special districts.
Management,
Information Systems Coordinating and conducting activities associated with Cost Allocation Plans and User Fee Studies,
and including database integration and manipulation, revenue and expenditure analyses, and
International Business, documentation preparation are just some of Ms. Patel's duties. With these duties, she interacts with
University of Cincinnati clients on a regular basis.
Areas of Expertise Ms. Patel joined Willdan as an analyst with the District Administration Group, while with DAS she
Cost Allocation Plans performed research and analysis needed for local government financial issues related to district
administration, including document data entry and updating, database management, research and
User Fee Studies report preparation. She also provided general information on questions pertaining to Assessment
Districts and special taxes (such as Mello-Roos Pools), as well as the status of property
Proposition 218 delinquencies. Ms. Patel came to Willdan with more than five years' experience as an Analyst.
Related Experience
7 Years'Experience
City of Lake Elsinore, CA — User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan: Ms. Patel provided
analytical support and gathering budget and allocation basis data for this engagement.
City of National City, CA—Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User
Fee Study, and ISF Allocation Study: Ms. Patel is providing analytical support in the preparation
of this study, her primary duties include development of the models, finalizing model figures and
results, and generating reports.
City of San Fernando, CA - Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:
Ms. Patel is currently providing support to senior team members in the preparation of a cost
allocation plan, OMB compliant plan and comprehensive user fee study.
City of Chino Hills,CA— Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Providing
analytical support in the preparation of a cost allocation plan and comprehensive fee study, Ms.
Patel worked to identify and take into account direct and indirect costs, along with changes in
staffing, structure, and service delivery methods. She is also assisting in the preparation of user-
friendly Excel-based models that City staff can easily update in the future to determine the proper
allocation of expenditures and ongoing full cost of City-provided services.
City of Laguna Hills, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:
Ms. Patel provided analytical support in the preparation of a full cost allocation plan and
comprehensive fee study for the development of a master list of fees.
City of Palm Desert, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:
Ms. Patel is assigned as the analyst to the City of Palm Desert's full cost allocation plan and user
fee study. She supports the project manager by gathering necessary data, preparing the initial draft
models and reports, and working directly with City Staff to refine and update results during review
iterations.
City of Indian Wells, CA — User Fee Study: Ms. Patel served as the analyst for the City's user
fee study for the Administrative, Building, Planning and Public Works Departments. She ledthe
analytical efforts by developing the User Fee model and report, and gathering and evaluating the
data necessary for the study. She also participated in the on-site interviews with Staff to discuss
service delivery processes.
City of Fillmore,CA Full Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Ms. Patel helped develop
a cost allocation plan and model that fully allocated central overhead costs to appropriate operating
departments, funds, and/or programs. She assisted in the completion of the model and report and
worked directly with senior staff to their feedback and revisions.
Rainbow Municipal Water District, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and OMB Compliant Plan: Ms.
Patel provided analytical support to ensure that the District's Cost Allocation Plan and OMB
compliant cost allocation model and plan fairly allocated general and administrative overhead
service costs to appropriate activities and departments.
`4 W ILLDAN r 3s
i, .�
City of Rosemead, California
Cost.Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Feny&Development Impact Fee Study ■
City of Yucaipa, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Provided
P.Patel analytical support in the preparation of a Cost Allocation Plan and OMB compliant cost allocation
Resume Continued plan and comprehensive fee study for the development of a master list of fees. Ms. Patel worked
to identify and take into account direct and indirect costs, along with changes in staffing, structure,
and service delivery methods.
City of Richmond, CA — Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study: Ms. Patel is the financial
analyst on the City of Richmond's ongoing User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan. She is
assisting the project manager with gathering and validation of data, development of the models and
related analysis, staff interviews and preparation of reports and presentations.
City of Pittsburg, CA —Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Ms. Patel was assigned to
provide assistance to senior project team members on the City of Pittsburg Cost Allocation Plan
and User Fee Study engagement. She will be a technical lead for the gathering of data, creation of
the models and preparation of study reports and presentations. The City hired Wilidan for the
original study, and for two subsequent updates.
City of Monterey, CA — Cost Allocation Plan: Ms. Patel is serving as the financial analyst for
the City of Monterey Cost Allocation Plan and updates. In this role she is responsible for obtaining
updated information and data, reviewing overhead structure and functions and preparing the
updated model and report. The City originally hired Willdan for the creation of the first Cost
Allocation Plan, and has hired us for multiple updates since then.
City of DeSoto, TX User Fee Study: Ms. Patel served as the financial analyst for City's
Comprehensive User Fee Study.
City of Missouri City, TX — Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan:
Ms. Patel provided analytical support in the preparation of a full cost allocation plan and
comprehensive fee study.
Kentuckiana Works, KY— Cost Allocation Plan: Ms. Patel is the financial analyst assigned to
the Kentuckiana Works Cost Allocation Plan engagement.
City of Dinuba, CA — Cost Allocation Plan Update and Utility Rate Study: Ms. Patel assisted
with a utility rate study and a cost allocation plan update for the City. Duties included reviewing
relevant documentation, gathering information related to indirect staffing and functions, assisting in
the preparation of a comprehensive draft cost allocation model and plan, and testing and reviewing
the model and results with project management staff.
37
1WI LLDAN
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Feilly&Development Impact Fee Study ■
Robert Quaid, CPA
QA/Technical Advisor–Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Education With his 35 years of extensive experience in public financing, Mr. Robert Quaid has been selected
Bachelor of Science, to provide quality assurance/quality control in the role of technical advisor. In his position as a
University of Southern Principal Consultant at Willdan, Mr. Quaid provides project management, procedural support,
California technical support, and quality review for Willdan's District Administration group, as well as the
Financial Services Consulting group specific to cost allocation plans, user fee studies, and special
Areas of Expertise financial analysis.
Fiscal Analysis for User
Fees and Rates Prior to joining Willdan, Mr. Quaid worked in the private industry of real estate accounting and
finance. He began his career with the public accounting firm formerly known as Haskins & Sells
Cost Allocation Plans (currently known as "Deloitte & Touche"). His experience includes financial statement analyses,
asset administration, computer conversion, and reporting to the Securities and Exchange
Acquisition Audit Commission for several public real estate partnerships. In 1979, Mr. Quaid became a licensed
Services California CPA.
Statutory Financial Related Experience
Reporting City of Thousand Oaks, CA --Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Quaid served as project manager for
the development of an OMB A-87 compliant cost allocation plan model using fiscal year actual costs
Fund Audits as the basis for the allocations. He was responsible for the preparation of the Cost Allocation Plan
report and provided cost allocation model training to City staff.
Quality Review of
Community Facilities, The objective of this project was to determine the appropriate allocation of indirect costs from City
Lighting&Landscaping, General Fund central service departments to the General Fund operating departments/programs
and Assessment and the non-General Fund departments/programs. The plan model included 16 allocation bases
Districts allocating costs to over 100 departments and divisions. Both full and OMB A-87 cost allocation
models were delivered to the City. Willdan was awarded a four-year contract.
Affiliations
California Society of Cities of Fontana, Gardena and Hawthorne, CA—Cost Allocation Plan Projects: For each of
Municipal Finance these cities, Mr. Quaid served in the role of task manager for the development of an OMB A-87
Officers compliant cost allocation plan model using Microsoft Excel. He was responsible for the preparation
of the cost allocation plan report and trained City staff on how to use the cost allocation model.
California Society of
CPAs City of Rialto, CA— Comprehensive User Fee Study: Project manager for the Comprehensive
User Fee Study to develop a user fee model in Microsoft Excel and update fees for Planning,
Certifications/Licenses Engineering, Building, Public Works, Recreation, Police, Fire, City Clerk, Treasurer and Finance.
Certified Public
Accountant City of Cathedral City, CA — Comprehensive User Fee Study: Mr. Quaid served as project
manager for a user fee study that required updating fees for Planning, Engineering, Building, Police,
35 Years'Experience Fire, City Clerk, and Finance.
Mr. Quaid has provided Quality Assurance and Quality Control to multiple clients throughout
California. Provided below are a few examples of clients in which services have been provided in
the previous three years.
City of Belmont, CA City of Petaluma, CA
City of Cerritos, CA City of Rocklin, CA
City of Claremont, CA City of St. Helena, CA
City of Coalinga, CA County of San Benito, CA
City of El Cerrito, CA City of San Bruno, CA
City of Fillmore, CA Sacramento Public Library, CA
City of Galt, CA City of Salinas, CA
City of Hayward, CA City of Union City, CA
City of Indian Wells, CA City of Watsonville, CA
City of Monterey, CA City of Yucaipa, CA
�S V W._�t W I LLDAN _ ; 38.;.
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fe y&Development Impact Fee Study ■ ✓� ..
:.c
James Edison, JD, MPP
Project Manager—Development Impact Fee Study
Education Mr. James Edison specializes in the nexus between public and private, with expertise in public-
Juris Doctorate, private partnerships, and the benefits of economic development to municipalities and state,
Boalt Hall School of provincial, regional and national governments. He possesses deep expertise in land use
Law, 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
Master of Public internationally. Mr. Edison's public-sector experience includes local and regional economic impact
Policy, Richard and studies; fiscal impact evaluations; new government formation strategies; and the creation of impact
Rhoda Goldman fees, assessments, and special taxes to fund infrastructure and public facilities. He has conducted
School of Public numerous evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of specific plans and consulted on a wide
Policy, University of variety of land use planning topics related to community revitalization and the economic and fiscal
California, Berkeley impacts of development.
Bachelor of Arts, As a former bond attorney, Mr. Edison understands the legal underpinnings and technical
magna cum laude, requirements of public financing instruments and has advised both public and private clients on the
Harvard University use of individual instruments, and the interaction between those instruments and the needs of
developers and project finance.
Professional
Registrations Related Experience
Member of State Bar, City of Morgan Hill, CA— Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison managed the update of
Califomia
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 City's park impact fee update. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the
Development Finance cost of acquiring and improving public park land.
Agencies City of Alameda, CA — Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team
CFA Society of updating the impact fee programs of the City of Alameda and creating a separate impact fee
San Francisco program for Alameda Point, the former Alameda Naval Air Station.
County of Tulare, CA — Countywide Impact Fees: Mr. Edison served as project manager for a
Congress for the study that involved the creation of an impact fee program for the County.The study includes a range
New Urbanism of facilities including public protection, library and parks, as well as a transportation facilities impact
Urban Land Institute fee, with different fees calculated for two zones in the County.
City of Fremont, CA— Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team in
Seaside Institute the successful update of the impact fee programs for the City of Fremont. The effort included an
update of the City's transportation impact fee program and capital improvement program.
International Economic
Development Council County of Riverside, CA — Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the effort to
establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks,
20 Years'Experience 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.
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.
W 1LLDAN 39
City of Rosemead, California -{
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Few dy&Development Impact Fee Study "I
County of Imperial, CA—Solar Farm Fiscal and Economic Analysis: Mr. Edison was engaged
J.Edison by the County of Imperial to evaluate the fiscal and economic impacts of a series of proposed solar-
Resume Continued 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.
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
annexationof 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. Edisonto 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 for 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.
WILLDAN
1740
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Feny&Development Impact Fee Study ■ 1�� y '
Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Lead Analyst- Development Impact Fee Study
Mr. Carlos Villarreal is proposed to serve in the role of lead analyst for the City of Rosemead's
Education engagement due to his experience documenting nexus findings for development impact fees,
Master of Public preparing capital improvement plans, facilitating stakeholder involvement, and analyzing the
Policy, Richard and
Rhoda Goldman economic impacts of fee programs. He has supported adoption of fee programs funding a variety
School of Public of facility types, including, but not limited to transportation, parks, library, fire, law enforcement and
Policy, University of utilities.
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
Areas of Expertise City of Santa Clara, CA — Parks Fee Update: As assistant project manager to Mr. Edison, Mr.
Fiscal Impact Villarreal collected the necessary data to update the City's park impact fee. This project included a
Analyses demographic analysis and estimation of the cost of acquiring and improving public park land.
Development Impact City of Upland, CA-Impact Fee Study Update: Conducted a study to update the City's impact
Fees fee program, including general government, regional transportation, water, sewer, storm drain and
Public Facilities park fees. Traffic fees were established within the San Bernardino Associated Governments'
Financing Plans (SANBAG) guidelines to provide a local funding source for improvements of regional significance.
GIS Analysis City of Alameda,CA—Development Impact Fee Update: Mr.Villarreal served as the lead project
analyst for this engagement to update the City's impact fee program. He coordinated with the City
14 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.
County of Los Angeles/City of Santa Clarita,CA—Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Study: Mr.
Villarreal assisted with the development of an impact fee program to fund law enforcement facilities
serving the City of Santa Clarita, and other Antelope Valley jurisdictions within the County of Los
Angeles. The analysis involved the comparison of law enforcement facilities serving incorporated
and unincorporated areas.
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.
11Y° W I LLDA�I 4
I_. j
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Felly&Development Impact Fee Study ■
City of Long Beach, CA—Park Impact Fee Update: Willdan assisted with an update to the City's
C. Villarreal existing park impact fees, with Mr. Villarreal serving in the role of project manager. The project
Resume Continued 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.
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.
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.
W I LLDAN 42
City of Rosemead, California (Th '' i,°,$ A
CostAllocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fei:,dy'&Development Impa'ct.Fee Study \ gl'.. -°''..--4-: '''' 'r ' '..6
Schedule of Fees
Willdan Financial Services ("Willdan") proposes a not-to-exceed fixed fee of$49,170 for the Cost Allocation Plan,
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Review engagement. This fee does not include the
optional service to prepare a full Development Impact Fee Study, for a which fee breakdown has been provided.
The fee tables that follow provide a breakdown of the proposed fee for each service by task and project team member.
Cost Allocation Plan
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a not-to-exceed fixed fee
of$10,440 to prepare a Full and OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan.
City of Rosemead
Full and OMB Cost Allocation Plan
Fee Proposal
C.Fisher T.Thrasher P.Patel R.Quaid
Principal-in- Tech Project Analytical
QA/Tech
$ 250 $ 185 $ 125 $ Ho_urs Cost
Scope of Services
Task 1: Initial Document Request - 1.0 1.0 2.0 $ 310
Task 2: Kick-off/Refine Scope - 1.0 _ 1.0 _- 2.0 310
Task 3: Gather Staffing Information &Develop,CAP Model 1.0 4.0 16.0 - 21.0 2,990
Task 4:Test and Review Cost Allocation Methodology 1.0 .3.0 8.0_ 1.0 13.0 2,015
Task 5: Prepare and Present Draft Report 2.0 _ 2.0 , 10.0 _1,0 15.0 2,330
Task6; Discuss and Revise Report _ _ - 1.0 _ __ 2.0
6.0_ - 9.0 1,370
Task 7: Prepare and Present Final Report/Train Staff on Model 1.0 4.0 1.0 _-_ - 6.0 1,115
Total-Full Cost.Allocation Plan 6.0 17.0 43.0 20 68.0 $
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a not-to-exceed fixed fee
of$24,780 to prepare a User Fee Study.
{ City of Rosemead
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Fee Proposal
C.Fisher T.Thrasher P.Patel R.Quaid
Principal-in- Tech Project Analytical QA/Tech
Charge Manager Support Advisor Total
$ 250 $ 185 $ 125 $ 210 Hours Cost
Scope of Services
Task 1: Initial Document Request - - 1.0 - 1.0 $ 125
Task 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees - 1.0 2.0 - 3.0 435
Task 3: Kick-off/Refine Scope 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 685
Task 4: Develop User Fee Model - 2.0 12.0 - 14.0 1,870
Task 5: Time Survey Interviews and Information Gathering 1.0 10.0 10.0 - 21.0 3,350
Task 6: Review of Developmeht/Business License Taxes 1.0 2.0 16.0 - 19.0 2,620
Task 7: Common Fees Comparison _ 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 12.0 2,140
Task 8: Data Analysis and Final Fee and Rate Schedule 1.0 6.0 34.0 2.0 43.0 6,030
Task 9; Prepare and Present Draft Report 2.0 4.0 12.0 _ 1.0 _19.0 2,950
Task 10: Revise Draft/-Determine Cost Recovery Levels 1.0 8.0 8.0 2.0 1.9.0 3,150
Task 11: Prepare and Present Final ReportlTrain Staff on Model 1.0 5.0 2.0 - 8.0 1,425
11.0 42.0 104.0 6.0 163.0 $ 24,780
1WV W I LLDAN 43
City of Rosemead, California A
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User Fey&Development Impact Fee Study ■
Development Impact Fee Review
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a not-to-exceed fixed fee
of$13,950 to conduct the Development Impact Fee Review.
City of Rosemead
Development Impact Fee Review
Fee Proposal
J. Edison C. Villarreal
Project Manager Senior Analyst Total
$ 240 $ 165 Hours Cost
Scope of Services
Task 1: Identify and Resolve Policy Issues 8.0 12.0 20.0 $ 3,900
Task 2: Comparison 6.0 10.0 16.0 3,090
Task 3: Prepare Report 8.0 12.0 20.0 3,900
Task 4: Meetings 10.0 4.0 4 14.0 3,060
Total-Development Impact Fee Study $ 13,950
Development Impact Fee Study- Optional
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a not-to-exceed fixed fee
of$29,250 to prepare a comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study.
City of Rosemead
Development Impact Fee Study - Optional Full Study
Fee Proposal
J. Edison C. Villarreal
Project Manager Senior Analyst Total
$ 240 $ 165 Hours Cost
Scope of Services
Task 1: Identify and Resolve Policy Issues 4.0 6.0 10.0 $ 1,950
Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth 4.0 8.0 12.0 2,280
Task 3: Determine Facility Standards 4.0 16.0 20.0 3,600
Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs 6.0 20.0 26.0 4,740
Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives 12.0 20.0 32.0 6,180
Task 6: Comparison 8.0 14.0 22.0 4,230
Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report 6.0 1.6.0 22.0 4,080
Task 8: Meetings
_.. . 5.0 6.0 11.0 2,190
Total-Development Impact Fee Study 49.0 106.0 155.0 $ 29,250
Development Impact Fee Limitations
Fees stated in the Development Impact Fee budget include attendance at a total of four in-person meetings with
City staff, stakeholders, and City Council. Attendance at more than four in-person meetings shall be billed at our
current hourly rates, provided below.
1i►VW ILLDAN 44
City of Rosemead, California
Cost Allocation Plan,Comprehensive User FeEly&Development Impact Fee Study ■ ` '�:'`
Comprehensive written responses to resolve conflicts or preparation of more than one set of major revisions to the
draft report, will be classified as additional services, and may require additional billing at hourly rates stated in the
Hourly Rates table listed below. These additional fees shall only take effect once the fixed fee stated above has
been exceeded.
Examples of Additional Services include:
Additional analysis based on revised assumptions requested by the City, including possible changes in Facilities
needs list, infrastructure costs, populations projections, and related data once preparation of draft administrative
report has been approved;
Negotiations with stakeholders once the report has been prepared (beyond the four meetings included in the
proposal); and
Time expended related to obtaining data assigned to City under"City Staff Support", as stated in our work plan.
Notes
Our fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project.
We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed.
Additional services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting
rates.
City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs,
travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency
relating to City or relating to the project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan 's rates in effect at the time of such
response.
The cost of preparing the fee study can be included in the resulting new fee schedule. Therefore, over time, the City
can recover the initial outlay of funds that was required to complete the studies.
Willdan will rely on the validity and accuracy of the City's data and documentation to complete the analysis. Willdan
will rely on the data as being accurate without performing an independent verification of accuracy and will not be
responsible for any errors that result from inaccurate data provided by the client or a third party.
Additional Professional Services
Our current hourly rates are listed below.
Willdan Hourly Rate Schedule
Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Group Manager Chris Fisher $250
Managing Principal James Edison $240
Principal Consultant Bob Quaid $210
Senior Project Manager Tony Thrasher $185
Project Manager Carlos Villarreal $165
Senior Project Analyst $135
Senior.Analyst Priti Patel $125
Analyst II $110
Analyst I $100
V W I LLDAN 45
EXHIBIT B INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consultant will maintain
insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will use
existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not
meet the requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend,supplement or endorse
the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance coverage
and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage
required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the limits and coverage
required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be available to City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG
00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general
aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must
include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting
standard ISO "insured contract" language will not be accepted.
Automobile liability insurance: Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as
broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property
damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be
performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or
rented vehicles, in an amount not less than 1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit requirements,
shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages. Any
such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a drop down
provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-insured retention
for liability not covered by primary but covered by the umbrella. Coverage shall be
provided on a "pay on behalf' basis, with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits.
Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time insured's liability is
determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first. There shall be no cross
liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another.
Coverage shall be applicable to City for injury to employees of Consultant, subconsultants
or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage provided is subject to approval of
City following receipt of proof of insurance as required herein. Limits are subject to review
but in no event less than $1 Million per occurrence.
C-1
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written
on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the consultant and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the
policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay on
behalf of" the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to
defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this
agreement.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurers that are
admitted carriers in the state of California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better
and a minimum financial size VII.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability
coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials,
employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010. Consultant
also agrees to require all contractors, and subcontractors to do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall
prohibit Consultant, or Consultant's employees, or agents, from waiving the right
of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights
against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to
require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or applicable
to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing
contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its
operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been
first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to
eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for
bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or
reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior
written consent.
C-2
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates
of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured
endorsement to Consultant's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or
prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance
is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time
and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to
obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any
other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be
charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due
Consultant, at City option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of any
cancellation of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its insurer to modify such
certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to
mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will
"endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the
certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage
required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply
first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self insurance available to City.
10.Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with
the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the
same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to
monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring
that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section.
Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and
others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
11.Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that
it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or
person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated
by this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If Consultant's existing
coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-
insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time the City shall review
options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the
deductible or selfinsured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other
solutions.
12.The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change
the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90)
days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increased benefit to City.
C-3
13.For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed
to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that
can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
14.Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part
of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance requirement in
no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15.Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its
employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to
this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled
or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City
executes a written statement to that effect.
16.Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from
Consultant's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications
applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five
days of the expiration of the coverages.
17.The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the
obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not
to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials and agents.
18.Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are
not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-
inclusive.
19.These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any
other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20.The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of
this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or
impairs the provisions of this Section.
21.Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any
party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this
agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not
C-4
the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these
requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or
other amounts with respect thereto.
Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against
Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no
obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the
handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
C-5