14 Addendum.Item #14 - DKS First Amendment
PREPARED BY: Jenna De Long
Deputy Town Clerk
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/16/2024 ITEM NO: 14 ADDENDUM
DATE: April 15, 2024
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize the Town Manager to Execute the First Amendment to the
Contract with DKS Associates to Modify the Scope of Services and Increase
Compensation from $160,505 to $166,647
REMARKS:
Attachment 2 contains public comment received prior to 11:00 a.m. Monday, April 15, 2024.
Attachment Received with the Staff Report:
1. First Amendment with Exhibit A – Original Agreement for Consultant Services with DKS
Associates and Exhibit B – Scope of Services for First Amendment
Attachment Received with this Addendum:
2. Public Comment received prior to 11:00 a.m. Monday, April 15, 2024.
ATTACHMENT 2
From: Phil Koen
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:37 AM
To: Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Rob
Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Moore <RMoore@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow
<MRistow@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Gabrielle Whelan <GWhelan@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; Wendy
Wood <WWood@losgatosca.gov>; lreiners
Subject: Agenda item 14 - Contract with DKS Associates
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members,
In addition to the information for Agenda Item 14, I would respectively add the
following:
•At the April 8, 2024 Finance Commission meeting, the Commission
unanimously approved a resolution the Town utilize the nexus study
template prepared for the California Department of Housing and
Community Development to update the Town’s Transportation Impact Fee
Program. The template is attached. Following the template will enable the
Town to prepare a nexus study which will comply with the requirements of
relevant sections of the Government Code.
•The Commission also unanimously approved a resolution the Town Council
request the Commission to jointly work with Staff and consultants in
revising the Nexus Study and to make an independent assessment of the
risk to current and future fiscal stability as well as recommendations
regarding managing that risk when implementing a transportation impact
fee on new development.
•The original RFP issued December 8, 2021 (also attached), specified the
following requirements and tasks which were not fully addressed in the
Nexus Study prepared by DKS Associates:
1.Scope of Work: The Town’s impact fee must comply with the
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et
seq., also known as AB 1600). Given the Town has discussed in a
closed-door session there is “significant exposure to litigation”
associated with the Nexus Study and the Town is now considering
rescinding the resolution approving the Nexus Study and
Transportation Impact Fee, it is clear material deficiencies exist and
must be corrected.
ATTACHMENT 2
2.Task 3: Transportation Improvement Project List – the consultant was
to review the Mobility Element of the Draft General Plan 2040 and
other Town’s plans and policies and formulate a draft Project list. The
Consultant should identify the transportation improvements and
facilities needed to serve this growth and achieve the General Plan
VMT goals. A review of the Nexus Study shows this task was not fully
completed.
3.Task 5: Nexus Study – the consultant was to be tasked to allocate a
portion of each project’s cost to the correction of existing
deficiencies (if appropriate) and to growth in new trips and VMT. A
review of the Nexus Study shows this task was not fully completed.
•The prior Traffic Mitigation Improvement Project List (attached) correctly
allocated a portion of the project cost to growth for all projects. Many of
these same projects are included in the current TIF Project List. The
consultant’s proposal commits to only conducting a fair share traffic
analysis of the SR-17 project. This is insufficient. All projects on the TIF
Project list should be analyzed to allocate the fair share of project costs to
new development (step 5 of the nexus study template) according to need,
benefit, and proportionality.
•SR-17 project fair share traffic analysis should evaluate under existing
conditions, background conditions and cumulative growth to fairly allocate
the project cost to growth according to need, benefit, and proportionality.
This is also consistent with the Town’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines
as specified in section 5.11 Mitigation Improvements.
In closing, it is inappropriate and not a proper use of the Town’s financial
resources to pay DKS Associates an addition $18,440 to correct a Nexus Study that
failed to fully comply with the Town’s RFP and worse, more likely than not, fails to
fully comply with State law. No additional funds should be paid to DKS. Instead,
the Town Council should require DKS Associates to comply with the original RFP
and to utilize the nexus study template to update the Town’s traffic impact fee in
accordance with the requirements of relevant sections of the Government Code.
The $148,207 paid to DKS should be full consideration for all work performed.
The Staff’s statement that the “direction provided by Town Council is outside the
scope of the original agreement” and “additional analysis” is now required
misrepresents the situation. Is it the Town’s policy to pay consultants for
incomplete work, and if relied upon, would create “significant exposure to
ATTACHMENT 2
litigation”? I hope not. If unaddressed, this is exactly what the Town would be
doing. It is obvious to all what has transpired, and the Town Council needs to
correct this situation and be a good steward of the people’s money.
Thank you.
Phil Koen
Error! Filename not specified.
Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates
Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility Calculation Templates
in fulfillment of AB 602
December 2023
Prepared for the California Department of Housing and Community Development
by Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley
Table of Contents
Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates 1
I.Evaluated Nexus Study Template 1
A.Evaluated Nexus Study Report Preparation 1
Step 1. Reasoning Behind Impact Fee Program 3
Step 2. Existing and Future Development Projections 5
Step 3. Determination of Facility Standards 7
Step 4. Cost of Facilities to Serve New Development 10
Step 5. Fair Share Allocation of Facility Costs to New Development 16
Step 6. Maximum Fee Based on Nexus Analysis 17
Step 7. Financial Impact of Fees 19
Step 8. Fee Adoption and Program Implementation 20
II.Residential Feasibility Analysis 23
A.Overview of Development Feasibility Analysis 23
B.Development Risk and Return 24
C.Feasibility Analysis Framework 25
D.Return Metrics 26
E.Illustrative Development Return Analysis 27
F.Residual Land Value Analysis 32
III.Conclusion 35
IV.Acknowledgments 36
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 1
I.Evaluated Nexus Study Template
The nexus study template provides a framework that jurisdictions can utilize to adopt or update
an impact fee program affecting residential development in accordance with the requirements of
relevant sections of the Government Code. The template begins with recommendations
regarding the report content, which is followed by eight key steps to be undertaken as part of the
nexus study preparation and the process to adopt or update a development impact fee that will
be applicable to residential development.
A.Evaluated Nexus Study Report Preparation
A nexus study is the key supporting document that is relied upon by the decision makers,
developers, and the public to understand how the underlying data, analysis and fee calculations
of the nexus analysis has been performed. Thus, the nexus study should be a well-organized and
user-friendly report that contains the relevant data and analysis that can be relied upon by the
jurisdiction when making the required findings described in Section II.
Given that the nexus study is a technical document, defining key terms is very helpful in
promoting the report’s comprehension. The following key terms are used and defined as follows
for this report:
භ Nexus– A relationship or connection between two (or more) items.
භ Facility– Public facility or capital facilities including public buildings, community facilities,
land, infrastructure, and/or other public improvements, as well as equipment and supplies
with a long duration of use.1
භ Fee– A development impact fee that is used to mitigate the impacts of new development on
facilities and will be spent on capital projects that improve or expand facilities to
accommodate growth in service demand from new development.
о Fee revenues cannot be used for rehabilitation unless related to a major capital
project upgrade.
о Fee revenues also cannot be used for maintenance or operating costs.
භ Jurisdiction– Any subdivision of the state including a county, city, whether general law or
chartered, or special district.
භ Large Jurisdiction– A large jurisdiction means a county that has a population of 250,000
people or more as of January 1, 2019, or any city regardless of size within such a county.2
1 While duration of use is not specifically defined, equipment and supplies with a life span of 5 years or longer are often included
in a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and/or nexus study. While the Mitigation Fee Act defines “public facilities” to be “public
improvements, public services, and community amenities”, fees adopted under the Act are typically limited to funding capital
facilities. See also Government Code section 65913.8 that in most cases does not allow the use of fees for capital facilities to
be used for the maintenance or services.
2 California Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 53559.1
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 2
Exhibit 1 summarizes the key steps to prepare a nexus study and includes a corresponding
question for local jurisdictions to ask as they undertake each step.
Exhibit 1 : Summary of Steps to Prepare a Nexus Study
Step 1 Describe reasoning behind
impact fee program
Why does an impact fee program need to be adopted
or updated?
Step 2 Project existing and future
development
What types of existing and new development are
occurring, and are there geographic differences that
might affect the need for facilities and associated fees
charged to certain types of development in an area?
Step 3 Determine facility standard(s)
used to identify the facilities
required to serve new
development
How will different types of new development change
the need/demand for facilities?
Step 4 Determine costs of facilities
needed to serve new
development
How will facility costs increase as the result of new
development?
Step 5 Allocate the fair share of facility
costs to new development
What is a reasonable (fair share) allocation of future
facility costs to new development based on three sets
of nexus findings that establish a reasonable
relationship according to need, benefit and
proportionality?
Step 6 Calculate a maximum fee for
each land use, including
consideration of fee based on
residential square feet
What is the maximum justified fee by land use type
based on the prior steps that can be charged to new
development, with the fee on residential land uses
levied per building square foot unless an alternative
method is justified?
Step 7 Analyze the financial impact of
fees on housing development
What is the potential financial impact of adopting the
maximum fee levels on housing development,
considering that additional fee amounts may inhibit
new housing supply?
Step 8 Adopt fee(s) and implement the
fee program
What fees should be charged to each type of new
development, and how will the fee program be
implemented?
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 3
Step 1. Reasoning Behind Impact Fee Program
The nexus study should describe the reasons for adopting or updating an impact fee program,
and how fees will be charged and used to build new facilities, as well as the nexus findings used
to establish the fee amounts for different types of new development. This should include
evaluating how fees may be used and/or generated from different areas within a local
jurisdiction.
Purpose of Fee
Before adopting a fee, a local jurisdiction must make specific findings that include identifying
the purpose of the fee and describing why the fee is needed to provide new or expanded facilities
to mitigate the impacts of new development.3 Exhibit 2 presents a summary table that illustrates
how a local jurisdiction could identify each type of impact fee, the fee’s purpose, and the types of
facilities that fee revenues could help fund in addition to the acquisition of property to build
these facilities.
Exhibit 2: Typical Types of Impact Fees, Fee Purpose and Facilities to be Funded
Type of Fee Typical Purpose of Fee Typical Facilities and Use of
Fees
Transportation Expand road and multi-modal
transportation infrastructure to
address increased transportation
needs of new development.
Road and intersection
improvements, transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian improvements
Civic Facilities Expand the provision of civic and
community facilities that serve future
residents, employees, and businesses
in the community.
Library, City Hall, other civic
facilities
Public Safety
Facilities
Expand the capacity for fire, police,
and other public safety systems to
serve future residents, employees, and
businesses in the community.
Police facilities, fire stations, public
safety and emergency vehicles
Park and
Recreation
Expand the provision of parks and
recreational facilities to meet future
sport, health and recreational needs
of residents and employees.
Park land, park development, park
and recreation centers
3 Government Code section 66001(a)(1)
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 4
Environmental
Mitigation
Mitigate a negative environmental
impact typically by preserving or
restoring agriculture, open space, or
natural lands.
Agriculture and open space
preservation, habitat conservation,
restoration and/or creation.
Geography
While fee programs often apply to new development occurring throughout a jurisdiction, some
improvements may be required to serve a specific geographic area or “zone,” such as new
development governed by a Specific Plan or Master Plan. The Government Code also requires
that a local jurisdiction must evaluate the geography for any fee related to vehicular traffic
impacts charged on residential development that meets certain characteristics regarding transit
access, proximity to convenience retail uses and meets specific minimum parking
requirements.4
Given that the need for facilities to serve new development may vary across different areas
within a jurisdiction, a jurisdiction needs to evaluate whether a geographic subarea or “zone”
approach to the calculation of fees meets the reasonable relationship findings required by the
Mitigation Fee Act than if a uniform fee were applied to all areas within a jurisdiction. For
example, infill development within an urbanized area that is well-served by public facilities
could be subject to a different fee schedule compared to non-urbanized areas proposed for new
development that have a greater need for new facilities given inadequate existing infrastructure
to serve new development.
A jurisdiction should also consider whether adopting a regional, multi-jurisdictional fee where
future facilities may be more efficiently delivered on a regional basis. Some cities and counties
have evaluated and/or adopted regional fees where the expansion of facilities is best
accomplished across jurisdictional boundaries within a specified region. For example, the
purpose of a regional transportation fee could be to fund multi-modal transportation
improvements like road, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities that traverse local boundaries
and are best provided on a regional basis. In another example, a county impact fee for
countywide facilities, such as health and criminal justice, may be adopted by cities within the
county because new development within cities benefit from those facilities.
4 As indicated in Government Code section 66005.1 (a), if housing development satisfies all of the following characteristics, then
a transportation fee, or the portion of the fee relating to vehicular traffic impacts, must be set at a rate that reflects a lower rate
of automobile trip generation associated with such housing developments in comparison to housing developments without these
characteristics, unless the local agency adopts specific findings:
භ The housing development is located within one-half mile of a transit station and there is direct access between the housing
development and the transit station along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length.
භ Convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, are located within one-half mile of the housing development.
භ The housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no
more than one onsite parking space for zero to two bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more
bedroom units, whichever is less.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 5
The implementation and administration of impact fee programs by zone within a jurisdiction
can be more challenging because it could take more time to accumulate fee revenue by zone
compared to a jurisdiction-wide fee, delaying implementation of capital projects. Fee collection
and use of fee revenues by zone or region may also be more complex to administer and report on
over specified time frames.
Use of Fee Revenues
A locality needs to describe why each fee is being charged and how fee revenues from new
development will be used. Preferably, the jurisdiction needs to identify the intended use of fee
revenues in public documents, such as the General Plan, relevant Specific Plan(s) and Five-Year
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and if not possible through those documents then in the
nexus study itself. The CIP is an important planning and budgeting tool that identifies the needs
for short- and long-term capital improvements and aligns those needs with appropriate
financing, scheduling, and implementation, which should include the use of impact fees. As
further discussed in Step 4, a large jurisdiction must adopt a CIP while small jurisdictions may
adopt a CIP as part of a nexus study.5
Summary of Nexus Findings
The nexus study should also include a summary of the nexus findings and the underlying data,
methodology and analysis that is used to support these nexus findings. When adopting or
revising more than one fee, consider clarifying why different data and/or methodologies are
utilized for different fees and preparing a background report that summarizes key data and the
nexus methodology for each fee.
Many nexus studies include an Executive Summary that describes the relevant data and analysis
performed for each of the impact fees. Furthermore, many nexus studies include the nexus
findings in the conclusion. As further described in Step 5, the nexus study should include
findings that demonstrate a reasonable relationship based on three nexus findings regarding
need, benefit, and proportionality.
Step 2. Existing and Future Development Projections
A development impact fee is a fee to be spent on capital facilities that are needed to address and
accommodate future service demand from new development. The second step in the nexus
analysis is to prepare estimates of existing and future development by land use, including the
various types of residential uses that are planned in a jurisdiction by undertaking the following:
භ Decide on the types of residential and non-residential land uses that the nexus study will
utilize to indicate demand from new development for public facilities.
о To ensure that fees are proportionate to the facility demand associated with a
development project, fee programs typically use two to three residential land use categories
5 Government Code section 66016.5 (a)(6)
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 6
(for example, single family detached, single family attached up to four units, and multifamily
with five units or more) and three to five non-residential categories.
භ Project the demand for public facilities based on the relevant “service population” that often
includes residents and employees.
о Certain land uses will need to have “density” factors associated with them (for
example, number of residents per unit and number of employees per building square feet).
о For example, number of bedrooms may be used to estimate the average number
of residents per dwelling unit that is correlated with facility demand.6
о In the calculation of service population, facility demand from employees is often
weighted at less than one resident because one employee does not place as much demand on
public facilities as one resident. (The term “employee” in this report includes all workers on
a site, including owners, proprietors, partners, and self-employed workers.)
භ Gather and analyze relevant data regarding existing and new development over the nexus
study planning horizon, by zone if relevant.
භ Identify a base year for existing development and project future growth in new development
that is associated with increased demand for facilities.
о For consistency with other planning efforts, many fee studies use long-range
projections prepared by the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), a federally
designated agency for regional transportation planning and funding.
භ When adopting or revising more than one fee, consider preparing a background report that
utilizes a common set of existing and new development data for all nexus studies.
Existing Development
Existing development is used to evaluate how well existing facilities are serving existing land
uses, referred to as existing level of service (LOS), so a nexus study needs to assemble and
present reliable baseline data to the extent data is available:
භ Analyze existing development by land use and by zone where relevant
භ Identify, analyze, and present reliable data regarding existing development by residential
and non-residential land use, development square feet and acreage, existing service
population, and corresponding service demand for existing facilities.
භ Identify a base year to estimate existing development that will be used as the baseline
reference point for the projection of planned development by land use.
භ Analyze whether and how existing LOS standards may have changed over time, recognizing
that older communities may have been developed when LOS standards did not exist or were
lower than current standards may require.
New Development
New development is used to evaluate how future development by relevant land use categories
would increase demand for public facilities:
6 For ease of program administration, residential density or type of unit (such as single family detached) are typically easier to
determine based on building plan submittals than number of bedrooms per unit.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 7
භ Project future growth over the nexus study planning horizon by land use and zone where
relevant.
භ Identify, analyze, and present reliable data regarding future development by residential and
non-residential land use, new residential square feet (where relevant), and future growth in
service population and/or demand for facilities.
Residential Square Feet
Given recent changes in AB 602, the nexus study should analyze and determine estimates for
residential square feet or explain why the use of residential square feet would not be
appropriate, as further described in Step 4 below:
භ Evaluate how existing and future residential development can be estimated by residential
square feet or document why the use of residential square feet is not relevant as it would not
appropriately reflect the relationship between the fee, facility demand and a residential land
use.
Step 3. Determination of Facility Standards
To evaluate how growth from new development will increase the need for facilities, a nexus
study should analyze and develop facility standards that consider facility demand, design,
and cost, as illustrated in Exhibit 3 and described further below. When adopting or updating
more than one fee, the background report could include summary text and/or an exhibit that
summarizes what facility standard(s) are used for each fee and how the facility costs are
allocated per unit of growth.
Exhibit 3: How Facility Standards Are Used to Evaluate Need and Cost for Facilities
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 8
Demand Standard
The demand standard is used to evaluate the need for facilities based on growth from new
development, which typically consists of the following analysis:
භ Evaluate an appropriate physical measure of facility demand for existing and/or future
facilities by land use, which is also used to quantify any existing deficiencies.
о For example, a jurisdiction may establish that a neighborhood park needs to be
located within a 10-to-15-minute walk from surrounding homes and one neighborhood park
should be provided per 1,000 residents.
භ Analyze existing and future facilities that will be needed to serve new development based on
equivalent standard of demand (ESD) by land use, which can be translated to residential
square feet, if applicable.
භ When applicable, identify the existing and/or new level of service (LOS) for each facility.
о The use of existing LOS can be a more balanced approach as new residents would
not have to shoulder the financial burden of a future facility needed to achieve a higher LOS.
However, the use of existing LOS may prevent an underserved jurisdiction from meeting its
future facility needs when existing LOS is too low to meet regional and/or desired standards.
о The use of a new LOS that is different from existing LOS can be a more
appropriate approach to addressing future facility demand in areas with a significant
amount of planned new development as described in a Specific Plan, Area Plan and/or
Master Plan.
о If a new LOS is proposed, the nexus study should provide an explanation why the
new level of service is appropriate and what other revenue sources will be leveraged to help
achieve that new LOS outside of impact fees on new residents.
Design Standard
The design standard is used to evaluate how new facilities will need to be designed and built to
meet the needs of new development, which affects how much these facilities cost. The design
standard analysis typically consists of the following analysis:
භ Evaluate the appropriate design standard for the types of facilities that are needed to
accommodate future growth.
о For example, the design and cost of park facilities may vary depending on
whether it is a neighborhood park designed to serve neighborhood residents (with tot lots,
dog parks and/or other recreational uses to meet local neighborhood needs) or a community
park that serves the entire jurisdiction with one or more types of sports fields, associated
lighting and specialized recreational facilities.
භ Based on this design standard, estimate the cost for each type of facility based on an
appropriate increment of facility expansion.
о For example, a neighborhood park may cost $5 million per acre to acquire land
and construct the park improvements in an urban infill location.
භ When applicable, identify how the design of future facilities will accommodate the new LOS.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 9
Cost Standard
The cost standard converts the facility demand and design standards into a single facility cost
metric, sometimes referred to as the cost per unit of demand (CUD), which will be used to
calculate the fee per land use. Exhibit 4 illustrates typical demand, design, and cost standards
for different types of fees.
භ Based on considering the facility demand and design standards and the associated cost of
facilities as outlined in Step 4 below, determine the relevant CUD for each fee.
භ As shown in Exhibit 4, the cost standard for a park may be established based on a cost per
capita (based on a person and/or employee).
о For example, a demand standard of a one-acre neighborhood park per 1,000
residents and a neighborhood park design standard that results in a facility cost of $5
million for a one-acre neighborhood park would yield a CUD of $5,000 per resident.
Exhibit 4: Typical Demand, Design and Cost Standards for Typical Types of Fees
Demand Standards Design Standards Cost Standards
Parks x Neighborhood park within 10
minute walking distance
x Acres per capita
x Weight workers vs. residents
based on relative demand to
calculate total service population
x Turf and irrigation
x Sports fields and
lights
x $ per acre
x $ per capita
Fire x 5 minute response time
x Fire station bldg. sq. ft per capita
x Weight workers vs. residents
based on relative demand to
calculate total service population
x Emergency
Facilities building
standards
x Fire apparatus
(vehicles, etc.)
x $ per station
x $ per capita
Traffic x Volume-to-capacity ration (LOS) x Roadway standards
x Transit, bike and
pedestrian
standards
x $ per lane mile
x $ per trip
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 10
Step 4. Cost of Facilities to Serve New Development
The cost of facilities to serve new development are evaluated based on the facility demand and
design standards described in Step 3. The nexus study should provide a narrative and relevant
exhibits that identify the types and costs of facilities to be funded by fees, how fee revenues will
be used and an expenditure plan for future facility costs.
A nexus study typically uses one or three types of facility cost methods to evaluate and
determine the costs of facilities: existing inventory, planned facility and system plan method. In
addition to evaluating the cost of facilities according to these three methods, the nexus study
should also describe how facilities will be funded by fees and other funding sources, whether
there are any existing deficiencies, how alternative funding sources may be used to address these
deficiencies and/or help pay for future facilities, and whether costs to administer the program
will be factored into the fee calculation.
Three Typical Facility Cost Methods
Nexus studies typically use one of three methods to evaluate and determine the costs of
facilities, as described below and summarized in Exhibit 5.
භ Existing Inventory Method– Determine existing facility costs or value based on an
inventory of existing facilities and their associated cost or value, such as their replacement
value, based on supporting documentation and analysis.
о Allocate cost per unit of demand (CUD) based on the ratio of existing facilities to
demand from existing development as follows:
Current Cost or Value of Existing Facilities divided by Existing Development Demand =
CUD
භ Planned Facility Method – Estimate the costs for future facilities needed to serve new
development based on a long range expenditure plan for these future facility costs.7
о Allocate CUD based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new
development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities divided by New Development Demand = CUD
භ System Plan Method – Estimate the costs for an integrated system of existing and future
facilities
о Allocate CUD based on the cost or value of existing facilities plus the cost of
planned facilities, divided by demand from both existing and new development as follows:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities divided by Existing + New
Development Demand = CUD
Each of these methods needs to rely on data and analysis prepared in consultation with relevant
department staff, a review of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and relevant sources of
data, such as replacement cost estimates prepared for insurance purposes, capital cost estimates
7 This should include identifying what types of public facilities will be needed in the future to serve new development and their
associated costs, which may include refurbishment of existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or achieving an
adopted level of service that is consistent with the General Plan.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 11
based on associated facility design, and facility cost estimates associated with integrated service
delivery (for example, costs for public safety facilities and associated capital equipment).
Exhibit 5: Description of Typical Facility Cost Methods8
Facility
Standard
Standard Used
to Determine
Facility Costs
Cost Allocation Formula to
Determine Cost Per Unit of
Demand
Description of
Facility Standard
Existing
Inventory
Method
Value or Cost of
Existing Facilities
Current Value of Existing Facilities
––––––––––––––––––––––––
––––
Existing Development Demand
New development will fund the
expansion of facilities at the same
standard as currently used to
service existing development.
Planned
Facility
Method
Cost of Future
Facilities Under
Planned Expansion
Cost of Planned Facilities
––––––––––––––––––––––––
––––
New Development Demand
New development will fund the
planned expansion of facilities at
the future standard attributable to
new development.
System
Plan
Method
Cost of Integrated
System of Current
and Future
Facilities
Value of Existing Facilities +
Cost of Planned Facilities
––––––––––––––––––––––––
––––
Existing + New Development
Demand
New development will fund an
integrated system of facilities at
the future standard attributable to
new development.
Many nexus studies refer to the Existing Inventory Method as “Incremental” and the Planned
Facility and System Plan methods as “Plan-based” or “Project List”. The distinction is
significant because the Existing Inventory method does not require a list of future public
facilities to calculate the fee.
The Existing Inventory Method simply requires new development to fund the incremental
expansion of public facilities at the same level as existed when the fee program is adopted. While
facilities need to be identified for use of fee revenues in the CIP (see further description below in
8 Two other facility cost methods are not shown in Exhibit 5 that may be used in nexus studies. The “Buy-In” method divides the
current value of existing facilities (often at their depreciated cost) by existing plus new development demand. This method is
often used for sewer and water connection fees when the utility system does not need expansion and new development
contributes to replacement costs. The second method is the “New Service” method that applies when there are no relevant
existing facilities, and therefore no existing facility standard to utilize in the nexus study. This method is similar to the “System
Plan” method without any value for existing facilities.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 12
Funding Plan and Capital Improvement Plan), but a specific list of projects and costs is not
needed to calculate the fee itself.
In contrast, the Planned Facility and System Plan Methods require a specified list of future
public facilities to calculate facility costs and therefore the impact fee. Consequently, the project
list needs to be carefully considered because future changes could result in changes to the fee.
Project lists used for fee programs may need to be revised for any number of reasons, including
changes in service standards, project costs or funding. Project lists are also revised as master
facility plans are implemented. As an implementation requirement, fee programs based on the
Planned Facility or System Plan Methods need to regularly update the impact fee to remain
consistent with the project lists and current plans. If the fee program continues to fund the same
type of facilities, project lists may be updated and unexpended fee account balances may be
applied to the revised project list.
Existing Deficiencies
New development should only pay for its fair share of costs attributable to the increased demand
for public facilities, and impact fees should not be used to address existing deficiencies.
Therefore, a jurisdiction needs to evaluate and identify whether there are any existing facility
deficiencies based on the following.9
භ Identify and analyze existing deficiencies in public facilities to assure that the fee will not
include costs attributable to existing deficiencies.
භ Clearly describe what public improvements are needed to mitigate the effects of new
development and distinguish them from those needed to serve existing development.
Exhibit 6 illustrates how the Existing Inventory Method compares to the System Plan Method
and the identification of existing deficiencies. When using the Existing Inventory Method, no
existing deficiencies are assumed because the impact fee associated with this method funds the
expansion of facilities at the existing service level. On the other hand, the System Plan Method
is often used when a jurisdiction seeks to raise facility standards above existing levels. In this
case, new facilities are needed to provide this higher standard to existing development, which
results in existing deficiencies for areas that don’t meet this standard.
9
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 13
Exhibit 6: Illustrative Comparison of Existing Inventory With System Plan Method
Alternative Funding Sources
The nexus study should analyze how alternative funding sources would be used to address
existing deficiencies10 and needs to consider how alternative funding sources could help pay for
future facilities to effectively implement the fee program:
භ Estimate how much alternative funding sources are needed to pay for existing deficiencies.11
භ Estimate how much alternative funding sources are needed to complete projects in addition
to addressing existing deficiencies.
භ Address the need for alternative funding prior to the availability of revenue from impact
fees.
о This process helps to address the "chicken or egg problem" of facility funding,
which recognizes that funds may be needed to acquire land and/or construct a facility before
full funding is available from impact fees.
භ Identify the sources and approximate timing of alternative funding needed to finance
improvements funded over the nexus study planning horizon to assist in the preparation of
future reporting requirements for the fee program.12
10 Government Code section 66001(g)
11 An implementation funding plan for a Specific Plan or Area Plan can be a resource document for this analysis.
12 Government Code section 66001(d)(1)
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 14
Funding Plan and Capital Improvement Plan
The preparation of a funding plan that describes facilities and their associated costs, how
facilities will be funded and how fees will be used to pay for facilities is an important component
of a nexus study. In essence, a nexus study should include a narrative and relevant exhibits that
identify the type of facilities to be funded by the fees, and the total amount and cost of facilities
to be funded over the planning horizon of the nexus study, which needs to extend through the
period during when facilities would be completed. Often nexus studies include facilities that may
be constructed over a significantly longer period than the jurisdiction’s Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP), for example, over a twenty-year period.
When adopting or updating a fee, a large jurisdiction must adopt a Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) as part of the nexus study,13 while smaller jurisdictions may adopt a CIP.14 A CIP indicates
the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or
improvements to be financed with the fees.15 At a minimum, the use of fee revenues needs to be
programmed in the jurisdiction's Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
The following are key components of preparing a funding plan for the use of fees:
භ A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) should be adopted as a part of the nexus study for a large
jurisdiction or reference the use of fee revenues in the jurisdiction's adopted Five-Year CIP if
it includes the facilities that need to be funded by impact fees as indicated in the nexus
study.
භ If the jurisdiction does not have an adopted Five-Year CIP or the proposed facilities will be
constructed over a longer time horizon, then the nexus study should include a five-year (or
longer) programming of impact fee revenues to capital facility projects.
භ For nexus study purposes, a CIP provides the approximate location, size, time of availability,
and cost estimates for all facilities to be funded with the fees and should indicate alternative
(non-fee) sources of funding to complete a project.
භ The sources, amounts and timing of funding are also important to reference in the
jurisdiction’s five-year findings regarding the use of funds from fees that remain
unencumbered, which should be consistent with the CIP.16
о Often fees are accumulated over more than five years to fund capital projects and
are not programmed in the current CIP.
о In these cases, the CIP should include a “Reserve To Complete” project account
with a general description of both the project and funding plan (including the source and
timing of alternative funding, if needed) to indicate the future use of these unencumbered
fee funds.
13 Government Code section 66016.5 (a)(6)
14 Government Code section 66002 (a)
15 Ibid.
16 Government Code section 66001(d)(1)
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 15
Even if a complete funding plan is not in place, the general types or categories of funding
required to complete the project should be identified.
Program Administration Costs
A jurisdiction must implement its fee program according to various administrative, accounting,
reporting, and public notice responsibilities that are specified in the Government Code. These
responsibilities require the expenditure of staff time and often include retaining outside
advisory services from professional consultants that specialize in nexus studies and/or legal
counsel.
A reasonable cost allowance for these implementation responsibilities may be included in the
fees charged to new development based on a review of comparable staff, attorney, and
consultant costs to administer the fee program, including costs related to fee collection,
accounting of fee revenues and expenditures, mandated public reporting, and nexus studies to
justify fees. The following process is typically used to establish a fee program administration
cost:
භ Compile information regarding the cost of staff, attorney and consultant time for fee
collection and accounting, preparation of annual fee adjustments and master fee schedule
based on historical experience or estimates for the anticipated costs.
о This should include the preparation of periodic nexus fee study updates, annual
reports, and five-year reporting requirements.
භ Consider calculating the administration cost as a percentage of the adopted fee and setting a
maximum allocation of fee revenues for administrative expenses.
о Typically, the percentage allocation for implementation costs in representative
nexus studies years ranges between a 1 percent to 2.5 percent add-on to the adopted fee.
о While this percentage range has been used in many fee programs and seems
reasonable based on State administrative standards for other programs, best practice
indicates that administrative costs should be considered like other “user fees” requiring cost
justification.
о Records of fee program administration costs should be maintained to justify fee
charges, and total costs periodically compared to the revenue generated by the percentage
allocation. The percentage should be adjusted as needed to maintain revenues in line with
actual costs.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 16
Step 5. Fair Share Allocation of Facility Costs to New Development
The nexus study needs to allocate a fair share of facility costs to new development and must
demonstrate a reasonable relationship based on three sets of nexus findings regarding need,
benefit and proportionality that can be summarized as follows:
භ Need– Nexus between different types of new development and their respective need for
facilities.
භ Benefit– Nexus between different types of new development and the use of fee revenues to
accommodate new development.
භ Proportionality– Nexus between fee amount and proportionate share of facility costs
attributable to new development.
Exhibit 7 illustrates these three required nexus findings and best practices regarding each
finding.
Exhibit 7: Nexus Findings Regarding Need, Benefit and Proportionality
1. Need Types of development
reasonably related to…
Need for public facilities
2. Benefit Use of fee revenues
3. Proportionality Amount of fee reasonable
related to…
Cost of facility attributable to
development project
Need
The nexus study needs to establish a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed: 17
භ Identify, measure, and describe the relationship between various types of new residential
and non-residential development and their respective facility demand by land use.
о For example, new multifamily residential development will increase demand for
bicycle facilities, such as dedicated bike lanes, based on a specified facility need standard per
multifamily unit or multifamily residential square feet.
භ Estimate existing and future demand for facilities based on a clearly defined and
documented standard that reflects variations in public service demand among land uses.
17 Government Code section 66001(a)(4)
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 17
о The need finding should reference the facility standards developed in Step 3.
Benefit
The nexus study needs to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type
of new development on which the fee is imposed: 18
භ Identify, measure, and describe the relationship between different residential and non-
residential land uses and how fee revenues will be used to pay for needed improvements to
accommodate new development, along with other funding sources.
о For example, fee revenues from new multifamily residential development will be
used to pay for dedicated bike lanes (as well as other multi-modal transportation
improvements).
භ Evaluate and document the benefit relationship between the fee's use and development type,
e.g., trip generation, population served (residents and/or employees).
о The benefit finding should reference the facilities to be funded by fees developed
in Step 4.
Proportionality
The nexus study needs to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee amount and the
facility cost or proportionate share of the facility cost attributable to new development on which
the fee is imposed: 19
භ Identify, measure, and describe the relationship between the fees to be charged by land use
and new development's fair share of facility costs attributable to new development.
о The proportionality finding should reference the land use categories to be used
for charging the fee, and how the fee per unit for each category reflects the relative demand
for capital facilities associated with that type of development (see discussion of “service
population” in Step 2).
о If applicable, the proportionality finding may also reference any analysis from
Step 4 that separates out facility costs associated with correcting existing deficiencies versus
facility costs associated with new development.
о For example, only dedicated bike lanes that are needed to serve new development
would be funded by fees, and fees would not be used to address existing deficiencies.
Step 6. Maximum Fee Based on Nexus Analysis
During the nexus study preparation process, Steps 3, 4 and 5 are often performed iteratively to
determine the most appropriate approach to establishing the nexus for each fee and to calculate
the maximum fee for each type of new development by land use. The sixth step is to summarize
the data, analysis, and calculation methodology used to establish the maximum fee amount:
18 Government Code section 66001(a)(3)
19 Government Code section 66001(b)
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 18
භ Develop an appropriate method to charge fees for each land use ("fee basis") and determine
the maximum fee.
භ Identify and determine future land uses/development types that will be subject to a fee.
භ Analyze and recommend how fees will be charged based on the ESD for each land use.
භ For residential uses, translate ESD to residential square feet or explain why this would not
appropriately reflect the relationship between facility demand and a residential land use.
о Evaluate and explain what measurement(s) are used to determine residential
square feet and the translation between ESD and residential square feet. (For example,
facility demand per bedroom could be translated to residential square feet based on an
average unit size given a specific number of bedrooms.)
Justification for Different Fee Basis than Residential Square Feet
For residential uses, fees should be established based on residential square feet unless the
jurisdiction makes specific findings regarding why this fee metric is not reasonably related to
residential demand for facilities. The nexus study should evaluate different methods to charge
fees for residential development and provide supporting information to substantiate the
following three findings if a fee will not be charged based on residential square feet:
භ If residential square feet is not being used, explain why it is not being used to calculate fees
for new housing development.
භ Explain why an alternative basis of calculating a fee (other than residential square feet)
bears a more reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by new
development.
භ Explain that other policies in the proposed fee structure for residential development will
support smaller housing developments or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are
not charged disproportionate fees.
Justification for Fee Increase
If a fee is being updated, and the proposed fee levels will increase as the result of the update, the
jurisdiction must review the assumptions of the original nexus study that supported the original
fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.20 This information should
be documented in the nexus study that accompanies the update.
20 Government Code section 66016.5(a)(4).
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 19
Step 7. Financial Impact of Fees
As impact fees may substantively increase the cost of residential development, particularly when
several fees are adopted or updated simultaneously, a jurisdiction should consider performing
an analysis of the financial impact of these fees on residential development:
භ Analyze how new or increased fees will affect the cost and/or feasibility of new housing
development.
භ Convene a developer and community stakeholder group to review draft nexus studies and
the potential impact of fee increases, along with other development costs.
භ Consider modifying the fee levels or phasing in fees over several years to allow the real estate
market to adjust based on findings from an analysis of financial impact.
Comparison of Fee Levels
Based on a review of nexus studies, most jurisdictions have typically relied on a comparison of
fee levels or similar financial indicators to evaluate the financial impact of fee levels on new
development using the following methods:
භ Proposed fee levels compared to existing fee levels.
о This fee comparison enables the development community, public and policy
makers to understand how much fees are proposed to be increased.
භ Proposed fee levels compared to what similar jurisdictions charge housing development.
о The proposed fee amounts are calculated and compared to what is being charged
by other jurisdictions based on published master fee schedules.
о To provide a more “apples to apples” financial comparison, typical type(s) of
housing units are identified, and development fees are calculated on a per unit or residential
square foot basis for a typical housing product, for example a 1,500 square foot townhome.
භ Proposed fee levels as a percent of construction cost or development cost for typical housing
types or market value by housing type.
о To perform this comparison, the jurisdiction’s fee amount is calculated per unit
or per residential square foot and then compared to the total construction or development
cost of a typical residential unit, such as the townhome unit described above. 21
о Data on market value (sales price) by type of residential unit is typically easier to
gather than construction or development cost data.
භ Proposed fee levels in combination with other fees and exactions that are charged on new
development, such as fees by school districts, utility districts, and development exactions
(additional required obligations not reimbursable from impact fees).
о This is a similar comparison to what is described above except that it considers
the total amount for all fees and exactions, which are then compared to the construction,
development cost or market value of a typical housing unit like a townhome.
21 The comparison with total development cost is more complex and time consuming than construction cost comparison as it
requires the assembly of data and related calculations to project the cost of land, direct costs (including construction costs) and
indirect costs for typical housing units, as further described in the feasibility analysis.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 20
As a single fee is typically part of a larger program of impact fees, comparisons are best done
based on the total amount of all impact fees applicable to a given development project. This best
practice is particularly applicable when comparing fees with those of other jurisdictions because
of differences in fee programs. While these financial comparisons of fee levels are helpful, they
do not provide a full picture of the local real estate market and development conditions.
Feasibility Analysis
As further described in Section IV, a development feasibility analysis evaluates how the
proposed impact fees may affect the feasibility of developing new housing based on the
combination of the proposed fees and other development costs, including other development
exactions levied by the jurisdiction or fees charged by school districts and/or utility districts. A
feasibility analysis presents a more robust picture regarding how the adoption or updating of
fees may affect the production of new housing.
Step 8. Fee Adoption and Program Implementation
The final step is to determine and adopt a fee for each land use, after evaluating local policy and
financial considerations, and to summarize how the impact fee program will be implemented.
This should include an evaluation regarding whether fees should be charged at or below the
maximum nexus fee amount and how the impact fee program will be implemented, including
how fees may be annually adjusted.
Fee Minimums or Maximums
The nexus study should consider whether minimum or maximum fee charges should be
established where facility demand will not substantively differ depending on the size of a
residential unit.
භ For example, a one-bedroom housing unit with an average size of 700 square feet may be
considered the minimum unit size that would impact future facility demand, and therefore,
the minimum fee for a residential unit would be based on a 700 square foot sized residential
unit.
භ Likewise, a maximum fee amount may be established for a four bedroom unit as housing
units with more than four bedrooms are anticipated to have the same facility demand as a
four bedroom unit.
Fee Reductions by Land Use
The nexus study should evaluate policy and financial considerations regarding whether the fee
program will include fee reductions, exemptions and/or waivers from the adopted fee amount
based on the nexus study calculations:
භ Evaluate potential fee reductions for a defined set of housing developments for an impact fee
program that is based on the mitigation of vehicular traffic impacts.22
22 Government Code section 66005.1 (a).
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 21
භ Describe why each development type is or is not required to pay a fee.
භ Consider whether fees on affordable housing units may be waived or reduced.
භ If non-residential fees are proposed to be reduced significantly below the maximum fee
amount, evaluate why this cannot occur for residential development.
භ If fees are reduced, develop a funding strategy to help offset the facility costs or accept a
lower facility standard in the future.
For example, jurisdictions could adopt lower fees related to vehicular traffic for infill, transit
oriented development that meets certain criteria. Jurisdictions could also lower other types of
fees for infill development, such as park fees based on findings that focus on the need for
neighborhood parks in infill areas and/or the use of larger community-wide parks to provide
new sports facilities for future residents.
Any revenue loss from fee reductions or waivers and the potential for alternative funding to
address funding gaps should be considered as part of this evaluation process.
Fee Phase-in
The jurisdiction should consider whether to phase-in fees over time to allow developers
additional time to factor in future fee increases into the cost of development to maintain
financial feasibility. As securing land use approval for new development may take one or more
years, developers must often obtain site control and line up sufficient funding to undertake their
development in advance of receiving land use approvals, which is typically when new impact
fees would apply to new development.
The phase-in of fees allows a developer to factor in a fee increase or the imposition of a new fee.
If a phase-in is allowed, the jurisdiction should specify how and when proposed development
projects qualify for the phase-in and whether the phase-in includes a “step-up” in fee charges
over one or more years.
Fee Implementation (Including Annual Inflation Adjustment)
As described earlier, a jurisdiction must implement its fee program to meet various
administrative, accounting, reporting, and public notice responsibilities as specified in the
Government Code.23 These responsibilities include the following:
භ Update the impact fee program every eight years starting on January 1, 2022.
භ Annually publish a master fee schedule that specifies the fee charges by land use.
භ Perform annual and five-year reporting requirements regarding the collection and
expenditure of fees on facilities, as well as other obligations.
භ Make pertinent documents available on a jurisdiction’s website, including relevant nexus
studies, annual and five-year reports on the fee program and the current master fee
schedule.
භ Meet all public noticing and transparency requirements.
23 Government Code sections 66006 through 660025
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 22
As facility costs increase in relationship to increases in costs related to building construction and
land acquisition, a jurisdiction should consider whether to adopt an annual inflation index for
each fee to enable the fee to keep pace with potential cost increases. This should be based on an
evaluation of alternative indices that most closely match historical increases in facility costs
associated with each fee.
Exhibit 8 summarizes typical, publicly available annual inflation indices that are used by
jurisdictions to annually adjust fees or by public agencies to make other annual cost
adjustments. For example, the California Construction Cost Index is published by the State of
California and is based on the Building Cost Index and Construction Cost Index published by the
Engineering News Record for San Francisco and Los Angeles.24 A jurisdiction needs to carefully
evaluate the relevance of each these annual inflation indices to the nexus analysis.
Exhibit 8: Annual Inflation Indices
24 https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division-Resources-List-Folder/DGS-
California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 23
II. Residential Feasibility Analysis
Once a nexus has been established, localities must decide on the level of impact fees to charge to
new development. At this stage, localities should consider the ability of residential development
and land to absorb the added cost of new or increased impact fees in addition to other
development costs so that impact fees do not inhibit housing production.
AB 602 requires HCD to provide a template or method for calculating feasibility of housing
being built with a given fee level. In practice, there is no single way to determine feasibility, and
development feasibility is typically fluid in nature as development and economic conditions
change over time. Thus, no single method is likely to fully capture the dynamism of the local real
estate market.
The use of financial analysis models to test development feasibility, such as those presented in
the Terner Center’s Dashboard, can provide “gut checks” for policymakers to ensure that their
fee levels are set within reasonable limits given a set of high-level development assumptions.25
This section describes two analysis methods regarding how residential feasibility could be
evaluated and the associated inputs and calculations required to conduct them:
භ Development return analysis
භ Residual land value (RLV) analysis.
These methods are not a substitute for more rigorous financial analysis conducted by real estate
finance professionals. Nor are these methods intended to supplant engagement and
collaboration with the local development community to understand how fees may affect new
housing development.
A. Overview of Development Feasibility Analysis
A development feasibility analysis models the financial calculations that developers perform to
evaluate whether a housing development is financially feasible to build. Understanding the
impact of fees on feasibility is important to ensuring that fees are not set at such a level where
housing becomes either too expensive to build or reduces the amount that developers can afford
to pay for land below the market value of properties in a location.
Feasibility studies have been performed by economic consulting firms retained by jurisdictions
to evaluate whether a proposed inclusionary housing ordinance that applies to rental housing
does not unduly constrain the production of housing.26 Some jurisdictions have also
25 Information on the Terner Center Dashboard can be found here: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/policy-dashboard-los-
angeles/
26 Assembly Bill 1505 requires that qualified economic consulting firms perform feasibility studies at the request of HCD in
specified circumstances to evaluate whether a proposed inclusionary housing ordinance that applies to rental housing does not
unduly constrain the production of housing.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 24
commissioned economic feasibility studies to evaluate how the adoption of impact fees will
affect housing feasibility.
Policymakers need to understand the link between their chosen residential impact fee levels and
the impact those fees might have on housing outcomes to balance their community need for fee
revenues with new housing construction. Developers may endeavor to pass the cost of impact
fees on to a future occupant in the form of either higher rents or home sales prices, thus pushing
housing to more unaffordable levels.27 While impact fees increase housing costs, they also fund
public facilities that improve a jurisdiction, promote quality of life and enhance land values.
Depending on a variety of financial and policy considerations, impact fees can have a positive or
negative affect on housing production, land values and long term community success.
B.Development Risk and Return
To successfully build housing in California, developers must identify a development site, obtain
site control, prepare a development proposal, which is often refined based on input from a broad
variety of stakeholders, secure government approvals, and raise sufficient private capital to fund
the development prior to starting construction, referred to as the predevelopment period. This
predevelopment period is typically the riskiest phase of development, and developers must raise
sufficient funds to pay for land, predevelopment and construction costs before they can proceed
to build housing. Many jurisdictions are trying to reduce predevelopment risk by making
development approval ministerial if compliant with the jurisdiction’s general plan, and recent
State housing laws are facilitating predevelopment streamlining.
Given the high risks associated with new development not occurring or not occurring as
planned, developers must be able to generate sufficient “return” (or “margin”) to attract private
equity and loan funds commensurate with these risks28 Prior to starting construction, a
developer must be able to demonstrate to its investors and lenders that a project is financially
feasible, meaning that a new housing development will generate sufficient revenues and return
to meet all capital obligations.29 The projected development return must be equal to or higher
than what investors and lenders will require when underwriting a future housing development,
27 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/it-all-adds-up-the-cost-of-housing-development-fees-in-seven-california-cities/
28 Private equity must be available during the construction and the sales or lease-up period, as private lenders often require
between a 35% to 50% equity contribution before providing a construction loan and/or permanent mortgage for housing, and
typically equity must be contributed prior to any draw-down of construction loan funds.
29 In most capital structures, the priority of capital repayment is as follows: භ Construction and permanent lenders must receive required monthly loan payments, and loans must be repaid upon
specified due dates.
භ Private equity investors typically receive a preferred return and a share of profits that are generated by the
development.
භ Developers are last in the “waterfall” of payments, receiving a share of profits generated by the development after
payment to lenders and private equity investors.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 25
which must compete with alternative national and international investment opportunities with
varying degrees of risk and return.
C.Feasibility Analysis Framework
A development feasibility analysis models the analysis that a developer and/or its investors or
lenders perform to analyze feasibility by projecting the following development revenues, costs,
and return:
භ Revenues based on projected revenues from the future sale or value of new housing from
both affordable and market rate housing30
භ Costs based on total costs of a project including land, direct costs (such as building
construction) and indirect costs (including impact fees and other soft costs)31
භ Return is equal to the difference between development revenues and costs.
о Return = Development Revenues less Costs
For a development to be feasible, the anticipated return must be equal to or higher than market-
driven return metrics that investors and lenders will utilize when underwriting a residential
development to determine whether to provide capital funding or not.
While development feasibility can be analyzed several ways depending on the characteristics of
the proposed project, two analysis methods are often used to analyze the feasibility of a
proposed housing development and to compare feasibility under different development
assumptions:
භ Development return analysis– This method projects development revenues and then
deducts costs to solve for the return that would likely be achieved at buildout. If the return is
equal to or greater than market-driven return metrics, then development would likely be
feasible.
භ Residual land value (RLV) analysis– This method analyzes how much a developer
could afford to pay for land because a developer must be able to generate sufficient
development revenues to pay for all development costs while achieving sufficient returns to
attract funding. The calculated RLV must be greater than or equal to what a developer would
need to pay for land to be feasible.
30 Revenues from new residential development are generated from rental and ownership units and must be calculated based on
the number of market rate and affordable housing units (at restricted rents or sales prices) that are required to be built.
31 Development costs typically include the following costs (before consideration of development return or profit) as further
described in this report:
භ Land costs to acquire and pay for all associated costs to “carry” land until the development process is finished.
භ Direct costs to improve sites and construct buildings (also known as hard costs).
භ Indirect costs to pay for other development related costs (also known as soft costs).
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 26
Both methods are further described below and are used to illustrate how development feasibility
could be analyzed for a typical residential ownership and rental development in this report.
D.Return Metrics
Developers, lenders and investors evaluate and measure returns for residential development in
many ways. Three measures are often used by the real estate community to calculate returns at a
future “static” point in time rather than based on the annual flow of cash flows from a
development:
භ Return on Development Cost
භ Return on Cost (Yield on Cost)
භ Return on Sale (Net Margin)
This point in time analysis compares future development revenues and costs at project build out
assuming stabilized rental income (at the end of the initial lease-up period) or when all units are
assumed to be sold in “constant dollars.”32
The real estate community also evaluates return based on future cash flow projections. For
example, an internal rate of return (IRR) measures the total anticipated return over the life of an
investment period (as opposed to a return measured at one point in time) based on cash flow.33
An IRR is more complex to project and analyze because it relies on monthly or annual
projections regarding the anticipated phasing of development revenues and costs, and projected
appreciation in revenues and increased costs due to inflation and other development or
economic factors that might change in the future.
Return on Development Cost for Ownership or Rental Housing
Developer margin or return is equal to the difference between future revenues generated by the
development (based on future sales or value of the development) and development costs (before
consideration of developer margin or return).
Return on Development Cost = Revenues less Costs (Return) divided by
Development Cost
32 Constant dollars reflect development revenues and costs at a specific point in time and do not reflect any adjustment for
future increases that may occur to price appreciation or inflation.
33 IRR measures an investor’s total anticipated return over the life of their investment. Specifically, the IRR is calculated by
summing the anticipated annual or monthly cash flow for the number of years that an investor expects to hold the property
(generally 7-10 years) with the anticipated value at sale. Cash flow is equal to projected revenues less costs for each year or
month during this time period.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 27
Developers and investors use different target thresholds for return on development cost
depending on the level of complexity of the project, construction types, construction schedule,
sales/rental absorption timeline, and potential equity sources including the use of tax credits.
Projects with longer timelines, pioneering housing types not currently available in the
community, and/or greater building complexity have higher risk and as a result require a higher
return on development cost.
Return on Cost (also known as Yield on Cost) for Rental Housing
An important feasibility return metric for rental properties is called Return on Cost (ROC) or
Yield on Cost. ROC measures the expected annual return after accounting for the cost to build
and operate a new apartment development. ROC is measured based on Net Operating Income
(NOI) at stabilized occupancy divided by development costs.
ROC = Net Operating Income (NOI) divided by Development Costs
A related metric is the capitalization rate (cap rate), which is used by appraisers and
underwriters to value property based on how much NOI is generated by properties compared to
their purchase price or value.34 If the project’s ROC is reasonably above the appropriate cap rate
for the proposed housing type at its location (typically based on a “spread” of 1 percent above a
market cap rate), then the development is feasible and can move forward.
To put it another way, a development project must yield a higher return than capital sources
would receive by buying an existing property in this location. Essentially, by comparing ROC to
capitalization rates, capital sources are measuring the return of building a new project against
the return of simply buying an existing building with a known amount of NOI.
Return on Sale for Ownership Housing
Return on Sale (also known as Net Margin) is typically used to evaluate for-sale residential
developments and is equal to development return divided by sales revenues. This metric is used
by homebuilders to evaluate returns particularly for single family developments and is used less
frequently in development feasibility studies that evaluate both ownership and rental housing.
Return on Sale = Revenues less Costs (Return) divided by Sales Revenues
E.Illustrative Development Return Analysis
For purposes of illustrating how a feasibility analysis could be performed, this section describes
and presents an illustrative pro forma model that tests development feasibility based on a
34 Value = NOI divided by cap rate. Cap rates for new development must be greater than those for existing development
because existing development is already generating NOI whereas new development may or may not generate revenues as
projected..
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 28
calculation of potential returns for two typical multifamily residential product types (prototypes)
that could be built on one acre of land:
භ Ownership– Condominium (condo) development – 50 unit midrise ownership
development with an average unit size of 1,100 net square feet and 1.5 parking spaces per
unit.
භ Rental– Apartment development – 60 unit midrise rental development with an average
unit size of 900 net square feet and 1.0 parking spaces per unit.
As discussed earlier, new housing may be built in many different product types and
configurations. While the three most common residential land use categories are single family
detached (1 unit), single family attached (2-4 units), and multifamily (5 units or more), housing
products evolve and change, and the development feasibility analysis needs to evaluate what is
currently being constructed or proposed to be built in a jurisdiction. While this illustrative
analysis focuses on multifamily development, the same methodology could be applied to
ownership or rental development of different product types, densities and development
characteristics.
These high-level pro forma examples are not a substitute for more rigorous financial analysis
conducted by real estate finance professionals. Nor are these methods intended to supplant
engagement and collaboration with the local development community to understand the types
of residential developments that are being undertaken and their associated development
revenues, costs and return thresholds.
This illustrative analysis was informed by the simulations that were performed in 2021 for the
Terner Housing Policy Dashboard for the City of Los Angeles (Policy Dashboard), which has a
diverse set of housing development types and development conditions that are representative of
many communities in California.35 While this illustrative analysis is used to generally illustrate
residential development feasibility in California, it is important to note that each jurisdiction
must conduct or commission their own analysis that takes into account local housing types and
development conditions.
As described in the Policy Dashboard, a sensitivity analysis may be performed to analyze how
feasibility changes if different development factors change such as changes in local policies.
Sensitivity analysis is also often performed to test what happens when development revenues
are significantly lower and/or development costs are significantly higher than projected, and
whether the return thresholds need to be adjusted given the dynamic nature of the real estate
lending and investment environment. For example, the recent increase in interest rates and
economic conditions have raised construction loan interest rates, and capitalization rates have
also been increasing for multifamily developments in many locations across the United States.
In addition, the cost of housing construction has increased significantly over the past few years,
exacerbated by supply chain issues due to the COVID pandemic. In recognition of changes that
35 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/policy-dashboard-los-angeles/
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 29
have occurred since 2021, the illustrative feasibility analysis assumes higher rents, income
levels, construction costs and a cap rate for multifamily rental than assumed in the Policy
Dashboard.
Development Revenues
The first step in the process of preparing a feasibility analysis is to project the revenues that
could be generated from new residential rental and/or ownership units. The revenues need to
reflect the number of market rate units and affordable housing units that are required to be built
at restricted below market rate (BMR) rents or sales prices based on the jurisdiction’s
inclusionary housing requirements and the potential use of State Density Bonus Law where
applicable.36
The illustrative feasibility analysis assumes that 10 percent of total units are provided as
affordable housing units and calculates revenues as follows for each housing type:
භ Ownership– Condo development – Development revenues are generated from the sale
of market rate and affordable ownership units.
භ Rental– Apartment development – Development revenues are generated from monthly
rent payments and miscellaneous income generated by apartments, which are translated
into a development value of the property based on NOI divided by the capitalization rate.
Revenue assumptions for the condo and apartment prototypes are included in Appendix Table
2, and the supporting pro forma calculations are included in Appendix Table 3.
Development Costs
The illustrative feasibility analysis assumes that the development costs consist of the following
costs before consideration of development return or profit:
භ Land costs to acquire and pay for all associated costs to “carry” land until the development
process is finished.
භ Direct costs to improve sites and construct buildings (also known as hard costs).
о Site improvement costs typically include demolition of existing structures, onsite
and offsite improvements, and environmental remediation work.
о Building construction costs include all costs related to residential, parking and
any ground floor retail uses.
භ Indirect costs to pay for other development related costs (also known as soft costs).
о Government fees– Indirect costs include public fees and other costs, including
the jurisdiction’s impact fees, impact fees of other entities such as School Districts and
Utility Districts, planning, permitting, subdivision and building fees, community benefits, or
other development exactions. For this illustrative analysis, the jurisdiction’s total impact fees
36 The feasibility analysis should reflect the applicable local and state requirements that inform the calculation of affordable rents
and sales prices at the targeted household incomes for affordable housing. These will likely include an allowance for resident-
paid utility costs for both rental and ownership units, as well as the monthly costs that homeowners will need to pay, such as
mortgage principal and interest, property taxes and homeowner association dues.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 30
are assumed to be $20,000 per unit for the condo development and $17,000 per unit for the
apartment development, although fees can be higher or lower in some jurisdictions. The
jurisdiction’s impact fees are estimated to represent less than 50% of public fees and other
costs.
о Other indirect costs include construction financing and soft costs, such as
professional services (architectural design, engineering, environmental studies, insurance,
legal, marketing, and allowable developer overhead costs to pay staff during the
development process.
Development Return
The development return is equal to the difference between development revenues and costs, as
shown below in Table 1 that summarizes the results of the illustrative development return
analysis. The calculated return is compared to the following return metrics for the two
prototypes: 37
භ Condo development – Development return is calculated based on an assumed target
return threshold of 15 percent return on development cost.
භ Apartment development – Development return is calculated in two ways:
о Like ownership housing, the development return is calculated based on an
assumed target return threshold of 15 percent return on development cost.
о In addition, return is calculated based on an assumed 5.5 percent annual return
on cost, which is 1 percent higher than the assumed cap rate of 4.5 percent.
These assumed minimum returns are for illustrative purposes only and may be higher or lower
depending on the type of housing to be developed and development conditions in the local
area.
Results of Illustrative Development Return Analysis
Table 1 shows the results of the illustrative development return analysis, which indicate that the
jurisdiction’s proposed impact fees do not appear to adversely affect development feasibility
for the condo development but may inhibit the construction of apartment developments:
භ Condo development – The projected return on development cost from the condo
development is 15.3 percent, which exceeds the target return threshold of 15 percent.
භ Apartment development – The projected return on development cost from the
apartment development is 6.1. percent, which is significantly less than the target return
threshold of 15 percent. Furthermore, the projected annual return on cost is 4.9 percent,
which is less than the target return on cost of 5.5 percent.
37 Depending on the complexity, construction type, time frame and risks associated with new development, target returns will
differ from what is assumed in this analysis, and they can be significantly different for owner and rental housing.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 31
Table 1 : Illustrative Development Return Analysis
These projected returns are very sensitive to the development revenue and cost projections. If
total development costs are significantly higher than what is projected, new residential
development would not likely be feasible with the proposed level of impact fees. The analysis
also indicates that even if the jurisdiction did not charge any impact fees, apartment feasibility
would still be difficult to achieve because the difference between total development revenues
and costs for all other items (i.e., $0 assumed for jurisdiction fees) would not meet target
returns.
The development program, revenue and cost assumptions for the condo and apartment
prototypes are shown in Appendix Tables 1 and 2, and the supporting pro forma calculations of
development feasibility for the illustrative development return analysis are included in
Appendix Table 3.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 32
F. Residual Land Value Analysis
A Residual Land Value (RLV) analysis models the financial calculations that developers perform
to evaluate how much to pay for land and is another method to determine project feasibility as a
developer must be able to generate sufficient development revenues and return to meet all
development costs including the cost of land.38 Once those costs are calculated, the balance of
revenue that remains is the Residual Land Value– what a developer can afford to pay for land.
භ RLV = Development Revenues + Target Return less Development Costs
о RLV must be equal to or greater than comparable land cost or value.
In summary, a RLV analysis solves for RLV while a development feasibility analysis solves for
returns.
RLV can be compared against land sale comparables to see if the RLV is in line with what the
market is commanding for similar properties. If the RLV is too low, a developer will not likely be
able to move forward with a project because they will not have sufficient revenues to purchase
the land or have already purchased the land at a price that cannot be covered by projected
revenues after taking into account anticipated development costs and target return. An RLV can
also be used to calculate the financial impact of increased costs on new development by
comparing the change in land values before and after changes in costs, such as impact fees, are
factored in to the RLV analysis.
This section illustrates how a feasibility analysis could be performed using a residual land value
analysis. The RLV analysis uses the same revenue, cost and return assumptions that were used
in the illustrative development feasibility analysis described above except that the RLV analysis
solves for land value. As described above, these illustrative pro forma examples are not a
substitute for more rigorous financial analysis conducted by real estate finance professionals.
(Refer to Appendix Tables 1 and 2 for key assumptions and the supporting pro forma
calculations of RLV in Appendix Table 4.)
Development Revenues
The first step in the process of preparing an RLV analysis is to project the revenues that could be
generated from new residential rental and/or ownership units. The same revenue assumptions
are used for the RLV analysis as were assumed in the development return analysis.
Development Costs
The second step in the process of preparing an RLV analysis is to project the development costs
that could be generated from new residential rental and/or ownership units. The same cost
assumptions are assumed in the RLV analysis as were used in the development return analysis
38 Land refers to property on which housing development may be built and could include existing buildings that could be
demolished prior to new housing development.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 33
except that land is omitted from the development costs because an RLV analysis solves for land
value.
Target Return
The third step is to project the target return as the RLV analysis must factor in this target return
in order to calculate the residual land value. The RLV analysis assumes the same target
return threshold of 15 percent return on development cost as was used in the development
return analysis.39
Results of Illustrative RLV Analysis
Table 2 shows the results of the illustrative RLV analysis, which indicate that condo
development would likely generate sufficient RLV compared to market value while an
apartment development would not:
භ Condo development – The projected residual land value is $54/land square foot (SF)
exceeds the market value for land in the jurisdiction of $45/land SF.
භ Apartment development – The projected residual land value is negative, which means
that a developer could not afford to pay the market price of land and achieve the target
return.
The development program, revenue and cost assumptions for the condo and apartment
prototypes are shown in Appendix Tables 1 and 2 and are consistent with what is assumed in the
development feasibility analysis. The supporting pro forma calculations of the RLV analysis are
included in Appendix Table 4.
39 These assumed minimum returns are for illustrative purposes only and may be higher or lower depending on the type of
housing to be developed and development conditions in the local area. As the cost of land is excluded from development costs,
an RLV analysis may use different assumptions for indirect costs and a higher target percentage return on development cost
(because it excludes land costs) than a development return analysis.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 34
Table 2 : Illustrative Residual Land Value Analysis
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 35
III. Conclusion
This report meets the key requirements of AB 602 to provide jurisdictions with a template that
they can use to prepare nexus studies for impact fees that will be imposed on new residential
development and a methodological approach to calculating the feasibility of housing to be built
at a given fee level.
භ Chapter I describes a template of eight steps to be followed when preparing nexus
studies based on the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, as summarized in Exhibit 1.
These steps were developed based on relevant State legal requirements and input
regarding best practice from professionals experienced with the preparation of nexus
studies.
භ Chapter II presents two typical methodologies for evaluating the feasibility of housing to
be built at a given fee level– a development return analysis and residual land value
analysis. The feasibility of two typical residential owner and rental developments are
then analyzed based on these two methods to illustrate how a feasibility analysis could be
conducted.
The information and guidance presented is not intended to replace the need for sage expertise
from experienced professionals. This expertise is necessary to assure that a nexus study meets
relevant legal requirements and provides policy guidance to decision makers regarding how a
proposed set of impact fees could affect the feasibility of residential development.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 36
IV. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following individuals and their companies for sharing their time and
expertise in developing this resource: Joshua Abrams, William Anderson, David Doezema,
James Edison, Rick Jacobus, Ashleigh Kanat, Lufti Kharuf, Teifion Rice-Evans, Robert Spencer,
and Carlos Villarreal. We would also like to thank Robert Spencer / Urban Economics for
providing graphic materials that were used to prepare the nexus analysis graphics in this
resource.
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 37
Appendix ##
Supporting Tables and Resources
for Illustrative Development Feasibility Analysis
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 38
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 39
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 40
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATES 41
Terner Center Dashboard
The Terner Center has also developed tools and resources that can be useful in understanding
the relationship between project feasibility and impact fee levels. The Terner Labs Dashboard
takes parcel-level land use information and market data to show how different variables impact
predicated housing production. One of these variables could be impact fees, allowing a locality
to test what fee levels will impact future housing creation estimates. Currently used in the city of
Los Angeles, the dashboard will expand to several other cities in 2024 and is looking to expand
to more localities thereafter. The Terner Center’s “Making it Pencil” series on development math
also includes examples of how residential development can be impacted by policy decisions,
including impact fee levels.
Typical Data Sources
Conducting the analyses described above requires data on development revenues and costs. The
following companies provide published data, although in some cases the information might not
be complete or could be proprietary and require a subscription or payment to obtain.
භ Revenues (sales prices and rents)
о Zillow
о Costar
භ Land values
භ Costar
භ Construction costs
о Marshall and Swift
о RS Means
о Saylor Current Construction Cost
භ Capitalization Rate
о IRR Viewpoint
о Costar
To supplement published data, localities may also rely on data collected through development
working groups comprised of local practitioners to understand what kinds of costs they are
incurring on projects at that time, as well as anticipated revenues.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
41 MILES AVENUE, LOS GATOS, CA 95030
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Transportation Impact Fee Study
RFP RELEASE DATE: December 8, 2021
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL DEADLINE: 12:00 pm, January 21, 2022
RFP Page 148
RFP – Transportation Impact Fee Study Page 2
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
1.INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Town of Los Gatos (Town) is requesting proposals from qualified firms to prepare a
Transportation Impact Fee Study develop a Transportation Impact Fee Program. The
recommended program will be presented to the Town Council for its consideration. If adopted,
the Transportation Impact Fee Program will replace the Town’s current Traffic Impact
Mitigation Fees.
California Senate Bill (SB) 743, which was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013, changes
the way that public agencies evaluate the transportation impacts of projects under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), recognizing that roadway congestion, while an
inconvenience to drivers, is not itself an environmental impact. The Town of Los Gatos (Town)
started the process of transitioning to using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a metric in
conducting CEQA transportation analysis in 2019. The Town Council has made several decisions
leading to the completion of the efforts.
The transition to using VMT as the metric for transportation analyses pursuant to CEQA has
necessitated the update to the Traffic Impact Policy. Policy No. 1-05, currently known as the
Traffic Impact Policy, is intended to provide guidance to Town staff and the development
community in implementing the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, Chapter 15, Article VII,
Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees. The new Transportation Impact Policy, adopted by the Town
Council at its December 7, 2021 meeting, superseded Policy No. 1-05 and expanded the
purpose to include “evaluating and mitigating CEQA transportation impacts”.
The Transportation Impact Policy identifies a framework of VMT mitigation measures, named
VMT Reduction Strategies, to mitigate Townwide and project-level CEQA transportation
impacts. The Town intends to update the current Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees to incorporate
the VMT mitigation measures. To support the update, the Town will prepare a Nexus Study that
will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation, as
codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq. The established procedures
under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship", or nexus, exist between the traffic
infrastructure improvements required to mitigate the traffic impacts and the proposed
development project.
The study shall satisfy the statutory requirements:
•Identify the purpose of the fee.
•Identify the use to which the fee will be put.
•Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of
development on which the fee is to be imposed.
•Identify reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public
facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is
imposed.
Page 149
RFP – Transportation Impact Fee Study Page 3
2.SCOPE OF WORK
The Town is requesting proposals from qualified firms to prepare a Transportation Impact Fee
Study develop a Transportation Impact Fee Program. The Town’s impact fee must comply with
the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as AB
1600). The consultant should review the Town’s enabling legislation (ordinances) establishing
the Transportation Impact Policy.
The proposal shall include a minimum of the following tasks and deliverables:
Task 1: Project Management and Stakeholder Engagement
Deliverables
•Final project scope and schedule
•Project Team meetings and materials
•Public meetings: prepare and attend meetings with the public, stakeholders, Town
Commissions, and Town Council.
Task 2: Fee Program Approach and Scope
The Consultant will advise staff on the relationship between Level of Service-based and Vehicle-
Miles-Traveled (VMT)-based fees. The Transportation Impact Policy requires land use projects
to mitigate CEQA transportation impacts and provide mitigation improvements, as
applicable. Town staff is considering two possible approaches in the new fee program:
A.Two fees: maintain the current LOS-based traffic impact mitigation fee and establish a
new VMT-based fee
B.A combined fee: combine the current traffic impact mitigation fee and the new VMT-
based fee
The Town is interested in the Consultant’s input on these two and possibly other approaches
and the recommendation on the best practice. It is anticipated that the new fee program would
be designed to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel per capita within the Town to
avoid or minimize the need to expand existing roadway capacity.
Deliverables
•Report: summarizes the considerations in the approach and provides a recommendation
on the preferred approach
Task 3: Transportation Improvements Project List
The benefit zone of the fee program would be Townwide.
In the update to the Transportation Impact Policy, no change was made to the Transportation
Mitigation Improvements Project List. This project list already has many improvements that are
Page 150
RFP – Transportation Impact Fee Study Page 4
consistent with the VMT Reduction Strategies. It is the Town’s intent to update the project list
to emphasize the VMT-reducing improvements and fund a broader range of project types.
The Consultant should review the Mobility Element of the Draft General Plan 2040 and other
Town’s plans and policies and formulate a draft Project List. The Consultant should identify the
transportation improvements and facilities needed to serve this growth and achieve the
General Plan VMT goals.
The Consultant should prepare order-of-magnitude project cost estimates and propose timing
of project implementation.
Deliverables:
• Report: confirms the benefit zone, proposes criteria for capital improvement projects
used to develop the fee program.
• Map and list depicting the preliminary set of projects to be considered in this study.
• Report: identifies draft capital improvement projects based on the project selection
criteria.
• Project cost estimates and proposed timing for the need projects
Task 4: Fee Revenue Estimation
The Consultant should evaluate different fee calculation options and recommend a preferred
option based on staff and stakeholder input. Consequently, the Consultant should develop an
estimation of overall fee revenues based on the General Plan growth forecasts and the project
list.
Deliverables:
• Report: fee calculation options and fee revenue estimation.
Task 5: Nexus Study
The purpose of this task is to allocate the expected unfunded costs of the transportation
improvement projects in the draft project list by land use type. A portion of each project’s cost
must be allocated to the correction of existing deficiencies (if appropriate) and to growth in
new trips and VMT.
Once the project list is refined the allocated project costs will be used to construct a fee
schedule by land use type. Recommendations will be provided on different strategies for
allocating the fees among residential, retail, and other commercial development.
Deliverables
• Technical Memorandum: documents the nexus analysis methods, quantification of the
nexus and burden, proposed fee schedule, and an assessment of the relative economic
burden imposed by the preliminary fee schedule on local residential and commercial
markets. The proposed fee schedule shall include a comparative analysis for nearby like
sized jurisdictions.
Page 151
RFP – Transportation Impact Fee Study Page 5
Task 9: Draft and Final Nexus Study Reports
The Consultant shall prepare the draft and final reports containing background information,
methodology, findings, and recommendations. The report should explain the purpose of the
transportation impact fee, provide sufficient information and the necessary findings to
determine the appropriate development impact fees based on the proposed infrastructure
requirements to support the Town’s General Plan growth projections. The report shall include
calculations that demonstrate the legal nexus between the recommended fees and the impact
created by new development.
Deliverables
• Draft Nexus Study Report
• Final Report and recommendations
Task 10: Additional Services
The Consultant shall include in the proposal, as a separate line item, a section for Additional
Services. These work items are optional depending on the project budget and the Town’s
needs.
3. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONNEL
The Consultant shall meet, at a minimum, the appropriate professional qualifications as
required to complete the scope of work as required by State Law and the contract. qualified
consultants that have demonstrated verifiable experience in assessing a comprehensive list of
development impact fees, in order to identify and recommend a program of impact fees to
been acted in Foster City that meet the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Specifically, the
study should include detailed and legally defensible justification and analysis, including nexus
studies, demonstrating the financial connection between the need for each proposed fee and
new development or redevelopment.
4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND RELEVANT PROJECTS
The Town’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) project webpage includes all relevant documents and
the Town Council’s past decisions:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/2563/Vehicle-Miles-Traveled---VMT
Town of Los Gatos Draft 2040 General Plan and DEIR: www.losgatos2040.com
2016 Santa Clara County Measure B: https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2016-measure-b
Connect Los Gatos: https://www.losgatosca.gov/ConnectLG
Town of Los Gatos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP):
https://www.losgatosca.gov/2347/Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Master-Plan
Page 152
RFP – Transportation Impact Fee Study Page 6
5. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS
5.1 Schedule
The tentative schedule is provided in Table 1. The Town may, at its own discretion, conduct
interviews and other evaluations of some, all, or none of the applicants prior to selection.
The performance period is no greater than twenty-four (24) months, with a project
schedule determined by the Town and the select Consultant.
Table 1 - RFP Schedule (Tentative):
Task Schedule
Request for Proposal December 8, 2021
Questions from Proposer December 20, 2021
Town Response to Questions from Proposers December 30, 2021
Deadline for Proposal Submittals Noon, January 21, 2022
Virtual Interview (if necessary) Feb. 1 - 3, 2022
Scope Refinement and Negotiation Feb. 7 - 11, 2022
Notice to Proceed (tentative) February 14, 2022
5.2 Town of Los Gatos Standard Agreement: Included in Attachment A.
5.3 Examination of Proposal Documents
The submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the
Proposer that they:
• Have carefully read and fully understand the information that was provided by the Town
to serve as the basis for submission of this proposal.
• Have the capability to successfully undertake and complete the responsibilities and
obligations of the proposal being submitted.
• Represent that all information contained in the proposal is true and correct.
• Did not, in any way, collude, conspire to agree, directly or indirectly, with any person,
firm, corporation or other Proposer in regard to the amount, terms or conditions of this
proposal.
• Acknowledge that the Town has the right to make any inquiry it deems appropriate to
substantiate or supplement information supplied by Proposer, and Proposer hereby
grants the Town permission to make these inquiries, and to provide any and all related
documentation in a timely manner.
5.4 The Proposer bears all costs of preparing and submitting its proposal consistent with the
requirements outlined in this RFP.
5.5 Questions Regarding the RFP
Any questions by the Proposer regarding this RFP or the attachment(s) must be put in
writing and received by the deadline shown on Table 1. Correspondence shall include in the
email subject line: Transportation Impact Fee Study and be addressed to:
Page 153
RFP – Transportation Impact Fee Study Page 7
Ying Smith, Transportation and Mobility Manager
E-mail: ysmith@losgatosca.gov
The Town shall not be responsible for nor be bound by any oral instructions,
interpretations, or explanations issued by the Town or its representatives.
Responses from the Town to questions by any Proposer will be communicated in writing to
all recipients of this RFP. Questions received after the date and time stated above will not
be accepted or responded. No oral questions or inquiries to other individuals about this RFP
shall be accepted.
5.6 Addenda
Addenda to this RFP, if issued, will be sent to all prospective Consultants the Town of Los
Gatos - Parks and Public Works Department has specifically e-mailed a copy of the RFP to
and will be posted on the Town of Los Gatos - Parks and Public Works Department website
at: https://www.losgatosca.gov/2258/RFPRFQ
5.7 Submittal of Proposals
Proposers are requested to submit the proposal by the deadline in Table 1 in electronic
format in one of the following ways: send the proposals via email (file size is limited to
25MB); or Upload to your own file sharing website or FTP site and send a link via email. The
email address for electronic submittals is: YSmith@LosGatosCA.gov.
No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its submission on
grounds that Proposer was not fully informed of any fact or condition. Hard copies of the
proposals will not be accepted.
5.8 Withdrawal of Proposals
A Proposer may withdraw its proposal at any time before the expiration of the time for
submittal of proposals as provided in the RFP by delivering a written request for withdrawal
signed by, or on behalf of, the Proposer.
5.9 Project Funding
This phase of the project is funded with Town of Los Gatos dollars, requiring the Consultant
to follow all pertinent local regulations.
6 RIGHTS OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
This RFP does not commit the Town to enter into a contract, nor does it obligate the Town to
pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submittal of proposals or in anticipation of a
contract. The Town reserves the right to:
▪Make the selection based on its sole discretion;
▪Reject any and all proposals;
▪Issue subsequent Requests for Proposals;
▪Postpone opening proposals for its own convenience;
Page 154
RFP – Transportation Impact Fee Study Page 8
▪ Remedy errors in the Request for Proposals process;
▪ Approve or disapprove the use of particular subconsultants;
▪ Negotiate with any, all or none of the Proposers regarding project scope;
▪ Accept other than the lowest cost offer;
▪ Waive informalities and irregularities in the Proposals; and/or
▪ Enter into an agreement with another Proposer in the event the originally selected Proposer
defaults or fails to execute an agreement with the Town.
An agreement shall not be binding or valid with the Town unless and until it is executed by
authorized representatives of the Town and of the Proposer.
7 INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED
These guidelines govern the format and content of the proposal. The intent of the RFP is to
encourage responses that clearly communicate the Proposer’s understanding of the Town’s
requirements and the firm’s ability to meet those requirements.
In addition to the items included within this RFP, including Attachments A and B, the proposal
should include the following information referenced by letter for ease of identification:
7.1 Consultant Qualifications and Experience: Provide details of the team’s qualifications and
experience, including any specific qualifications in the same type of projects in similar
California Cities and Towns. Provide Examples of projects with similar scope.
7.2 Organization and Approach: Describe the roles and organization of your proposed team for
this project. Describe your project and management approach and identify the Project
Manager. Describe the roles of key individuals on the team. Provide resumes and references
for all key team members.
7.3 Scope of Services: Prepare a detailed Scope of Services. Describe project deliverables for
each phase of your work.
7.4 Schedule of Work: Provide a detailed schedule for all tasks/phases of the project and the
proposed Consultant’s services, including time for reviews and approvals. The schedule shall
meet the performance period identified by the Town or shall be modified with explanation
as to why an alternate schedule is being proposed.
7.5 Cost Proposal: All labor costs, overhead costs, sub-consultant costs, and direct expenses
should be included. Costs must be shown in a matrix format, by task grouping (as
negotiated), and show hours per staff member, base labor rates, and overhead and profit
rates.
7.6 Identify any exceptions taken to Attachment A – Standard Agreement.
7.7 Additional supporting documentation as the proposer’s discretion.
Page 155
RFP – Transportation Impact Fee Study Page 9
8 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCESS
Based on the proposals and interviews, proposers will be evaluated according to each
Evaluation Criteria. The Evaluation Criteria Summary and their respective weights are shown on
Table 2:
Table 2 - Evaluation Criteria
No. Written Evaluation Criteria Weight
0 Completeness of Response Pass/Fail
1 Consulting Firm's Experience 10
2 Team Qualifications & Experience 20
3 Organization & Approach 10
4 Scope of Services to be Provided 20
5 Schedule of Work 5
6 Cost 20
7 References 5
Subtotal: 90
No. Interview Evaluation Criteria Weight
8 Presentation by team 5
9 Q&A Response to panel questions 5
Subtotal: 10
Total: 100
After proposal evaluation and interviews, Town staff will meet with the top-rated firm(s) to
discuss and develop a final scope of services and an updated cost proposal. If the Town is
unable to reach agreement with the top-rated firm, the Town may choose to negotiate with
additional firms.
9 CONTRACT TYPE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
It is anticipated that the agreement resulting from this RFP, if awarded, will be an Agreement
for Services.
Proposers shall be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including
Insurance Requirements. If a Proposer desires to take exception to the Agreement, Proposer
shall provide the following information of their submittal package.
▪ Proposer shall clearly identify each proposed change to the Agreement, including all relevant
Attachments.
▪ Proposer shall furnish the reasons for each proposed change, as well as specific
recommendations for alternative language.
Page 156
RFP – Transportation Impact Fee Study Page 10
The above factors will be taken into account in evaluating proposals.
The Town pays net 30 days of invoice for work performed.
10 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The selected Proposer(s), at Proposer’s sole cost and expense and for the full term of the
agreement or any extension thereof, shall obtain and maintain, at a minimum, all of the
insurance requirements as outlined in the Town Standard Agreement.
All policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders shall be subject to the approval of the
Town of Los Gatos as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or
waiver, if so approved in writing by the Town of Los Gatos. The selected Proposer agrees to
provide the Town with a copy of said policies, certificates and/or endorsement upon award of
Agreement.
11 PUBLIC NATURE OF PROPOSAL MATERIAL
Responses to this RFP become the exclusive property of the Town of Los Gatos. At such time as
the Town awards a contract, all proposals received in response to this RFP become a matter of
public record and shall be regarded as public records, with the exception of those elements in
each proposal which are defined by the Proposer as business or trade secrets and plainly
marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary.” The Town shall not in any way be
liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such proposal or portions thereof, if they are not
plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary,” or if disclosure, in the Town’s
sole discretion, is required under the California Public Records Act as addressed below. Any
proposal which contains language purporting to render all or significant portions of the
proposal “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” shall be regarded as non-responsive.
Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret
information may be protected from disclosure, the Town of Los Gatos may determine, in its
sole discretion that the information that a Proposer submits is not a trade secret. If a request is
made for information marked “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary,” the Town shall
provide the Proposer who submitted the information reasonable notice to allow the Proposer
to seek protection from disclosure by a court of competent jurisdiction, at the Proposer's sole
expense.
12 COLLUSION
By submitting a proposal, each Proposer represents and warrants that its proposal is genuine
and made in the interest of or on behalf of any person named therein; that the Proposer has
not directly induced or solicited any other person to submit a sham proposal or any other
person to refrain from submitting a proposal; and that the Proposer has not in any manner
sought collusion to secure any improper advantage over any other person submitting a
proposal.
13 DISQUALIFICATION
Factors, such as, but not limited to, any of the following, may disqualify a proposal without
Page 157
RFP – Transportation Impact Fee Study Page 11
further consideration:
▪Evidence of collusion, directly or indirectly, among Proposers in regard to the amount,
terms or conditions of this proposal;
▪Any attempt to improperly influence any member of the evaluation team;
▪Existence of any lawsuit, unresolved contractual claim or dispute between Proposer and the
Town;
▪Evidence of incorrect information submitted as part of the proposal;
▪Evidence of Proposer’s inability to successfully complete the responsibilities and obligations
of the proposal; and
▪Proposer’s default under any previous agreement with the Town.
14 NON-CONFORMING PROPOSAL
A proposal shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of these RFP
instructions and specifications. Any alteration, omission, addition, variance, or limitation of,
from or to a proposal may be sufficient grounds for non-acceptance of the proposal, at the sole
discretion of the Town.
15 GRATUITIES
No person shall offer, give or agree to give any Town employee any gratuity, discount or offer
of employment in connection with the award of contract by the Town. No Town employee
shall solicit, demand, accept or agree to accept from any other person a gratuity, discount or
offer of employment in connection with a Town contract.
Page 158
TITLE: Transportation Impact Policy Attachment 2 - Traffic Mitigation Improvements Project List
PAGE: 1 of 1 POLICY NUMBER:
Town of Los Gatos Traffic Mitigation Improvements Project List
Source Description
Estimated Project Cost (2014 $)
Growth Related Project Cost Share
Mitigation Impact Fee Eligible Cost
GP/VTP 2035 Blossom Hill Rd and Union Ave Intersection Improvements $ 1,200,000 90.00% $ 1,080,000
GP/VTP 2035 Los Gatos - Almaden Rd Improvements $ 3,000,000 50.00% $ 1,500,000
GP/VTP 2035 Los Gatos Blvd Widening - Samaritan Dr to Camino Del Sol - Road widening, new sidewalks and bike lanes $ 4,000,000 50.00% $ 2,000,000
GP/VTP 2035 Union Ave Widening and Sidewalks - complete ped and bike routes $ 3,000,000 50.00% $ 1,500,000
GP/VTP 2035 Wood Rd Gateway on Santa Cruz Ave - roundabout $ 1,200,000 50.00% $ 600,000
GP/VTP 2035 Central Traffic Signal Control System $ 750,000 9.68% $ 72,600
GP/VTP 2035 Hwy 9 Los Gatos Creek Trail connector - new path and bridge for ped/bike $ 1,000,000 50.00% $ 500,000
GP/VTP 2035 Hwy 9/N. Santa Cruz Ave Intersection Improvements $ 1,400,000 90.00% $ 1,260,000
CIP Roberts Road Improvements from bridge to University $ 600,000 50.00% $ 300,000
CIP Pollard Road Widening from Knowles to York Avenue $ 2,500,000 50.00% $ 1,250,000
CIP Sidewalks infill - Van Meter, Fischer and Blossom Hill Schools $ 1,000,000 50.00% $ 500,000
CIP Winchester Blvd/Lark Avenue Intersection Improvements $ 850,000 90.00% $ 765,000
CIP Westbound Lark to Hwy 17 northbound ramps - add two right-turn lanes $ 3,750,000 90.00% $ 3,375,000
CIP Unfunded Deferred Street Maintenance (Annual PMS Survey) $ 10,500,000 9.68% $ 1,016,400
GP Lark/Los Gatos Intersection Improvements - Add Third Left Turn Lanes for Eastbound and Northbound Approaches $ 1,200,000 90.00% $ 1,080,000
GP Complete Street Improvements - Lark from Garden Hill to Los Gatos Blvd $ 2,100,000 50.00% $ 1,050,000
GP Complete Street Improvements - SR 9 from University to Los Gatos Blvd $ 650,000 50.00% $ 325,000
GP Complete Street Improvements - Blossom Hill Road from Old Blossom Hill Road to Regent Drive $ 3,000,000 50.00% $ 1,500,000
GP Complete Street Improvements - Knowles from Pollard to Winchester $ 2,000,000 50.00% $ 1,000,000
GP Complete Street Improvements - Winchester from Blossom Hill to Lark $ 1,500,000 50.00% $ 750,000
GP Blossom Hill Road widening over Highway 17 $ 2,000,000 50.00% $ 1,000,000
GP Local Bikeway Improvements $ 750,000 50.00% $ 375,000
Notes: Total $ 47,950,000 $ 22,799,000
VTP = Valley Transportation Plan, 2035 by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
Town CIP = Town of Los Gatos, Capital Improvement Program and pending construction project list.
Source: Town of Los Gatos.
Page 142