HomeMy WebLinkAboutC2019-048 - TischlerBise, Inc. Contract No. 2019-048
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
AND
TISCHLERBISE,INC.
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into
as of December 3, 2018, between the Town of Fountain Hills, an Arizona municipal corporation
(the"Town") and TischlerBise, Inc., a(n)Washington, D.C. corporation(the "Consultant").
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Town's Procurement Policy and Section 3-3-26 of
the Town Code, the Town may directly select certain consultants for professional and technical
services.
B. The Consultant possesses the specific skill and experience required to perform a
development fee study for the Town.
C. The Town desires to enter into an Agreement with the Consultant to perform the
Services, more particularly set forth in Section 2 below.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing introduction and recitals, which
are incorporated herein by reference, the following mutual covenants and conditions, and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the Town and the Consultant hereby agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date first set
forth above and shall remain in full force and effect until December 3, 2019 (the "Initial Term"),
unless terminated as otherwise provided in this Agreement. After the expiration of the Initial
Term, this Agreement may be renewed for up one successive one-year term (the "Renewal
Term") if (i) it is deemed in the best interests of the Town, subject to availability and
appropriation of funds for renewal, (ii) at least 30 days prior to the end of the then-current term
of this Agreement, the Consultant requests, in writing, to extend this Agreement for an additional
one-year term and (iii) the Town approves the additional one-year term in writing (including any
price adjustments approved as part of this Agreement), as evidenced by the Town Manager's
signature thereon, which approval may be withheld by the Town for any reason. The
Consultant's failure to seek a renewal of this Agreement shall cause this Agreement to terminate
at the end of the then-current term of this Agreement; provided, however, that the Town may, at
its discretion and with the agreement of the Consultant, elect to waive this requirement and
renew this Agreement. The Initial Term and the Renewal Term are collectively referred to
herein as the "Term." Upon renewal, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.
2. Scope of Work. Consultant shall provide the Services as set forth in the Proposal
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
3. Compensation. The Town shall pay the Consultant an aggregate amount not to
exceed $49,920.00 at the rates set forth in the Proposal and included in Exhibit A.
4. Payments. The Town shall pay the Consultant monthly, based upon work
performed and completed to date, and upon submission and approval of invoices. All invoices
shall document and itemize all work completed to date. Each invoice statement shall include a
record of time expended and work performed in sufficient detail to justify payment. This
Agreement must be referenced on all invoices.
5. Documents. All documents, including any intellectual property rights thereto,
prepared and submitted to the Town pursuant to this Agreement shall be the property of the
Town.
6. Consultant Personnel. Consultant shall provide adequate, experienced personnel,
capable of and devoted to the successful performance of the Services under this Agreement.
Consultant agrees to assign specific individuals to key positions. If deemed qualified, the
Consultant is encouraged to hire Town residents to fill vacant positions at all levels. Consultant
agrees that, upon commencement of the Services to be performed under this Agreement, key
personnel shall not be removed or replaced without prior written notice to the Town. If key
personnel are not available to perform the Services for a continuous period exceeding 30
calendar days, or are expected to devote substantially less effort to the Services than initially
anticipated, Consultant shall immediately notify the Town of same and shall, subject to the
concurrence of the Town, replace such personnel with personnel possessing substantially equal
ability and qualifications.
7. Inspection; Acceptance. All work shall be subject to inspection and acceptance
by the Town at reasonable times during Consultant's performance. The Consultant shall provide
and maintain a self-inspection system that is acceptable to the Town.
8. Licenses; Materials. Consultant shall maintain in current status all federal, state
and local licenses and permits required for the operation of the business conducted by the
Consultant. The Town has no obligation to provide Consultant, its employees or subcontractors
any business registrations or licenses required to perform the specific services set forth in this
Agreement. The Town has no obligation to provide tools, equipment or material to Consultant.
9. Performance Warranty. Consultant warrants that the Services rendered will
conform to the requirements of this Agreement and with the care and skill ordinarily used by
members of the same profession practicing under similar circumstances at the same time and in
the same locality.
10. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town and each council member, officer, employee or
agent thereof(the Town and any such person being herein called an "Indemnified Party"), for,
from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including,
but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and the costs of appellate proceedings)
to which any such Indemnified Party may become subject, under any theory of liability
whatsoever ("Claims"), insofar as such Claims (or actions in respect thereof) relate to, arise out
of, or are caused by or based upon the negligent acts, intentional misconduct, errors, mistakes or
omissions, breach of contract, in connection with the work or services of the Consultant, its
officers, employees, agents, or any tier of subcontractor in the performance of this Agreement.
The amount and type of insurance coverage requirements set forth below will in no way be
construed as limiting the scope of the indemnity in this Section.
11. Insurance.
11.1 General.
A. Insurer Qualifications. Without limiting any obligations or
liabilities of Consultant, Consultant shall purchase and maintain, at its own expense,
hereinafter stipulated minimum insurance with insurance companies authorized to do
business in the State of Arizona pursuant to ARIz. REV. STAT. § 20-206, as amended, with
an AM Best, Inc. rating of A- or above with policies and forms satisfactory to the Town.
Failure to maintain insurance as specified herein may result in termination of this
Agreement at the Town's option.
B. No Representation of Coverage Adequacy. By requiring insurance
herein, the Town does not represent that coverage and limits will be adequate to protect
Consultant. The Town reserves the right to review any and all of the insurance policies
and/or endorsements cited in this Agreement but has no obligation to do so. Failure to
demand such evidence of full compliance with the insurance requirements set forth in this
Agreement or failure to identify any insurance deficiency shall not relieve Consultant
from, nor be construed or deemed a waiver of, its obligation to maintain the required
insurance at all times during the performance of this Agreement.
C. Additional Insured. All insurance coverage, except Workers'
Compensation insurance and Professional Liability insurance, if applicable, shall name,
to the fullest extent permitted by law for claims arising out of the performance of this
Agreement, the Town, its agents, representatives, officers, directors, officials and
employees as Additional Insured as specified under the respective coverage sections of
this Agreement.
D. Coverage Term. All insurance required herein shall be maintained
in full force and effect until all work or services required to be performed under the terms
of this Agreement are satisfactorily performed, completed and formally accepted by the
Town,unless specified otherwise in this Agreement.
E. Primary Insurance. Consultant's insurance shall be primary
insurance with respect to performance of this Agreement and in the protection of the
Town as an Additional Insured.
F. Claims Made. In the event any insurance policies required by this
Agreement are written on a"claims made"basis, coverage shall extend, either by keeping
coverage in force or purchasing an extended reporting option, for three years past
completion and acceptance of the services. Such continuing coverage shall be evidenced
by submission of annual Certificates of Insurance citing applicable coverage is in force
and contains the provisions as required herein for the three-year period.
G. Waiver. All policies, except for Professional Liability, including
Workers' Compensation insurance, shall contain a waiver of rights of recovery
(subrogation) against the Town, its agents, representatives, officials, officers and
employees for any claims arising out of the work or services of Consultant. Consultant
shall arrange to have such subrogation waivers incorporated into each policy via formal
written endorsement thereto.
H. Policy Deductibles and/or Self-Insured Retentions. The policies
set forth in these requirements may provide coverage that contains deductibles or self-
insured retention amounts. Such deductibles or self-insured retention shall not be
applicable with respect to the policy limits provided to the Town. Consultant shall be
solely responsible for any such deductible or self-insured retention amount.
I. Use of Subcontractors. If any work under this Agreement is
subcontracted in any way, Consultant shall execute written agreements with its
subcontractors containing the indemnification provisions set forth in this Agreement and
insurance requirements set forth herein protecting the Town and Consultant. Consultant
shall be responsible for executing any agreements with its subcontractors and obtaining
certificates of insurance verifying the insurance requirements.
J. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to commencing any work or services
under this Agreement, Consultant will provide the Town with suitable evidence of
insurance in the form of certificates of insurance and a copy of the declaration page(s) of
the insurance policies as required by this Agreement, issued by Consultant's insurance
insurer(s) as evidence that policies are placed with acceptable insurers as specified herein
and provide the required coverages, conditions and limits of coverage specified in this
Agreement and that such coverage and provisions are in full force and effect.
Confidential information such as the policy premium may be redacted from the
declaration page(s) of each insurance policy, provided that such redactions do not alter
any of the information required by this Agreement. The Town shall reasonably rely upon
the certificates of insurance and declaration page(s) of the insurance policies as evidence
of coverage but such acceptance and reliance shall not waive or alter in any way the
insurance requirements or obligations of this Agreement. If any of the policies required
by this Agreement expire during the life of this Agreement, it shall be Consultant's
responsibility to forward renewal certificates and declaration page(s)to the Town 30 days
prior to the expiration date. All certificates of insurance and declarations required by this
Agreement shall be identified by referencing the RFP number and title or this Agreement.
A $25.00 administrative fee shall be assessed for all certificates or declarations received
without the appropriate RFP number and title or a reference to this Agreement, as
applicable. Additionally, certificates of insurance and declaration page(s) of the
insurance policies submitted without referencing the appropriate RFP number and title or
a reference to this Agreement, as applicable, will be subject to rejection and may be
returned or discarded. Certificates of insurance and declaration page(s) shall specifically
include the following provisions:
(1) The Town, its agents, representatives, officers, directors,
officials and employees are Additional Insureds as follows:
(a) Commercial General Liability — Under Insurance
Services Office, Inc., ("ISO") Form CG 20 10 03 97 or equivalent.
(b) Auto Liability — Under ISO Form CA 20 48 or
equivalent.
(c) Excess Liability — Follow Form to underlying
insurance.
(2) Consultant's insurance shall be primary insurance with
respect to performance of this Agreement.
(3) All policies, except for Professional Liability, including
Workers' Compensation, waive rights of recovery (subrogation) against Town, its
agents, representatives, officers, officials and employees for any claims arising
out of work or services performed by Consultant under this Agreement.
(4) ACORD certificate of insurance form 25 (2014/01) is
preferred. If ACORD certificate of insurance form 25 (2001/08) is used, the
phrases in the cancellation provision "endeavor to" and "but failure to mail such
notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its
agents or representatives" shall be deleted. Certificate forms other than ACORD
form shall have similar restrictive language deleted.
11.2 Required Insurance Coverage.
A. Commercial General Liability. Consultant shall maintain
"occurrence" form Commercial General Liability insurance with an unimpaired limit of
not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence, $2,000,000 Products and Completed
Operations Annual Aggregate and a $2,000,000 General Aggregate Limit. The policy
shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products-
completed operations, personal injury and advertising injury. Coverage under the policy
will be at least as broad as ISO policy form CG 00 010 93 or equivalent thereof,
including but not limited to, separation of insured's clause. To the fullest extent allowed
by law, for claims arising out of the performance of this Agreement, the Town, its agents,
representatives, officers, officials and employees shall be cited as an Additional Insured
under ISO, Commercial General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement form CG 20
10 03 97, or equivalent, which shall read "Who is an Insured (Section II) is amended to
include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with
respect to liability arising out of "your work" for that insured by or for you." If any
Excess insurance is utilized to fulfill the requirements of this subsection, such Excess
insurance shall be "follow form" equal or broader in coverage scope than underlying
insurance.
B. Vehicle Liability. Consultant shall maintain Business Automobile
Liability insurance with a limit of$1,000,000 each occurrence on Consultant's owned,
hired and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in the performance of the Consultant's
work or services under this Agreement. Coverage will be at least as broad as ISO
coverage code "1" "any auto" policy form CA 00 01 12 93 or equivalent thereof. To the
fullest extent allowed by law, for claims arising out of the performance of this
Agreement, the Town, its agents, representatives, officers, directors, officials and
employees shall be cited as an Additional Insured under ISO Business Auto policy
Designated Insured Endorsement form CA 20 48 or equivalent. If any Excess insurance
is utilized to fulfill the requirements of this subsection, such Excess insurance shall be
"follow form" equal or broader in coverage scope than underlying insurance.
C. Professional Liability. If this Agreement is the subject of any
professional services or work, or if the Consultant engages in any professional services or
work in any way related to performing the work under this Agreement, the Consultant
shall maintain Professional Liability insurance covering negligent errors and omissions
arising out of the Services performed by the Consultant, or anyone employed by the
Consultant, or anyone for whose negligent acts, mistakes, errors and omissions the
Consultant is legally liable, with an unimpaired liability insurance limit of $2,000,000
each claim and $2,000,000 annual aggregate.
D. Workers' Compensation Insurance. Consultant shall maintain
Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by federal and state
statutes having jurisdiction over Consultant's employees engaged in the performance of
work or services under this Agreement and shall also maintain Employers Liability
Insurance of not less than $500,000 for each accident, $500,000 disease for each
employee and$1,000,000 disease policy limit.
11.3 Cancellation and Expiration Notice. Insurance required herein shall not
expire,be canceled, or be materially changed without 30 days' prior written notice to the Town.
12. Termination; Cancellation.
12.1 For Town's Convenience. This Agreement is for the convenience of the
Town and, as such, may be terminated without cause after receipt by Consultant of written notice
by the Town. Upon termination for convenience, Consultant shall be paid for all undisputed
services performed to the termination date.
12.2 For Cause. If either party fails to perform any obligation pursuant to this
Agreement and such party fails to cure its nonperformance within 30 days after notice of
nonperformance is given by the non-defaulting party, such party will be in default. In the event
of such default, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement immediately for cause
and will have all remedies that are available to it at law or in equity including, without limitation,
the remedy of specific performance. If the nature of the defaulting party's nonperformance is
such that it cannot reasonably be cured within 30 days, then the defaulting party will have such
additional periods of time as may be reasonably necessary under the circumstances,provided the
defaulting party immediately (A) provides written notice to the non-defaulting party and (B)
commences to cure its nonperformance and thereafter diligently continues to completion the cure
of its nonperformance. In no event shall any such cure period exceed 90 days. In the event of
such termination for cause, payment shall be made by the Town to the Consultant for the
undisputed portion of its fee due as of the termination date.
12.3 Due to Work Stoppage. This Agreement may be terminated by the Town
upon 30 days' written notice to Consultant in the event that the Services are permanently
abandoned. In the event of such termination due to work stoppage, payment shall be made by
the Town to the Consultant for the undisputed portion of its fee due as of the termination date.
12.4 Conflict of Interest. This Agreement is subject to the provisions of ARIZ.
REV. STAT. § 38-511. The Town may cancel this Agreement without penalty or further
obligations by the Town or any of its departments or agencies if any person significantly
involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating this Agreement on behalf of the
Town or any of its departments or agencies is, at any time while this Agreement or any extension
of this Agreement is in effect, an employee of any other party to this Agreement in any capacity
or a Consultant to any other party of this Agreement with respect to the subject matter of this
Agreement.
12.5 Gratuities. The Town may, by written notice to the Consultant, cancel this
Agreement if it is found by the Town that gratuities, in the form of economic opportunity, future
employment, entertainment, gifts or otherwise, were offered or given by the Consultant or any
agent or representative of the Consultant to any officer, agent or employee of the Town for the
purpose of securing this Agreement. In the event this Agreement is canceled by the Town
pursuant to this provision, the Town shall be entitled, in addition to any other rights and
remedies,to recover and withhold from the Consultant an amount equal to 150% of the gratuity.
12.6 Agreement Subject to Appropriation. This Agreement is subject to the
provisions of ARIz. CONST. ART. IX, § 5 and ARIz. REV. STAT. § 42-17106. The provisions of
this Agreement for payment of funds by the Town shall be effective when funds are appropriated
for purposes of this Agreement and are actually available for payment. The Town shall be the
sole judge and authority in determining the availability of funds under this Agreement and the
Town shall keep the Consultant fully informed as to the availability of funds for this Agreement.
The obligation of the Town to make any payment pursuant to this Agreement is a current
expense of the Town, payable exclusively from such annual appropriations, and is not a general
obligation or indebtedness of the Town. If the Town Council fails to appropriate money
sufficient to pay the amounts as set forth in this Agreement during any immediately succeeding
fiscal year, this Agreement shall terminate at the end of then-current fiscal year and the Town
and the Consultant shall be relieved of any subsequent obligation under this Agreement.
13. Miscellaneous.
13.1 Independent Contractor. It is clearly understood that each party will act in
its individual capacity and not as an agent, employee, partner,joint venturer, or associate of the
other. An employee or agent of one party shall not be deemed or construed to be the employee
or agent of the other for any purpose whatsoever. The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that
the Services provided under this Agreement are being provided as an independent contractor, not
as an employee or agent of the Town. Consultant, its employees and subcontractors are not
entitled to workers' compensation benefits from the Town. The Town does not have the
authority to supervise or control the actual work of Consultant, its employees or subcontractors.
The Consultant, and not the Town, shall determine the time of its performance of the services
provided under this Agreement so long as Consultant meets the requirements as agreed in
Section 2 above and in Exhibit A. Consultant is neither prohibited from entering into other
contracts nor prohibited from practicing its profession elsewhere. Town and Consultant do not
intend to nor will they combine business operations under this Agreement.
13.2 Applicable Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Arizona and suit pertaining to this Agreement may be brought only in courts in
Maricopa County,Arizona.
13.3 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep fully informed and shall at
all times during the performance of its duties under this Agreement ensure that it and any person
for whom the Consultant is responsible abides by, and remains in compliance with, all rules,
regulations, ordinances, statutes or laws affecting the Services, including, but not limited to, the
following: (A) existing and future Town and County ordinances and regulations; (B) existing and
future State and Federal laws; and (C) existing and future Occupational Safety and Health
Administration standards.
13.4 Amendments. This Agreement may be modified only by a written
amendment signed by persons duly authorized to enter into contracts on behalf of the Town and
the Consultant.
13.5 Provisions Required by Law. Each and every provision of law and any
clause required by law to be in this Agreement will be read and enforced as though it were
included herein and, if through mistake or otherwise any such provision is not inserted, or is not
correctly inserted, then upon the application of either party, this Agreement will promptly be
physically amended to make such insertion or correction.
13.6 Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable to the extent
that any provision or application held to be invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall not
affect any other provision or application of this Agreement which may remain in effect without
the invalid provision or application.
13.7 Entire Agreement; Interpretation; Parol Evidence. This Agreement
represents the entire agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter, and all previous
agreements, whether oral or written, entered into prior to this Agreement are hereby revoked and
superseded by this Agreement. No representations, warranties, inducements or oral agreements
have been made by any of the parties except as expressly set forth herein, or in any other
contemporaneous written agreement executed for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of
this Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to its plain
meaning, and no presumption shall be deemed to apply in favor of, or against the party drafting
this Agreement. The parties acknowledge and agree that each has had the opportunity to seek
and utilize legal counsel in the drafting of, review of, and entry into this Agreement.
13.8 Assignment; Delegation. No right or interest in this Agreement shall be
assigned or delegated by Consultant without prior, written permission of the Town, signed by the
Town Manager. Any attempted assignment or delegation by Consultant in violation of this
provision shall be a breach of this Agreement by Consultant.
13.9 Subcontracts. No subcontract shall be entered into by the Consultant with
any other party to furnish any of the material or services specified herein without the prior
written approval of the Town. The Consultant is responsible for performance under this
Agreement whether or not subcontractors are used. Failure to pay subcontractors in a timely
manner pursuant to any subcontract shall be a material breach of this Agreement by Consultant.
13.10 Rights and Remedies. No provision in this Agreement shall be construed,
expressly or by implication, as waiver by the Town of any existing or future right and/or remedy
available by law in the event of any claim of default or breach of this Agreement. The failure of
the Town to insist upon the strict performance of any term or condition of this Agreement or to
exercise or delay the exercise of any right or remedy provided in this Agreement, or by law, or
the Town's acceptance of and payment for services, shall not release the Consultant from any
responsibilities or obligations imposed by this Agreement or by law, and shall not be deemed a
waiver of any right of the Town to insist upon the strict performance of this Agreement.
13.11 Attorneys' Fees. In the event either party brings any action for any relief,
declaratory or otherwise, arising out of this Agreement or on account of any breach or default
hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the other party reasonable attorneys'
fees and reasonable costs and expenses, determined by the court sitting without a jury, which
shall be deemed to have accrued on the commencement of such action and shall be enforced
whether or not such action is prosecuted through judgment.
13.12 Liens. All materials or services shall be free of all liens and, if the Town
requests, a formal release of all liens shall be delivered to the Town.
13.13 Offset.
A. Offset for Damages. In addition to all other remedies at law or
equity, the Town may offset from any money due to the Consultant any amounts
Consultant owes to the Town for damages resulting from breach or deficiencies in
performance or breach of any obligation under this Agreement.
B. Offset for Delinquent Fees or Taxes. The Town may offset from
any money due to the Consultant any amounts Consultant owes to the Town for
delinquent fees, transaction privilege taxes and property taxes, including any interest or
penalties.
13.14 Notices and Requests. Any notice or other communication required or
permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been
duly given if(A) delivered to the party at the address set forth below, (B) deposited in the U.S.
Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, to the address set forth below or (C) given
to a recognized and reputable overnight delivery service, to the address set forth below:
If to the Town: Town of Fountain Hills
16705 East Avenue of the Fountains
Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268
Attn: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager
With copy to: Pierce Coleman PLLC
4711 East Falcon Drive, Suite 111
Mesa, Arizona 85215
Attn: Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney
If to Consultant: TischlerBise, Inc.
4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240,
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
Attn: L. Carson Bise
or at such other address, and to the attention of such other person or officer, as any party may
designate in writing by notice duly given pursuant to this subsection. Notices shall be deemed
received (A) when delivered to the party, (B) three business days after being placed in the U.S.
Mail, properly addressed, with sufficient postage or (C) the following business day after being
given to a recognized overnight delivery service, with the person giving the notice paying all
required charges and instructing the delivery service to deliver on the following business day. If
a copy of a notice is also given to a party's counsel or other recipient, the provisions above
governing the date on which a notice is deemed to have been received by a party shall mean and
refer to the date on which the party, and not its counsel or other recipient to which a copy of the
notice may be sent, is deemed to have received the notice.
13.15 Confidentiality of Records. The Consultant shall establish and maintain
procedures and controls that are acceptable to the Town for the purpose of ensuring that
information contained in its records or obtained from the Town or from others in carrying out its
obligations under this Agreement shall not be used or disclosed by it, its agents, officers, or
employees, except as required to perform Consultant's duties under this Agreement. Persons
requesting such information should be referred to the Town. Consultant also agrees that any
information pertaining to individual persons shall not be divulged other than to employees or
officers of Consultant as needed for the performance of duties under this Agreement.
13.16 Records and Audit Rights. To ensure that the Consultant and its
subcontractors are complying with the warranty under subsection 13.17 below, Consultant's and
its subcontractor's books, records, correspondence, accounting procedures and practices, and any
other supporting evidence relating to this Agreement, including the papers of any Consultant and
its subcontractors' employees who perform any work or services pursuant to this Agreement (all
of the foregoing hereinafter referred to as "Records"), shall be open to inspection and subject to
audit and/or reproduction during normal working hours by the Town, to the extent necessary to
adequately permit (A) evaluation and verification of any invoices, payments or claims based on
Consultant's and its subcontractors' actual costs (including direct and indirect costs and overhead
allocations) incurred, or units expended directly in the performance of work under this
Agreement and (B) evaluation of the Consultant's and its subcontractors' compliance with the
Arizona employer sanctions laws referenced in subsection 13.17 below. To the extent necessary
for the Town to audit Records as set forth in this subsection, Consultant and its subcontractors
hereby waive any rights to keep such Records confidential. For the purpose of evaluating or
verifying such actual or claimed costs or units expended, the Town shall have access to said
Records, even if located at its subcontractors' facilities, from the effective date of this Agreement
for the duration of the work and until three years after the date of final payment by the Town to
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant and its subcontractors shall provide the Town
with adequate and appropriate workspace so that the Town can conduct audits in compliance
with the provisions of this subsection. The Town shall give Consultant or its subcontractors
reasonable advance notice of intended audits. Consultant shall require its subcontractors to
comply with the provisions of this subsection by insertion of the requirements hereof in any
subcontract pursuant to this Agreement.
13.17 E-verify Requirements. To the extent applicable under ARIz. REV. STAT.
§ 41-4401, the Consultant and its subcontractors warrant compliance with all federal
immigration laws and regulations that relate to their employees and their compliance with the E-
verify requirements under ARIz. REV. STAT. § 23-214(A). Consultant's or its subcontractors'
failure to comply with such warranty shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement and
may result in the termination of this Agreement by the Town.
13.18 Israel. Consultant certifies that it is not currently engaged in, and agrees
for the duration of this Agreement that it will not engage in a "boycott," as that term is defined in
ARIz.REV. STAT. § 35-393, of Israel.
13.19 Conflicting Terms. In the event of any inconsistency, conflict or
ambiguity among the terms of this Agreement, the Scope of Work, any Town-approved Purchase
Order, the Fee Proposal, the RFP and the Consultant's Proposal, the documents shall govern in
the order listed herein.
13.20 Non-Exclusive Contract. This Agreement is entered into with the
understanding and agreement that it is for the sole convenience of the Town. The Town reserves
the right to obtain like goods and services from another source when necessary.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date
and year first set forth above.
"Town"
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS,
an Arizona municipal corporation
131 Grady E. Mille', To n Manager
ATTEST:
1 I
izabeth urke, Town C rk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Aaron D.Arnson, own Attorney
(ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
STATE OF ARIZONA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF MARICOPA )
One �, , 2018, before me personally appeared Grady E. Miller, the
Town Manager of the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, an Arizona municipal corporation,whose
identity was proven to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who he claims to
be, and acknowledged that he signed the above document, on behalf of the Town of Fountain
Hills.
dt�,r„r RHONDA M. BRENNEMAN a
Notary Public-State of Arizona gAIDV.120/1). 0
• MARICOPA COUNTY
a My Commission Expires June 30,2019 Notary Public
(Affix notary seal here)
[SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
• h •
"Consultant"
TISCHLERBISE, INC.,
a(n)Washington D.C. corporation
By: llhhb-ilt-7
Name: L.- C a Q:•\5 ca-
Title: ( ,f?_-S i k ie_eT
(ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
STATEOFA'. ' • )
ss.
COUNTY OF ,)y�
On-- 2 , 2018, before me personally appeared 1 L L J e
'i of TISCHLERBICE, INC., a(n) Washington, D.C. corporation, whose
'dentity was proven to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the-�s- 'n -. claims to
be, and acknowledged that he signed the above document, on behalf of
ischl,, :isey nc.-'
_. . . I /.;
Ye ttary Pr�1.
(Affix notary seal here)
4845-9594-9441 v.1
JENNIFER ROBIN SIZDAHKHANI
Notary Public
Montgomery County
Maryland
M Commiurion lax•tree Dec.1 2 1 iA
EXHIBIT A
TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
AND
TISCHLERBISE, INC.
[Consultant's Proposal]
See following pages.
•
•
t ,,,,a . < 4.4 k {a k ra'i ,+',k ',�, °"-7 ,^ -' f Pas
a
�° T- xr �.*+ m �' ,"� i «Y .:Prug ,,£:•t �...ag` ; e9» �",�.. P a,3^ '� ,sM u *',aG + °.
s ., Tpt:.,' 4 ,•,,:k h., i vrr ,,';.. i � z: , 4` 'to -.;gyp �a" s *�` .Y+, ,,;., ,1 hoc '.w . '
s,2+3+e g� "°ash �p`;;iiki r a'z .3 � 1 $.: "a_ '" w,
� �h�u'` `s�.� �s s'� ' �'�"�.zP�''�°' �„ �3ia ;,�;Y "� a { � 1° �` a � �`..•s€$° 'j�'� 4 � .,...Y� �;�+ �ty'� �
tt . �'...�z `y '+.1{s y� L p 1 44k "': + a .'i'm.$ xa *V... 3.,, i 1': ?t' s'1� ",+ 4i ,.*'..,' is ""
s t� �. .t I.
'.p - ;;'. 5.e.. k i ," '4 Z`, k ] =G k `t r:" ,�' ,,, r '-?, ,,t, . ,y v-t a h.'' e.,
'# ,� x ., >~ ' ..'N.,..,xr { r v "} 'ki p, aku " Y
,- 4:01 k 1 '�'47' st: , t�-rs '%gym ,;:c.a PY �''�",a.
Sot { c^p
•
•
- 1 s 1,r. ,,,,,,. -. •�;;�r�
I� + . ; ;1 s<<
, , - --f- - irp ;
, .„, -e - rAlcilC,11 v , , -- .:, im,.NI ...
r am i.i
W
74,
I_
u
t.
5 +
•
s
i
f-.
,
1
PROPOSAL FOR A DEVELOPMENT FEE
t:
STUDY
K
s"
i
•
,.
Prepared for.
Town of Fountain Hill_, Arizona I November 5. 2018
CONTENTS
Section A: Cover Letter 3
Section B: Consultant Background 5
Section C: Description of Similar Projects 15
Section D: Project Approach and Scope 18
Section E: Required Forms 28
Z Tischle Bise
SECTION A: LETTER OF INTEREST
Craig Rudolphy, Finance Director 3. Consensus Builders. Our seasoned Project Team
Town of Fountain Hills has actively participated in legislative body
16705 E.Avenue of the Fountains meetings and citizen committees to educate
Fountain Hills,AZ 85268 stakeholders regarding the technical process of
development fee calculations as well as the pros
Dear Craig: and cons of development fees, particularly the
TischlerBise is pleased to submit the enclosed economic effect of implementation. We have
proposal to prepare Land Use Assumptions, unsurpassed experience as consensus builders
Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Development working with a broad cross-section of urban,
Fee Study for the Town of Fountain Hills. We bring suburban and rural communities across country.
several distinct advantages to this assignment: 4. Arizona Experience. TischlerBise has prepared
1. No other firm has the depth of experience that more development fees in the State of Arizona than
TischlerBise brings to this assignment. The any other firm. This includes two previous
Town will benefit from our staffs experience in engagements with the Town of Fountain Hills. We
identifying funding gaps and creating new revenue also worked with the Arizona League of Cities and
programs for hundreds of local government Towns in analyzing and suggesting amendments to
agencies across the country. We have prepared SB 1525 which has dramatically changed Arizona's
over 900 development fee studies across the development fee enabling legislation.
country — more than any other firm. We are 5. As a small firm, we have the flexibility and
innovators in the field, pioneering approaches for responsiveness to meet all deadlines of your
credits, development fees by size of housing unit, project. We offer you the level of service and
and distance-related/tiered development fees. More commitment that the larger firms save for their
importantly, a TischlerBise development fee largest clients.
methodology has never been challenged in a court
of law. As President of the firm, I have the authority to
contractually bind the firm. We look forward to the
2. National Thought Leaders. All three of our Project possibility of working again with the Town of Fountain
Team members for this assignment are considered Hills and are committed to providing you with top-
national thought leaders on the subjects of quality support at a very competitive price. This
development fees, infrastructure financing proposal shall remain valid for 120 days.
strategies, fiscal/economic sustainability, and
growth management. Carson Bise, AICP, recently Sincerely,
Chaired the American Planning Association's
Paying for Growth Task Force and was recently
named an Affiliate of the National Center for Smart �)
Growth Research & Education. Mr. Bise also
serves on the Board of Directors for the Growth and L. Carson Bise II,AICP, President
Infrastructure Consortium, where he is a frequent TischlerBise
presenter at the annual conference. Both Mr. Bise 4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240
and Ms. Herlands are frequent speakers on Bethesda, MD 20816
development fees and infrastructure financing at Phone: 301-320-6900
the state and national level for the American Email: carson@tischlerbise.com
Planning Association, National Association of
Homebuilders, Urban Land Institute, and the
Government Finance Officers Association.
3
TischlerBise
yxe m -, cis.' a. wd ' 3 s' � tt:
.....
. >
i.
SECTION B :
CONSULTANT BACKGROUND
SECTION B: CONSULTANT BACKGROUND
"progressive" demand indicators for not only persons
TischlerBise, Inc., was founded in 1977 as Tischler, per housing unit (household), but also the
Montasser & Associates. The firm became Tischler & development of jurisdiction-specific average daily
Associates, Inc., in 1980 and TischlerBise, Inc., in vehicle trip generation rates, using US Census Bureau
2005. The firm is a Subchapter (S) corporation, is data and Institute of Transportation Engineer's
incorporated in Washington, D.C., and maintains formulas. These methods not only improve
offices in Bethesda, Maryland and Sandpoint, Idaho. proportionality, but also promote housing equity. In
Resources from both our Bethesda and Sandpoint addition, TischlerBise has developed unique
office will be used for this assignment. development fee methodologies to assist communities
The firm's legal address is: with the implementation of land use policies intended
Principal Office to address sprawl, congestion, and other growth
L. Carson Bise,AICP, President management issues by helping to direct growth to
4701 Sangamore Rd, Suite 240 planned development zones.
Bethesda, MD 20816 TischlerBise Arizona Experience
301.320.6900 x12(w)1301.320.4860(f)
carson@tischlerbise.com TischlerBise has unsurpassed experience preparing
development fees and infrastructure improvements
TischlerBise is a fiscal, economic, and planning plans in the State of Arizona, particularly under
consulting firm specializing in fiscal/economic impact Arizona's new development fee legislation, SB 1525.
analysis, development fees, user fees, market We have completed or are currently engaged with the
feasibility, infrastructure financing studies and related following Arizona communities to conduct SB 1525-
revenue strategies. Our firm has been providing related updates and analyses since 2012:
consulting services to public agencies for over forty
years. In this time, we have prepared over 700 • Apache Junction • Payson
fiscal/economic impact evaluations and over 900 • Avondale • Pinetop-Lakeside
development fee/infrastructure financing studies — • Buckeye • Queen Creek
more than any other firm. Through our detailed • Casa Grande • San Luis
approach, proven methodology, and comprehensive • Cave Creek • Safford
product, we have established TischlerBise as the • Coolidge • Sedona
leading national expert on revenue enhancement and • Eloy • Show Low
cost of growth strategies. • Flagstaff • Sierra Vista
TischlerBise has been the national leader in advancing • Florence • Somerton
the state of the practice as it relates to development • Gilbert • Surprise
fee calculations. For example, TischlerBise has • Goodyear • Tucson
developed unique methodologies for calculating • Maricopa • Yuma
5
TischlerBise
TischlerBise National Experience
• San Luis,AZ
TischlerBise is the national leader in advancing the • Scottsdale,AZ
"state of the practice." For example, TischlerBise • Sedona, AZ
pioneered development fees by housing size and/or
• Show Low,AZ
bedroom count, tiered transportation fee schedules, • Sierra Vista,AZ
techniques for mitigating high fees for nonresidential • Somerton,AZ
development, and integrating transportation
•development fees as Springerville,AZ
p part of an overall funding
• Surprise,AZ
strategy. While every community is unique, this • Taylor,AZ
national experience provides invaluable perspective for • Tolleson,AZ
our clients. A summary of our national development • Tucson,AZ
fee experience is shown below.
• Wellton, AZ
• Apache County,AZ • Yuma,AZ
• Apache Junction,AZ • Avenal, CA
• Avondale,AZ • Banning, CA
• Buckeye,AZ • Butte County, CA
• Bullhead City,AZ • Chino Hills, CA
• Camp Verde,AZ • Clovis, CA
• Carefree,AZ • Corcoran, CA
• Casa Grande,AZ • El Centro, CA
• Cave Creek,AZ • Grass Valley, CA
• Coolidge, AZ • Half Moon Bay, CA
• Dewey-Humboldt,AZ • Hemet, CA
• El Mirage,AZ • Imperial County, CA
• Elroy,AZ • Lemoore, CA
• Flagstaff,AZ • Mammoth Lakes, CA
• Florence,AZ • Maywood, CA
• Gilbert,AZ • National City, CA
• Glendale, AZ • Rancho Cucamonga, CA
• Goodyear,AZ • Suison City, CA
• Holbrook,AZ • Temecula, CA
• Lake Havasu City,AZ • Tulare, CA
• Maricopa,AZ • Visalia, CA
• Navajo County,AZ • Adams County, CO
• Peoria,AZ • Arapahoe County, CO
• Phoenix,AZ • Berthoud Fire District, CO
• Pinal County,AZ • Boulder, CO
• Pinetop-Lakeside,AZ • Castle Pines, Co
• Prescott,AZ • Castle Rock, CO
• Queen Creek, AZ • Colorado Springs, CO
• Safford,AZ • Eaton, CO
6
Ti chle Bise
• Erie, CO • Shoshone Co. Fire Dept., ID
• Evans, CO • Victor, ID
• Durango, CO • Covington, LA
• Fort Collins, CO • Carroll County, MD
• Garfield, CO • Charles County, MD
• Greeley, CO • Cecil County, MD
• Johnstown, CO • Dorchester County, MD
• Larimer County, CO • Easton, MD
• Lone Tree, CO • Frederick, MD
• Longmont, CO • Frederick County, MD
• Louisville, CO • Hagerstown, MD
• Mead, CO • Hampstead, MD
• Montezuma County, CO • Belgrade, MT
• Parker, CO • Bozeman, MT
• Pitkin, CO • Flathead County, MT
• Pueblo, CO • Florence School District, MT
• Thornton, CO • Gallatin Co. Fire Districts, MT
• Vail, CO • Orange County, NC
• Manatee County, FL • Pasquotank, NC
• Manatee County Schools, FL • Minot, ND
• Miami, FL • Las Cruces, NM
• Miami, FL • North Las Vegas, NV
• Naples, FL • Nye County, NV
• North Miami, FL • Washoe County, NV
• Orange County, FL • Delaware, OH
• Parkland, FL • Lebanon, OH
• Pasco Co. School Board, FL • Pickerington, OH
• Port St. Lucie, FL • Sunbury, OH
• Punta Gorda, FL • East Greenwich, RI
• South Miami, FL • Middletown, RI
• Seminole Co. Schools, FL • Mapleton, UT
• Stuart, FL • North Logan, UT
• West Miami, FL • Pleasant Grove, UT
• Effingham County, GA • Sandy City, UT
• Gordon County, GA • Spanish Fork, UT
• Henry County, GA • West Jordan, UT
• Roswell, GA • Stafford County, VA
• Hailey, ID • Suffolk,VA
• Hayden, ID • Jefferson County,WY
• Post Falls, ID • Casper,WY
• Sandpoint, ID • Cheyenne,WY
7
TischlerBise
TischlerBise Areas of Development Fee Expertise
Feasibility Analysis Transportation OEM
Water Stormwater Law Enforcement
Parks & Recreation Trails/Open Space
Libraries General Government
Project Team Staff Qualifications
To successfully navigate through the Town's TischlerBise employees. We do not "pad" our
development fee study, the successful consultant must Project Team with retired principals (e.g.,
possess specific, detailed, and customized knowledge, Chairman Emeritus) or individuals who head
not only of the technical analysis, but also of the another division of the firm (e.g., zoning codes),
context of the development fee structure in achieving and will have no direct project involvement.
the Town's land use, transportation, and economic
development policy goals. Our Project Team for this
assignment includes our most senior and
experienced development fee professionals. We
have unsurpassed experience performing projects
requiring the same expertise as that needed to serve
Fountain Hills The role of each team member and their
qualifications are briefly discussed in this section, and
the organizational chart shows our project team for this
assignment. It is important to note that all three
TischlerBise Project Team members are full-time
8
TischlerBise
TischlerBise Project Organization
Fountain Hills
Carson Bise, AICP Julie Herlands, AICP
Project Manager Project Analyst
Ben Griffin
Project Analyst
Carson Bise, AICP, President of TischlerBise, will memorandums, conference calls, and in-person
serve as Project Manager and coordinate our Project meetings.
Team's interaction with the Town to ensure that all Ben Griffin, Senior Fiscal/Economic Analyst, is an
work is completed properly, on time, and within
budget. He will work closely with Julie Herlands and accomplished development fee Project Manager in his
own right, will provide analytical support to the
Ben Griffin,developing and reviewing all aspects of the development fee study. Mr. Griffin has been with
project and providing overall quality assurance for the TischlerBise for five years and has assisted or
project. managed development fee studies in Avondale,
Julie Herlands, AICP, is Vice President of Sedona, Casa Grande, Buckeye, Tempe and Salt
TischlerBise, and will serve as a Project Analyst for River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.
this assignment because of her substantial experience
preparing development fees and financing strategies.
Ms. Herlands will assist with controlling the work in
progress and will assist with the technical
requirements of the project. Most importantly, Ms.
Herlands, in conjunction with Mr. Bise, will ensure
constant collaboration and communication between
Town staff and our team through frequent progress
9
Project Team Resumes
L. Carson Bise, AICP, President
Experience
Carson Bise has 28 years of fiscal, economic and a chapter on fiscal impact analysis in the book
planning experience and has conducted fiscal and Planning and Urban Design Standards, also published
infrastructure finance evaluations in 37 states. Mr. Bise by the American Planning Association, and the ICMA
has developed and implemented more fiscal impact IQ Report, Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today's
models than any consultant in the country. The Decisions Affect Tomorrow's Budgets. Mr. Bise was
applications which Mr. Bise has developed have been also the principal author of the fiscal impact analysis
used for evaluating multiple land use scenarios, component for the Atlanta Regional Commission's
specific development projects, annexations, urban Smart Growth Toolkit and is featured in the recently
service provision, tax-increment financing, and released AICP Training Package entitled The
concurrency/adequate public facilities monitoring. Mr. Economics of Density. Mr. Bise is currently on the
Bise is also a leading national figure in the calculation Board of Directors of the Growth and Infrastructure
of development fees, having completed over 250 Finance Consortium and recently Chaired the
development fees for the following categories: parks American Planning Association's Paying for
and recreation, open space, police, fire, schools, Growth Task Force. He was also recently named an
water, sewer, roads, municipal power, and general Affiliate of the National Center for Smart Growth
government facilities. Mr. Bise has also written and Research & Education.
lectured extensively on fiscal impact analysis and
infrastructure financing. His most recent publications
are Next Generation Transportation Impact Fees and
Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for Planners,
both published by the American Planning Association,
laiteporg
TischlerBise 10
Selected Impact Fee Experience • Rancho Cucamonga, California — Development
Daphne,Alabama—Impact Fee Study Fee Study
• Foley, Alabama—Impact Fee Study • Suisun City, California—Development Fee Study
• • Temecula, California—Development Fee Study
• Gulf Shores,Alabama—Impact Fee Study • Tulare, California—Development Fee Study
• Orange Beach,Alabama—Impact Fee Study • Adams County, Colorado — Transportation Impact
• Apache Junction, Arizona — Land Use
Assumptions,IIP and Development Fee Study Study
• Arapahoe County,Colorado—Rural Road Funding
• Avondale, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, Strategy and Rural Road Impact Fee Study
IIP and Development Fee Study • 'Boulder, Colorado—Impact Fee/Excise Tax Study
• Camp Verde, Arizona — Development Fee • Castle Rock, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
Study • Evans, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
• Coolidge, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions,
IIP and Development Fee Study • Erie, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
• Eloy,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP and •
Fort Collins, Colorado — Transportation Capital
Development Fee Study Expansion Fee Study
• Florence,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP • Greeley, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
and Development Fee Study • Longmont, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
• Gilbert, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, IIP •
Louisville, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
and Development Fee Study • Mead,Colorado—Impact Fee Study
• Glendale,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, 11P •
Steamboat Springs, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
and Development Fee Study • Thornton, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
• Maricopa, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, • Vail, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
IIP and Development Fee Study • DeSoto County, Florida—Impact Fee Study
• Maricopa County, Arizona — Development Fee • Manatee County, Florida—Impact Fee Study
Study • North Miami, Florida—Impact Fee Study
• Payson, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, IIP • Pasco County, Florida—School Impact Fee Study
and Development Fee Study • Polk County, Florida—Impact Fee Study
• Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona — Land Use • Punta Gorda, Florida—Impact Fee Study
Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study • Seminole County, Florida — School Impact Fee
• Safford, Arizona — Utility Capacity Charge and Infrastructure Financing Study
Study • Calvert County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
• Show Low, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, • Carroll County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
IIP and Development Fee Study • Charles County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
• Sierra Vista, Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, • Dorchester County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
IIP and Development Fee Study • Town of Easton, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
• Somerton, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, • Hagerstown, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
IIP and Development Fee Study • Hampstead, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
• Surprise, Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP • Washington County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
and Development Fee Study • Wicomico County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
• Tucson, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, IIP • Worcester County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
and Development Fee Study • Clinton City, Utah—Impact Fee Study
• Siloam Springs,Arkansas—Impact Fee Study • Draper City, Utah—Impact Fee Study
• Avenal, California—Development Fee Study • Farmington City, Utah—Impact Fee Study
• Corcoran,California—Development Fee Study • Logan City, Utah—Impact Fee Study
• Banning, California—Development Fee Study • Mapleton City, Utah—Impact Fee Study
• National City, California—Development Fee Study • Spanish Fork, Utah—Impact Fee Study
• Mammoth Lakes, California—Development Fee • West Jordan, Utah—Impact Fee Study
11
lischlerBise
Speaking Engagements Management Association National Conference
• Mitigating the Impacts of Development in Urban
• Fiscal Impact Assessment, AICP Training Areas, Florida Chapter of the American Planning
Workshop, American Planning Association Association
National Planning Conference • Impact Fee Basics, National Impact Fee
• Dealing with the Cost of Growth: From Soup to Roundtable
Nuts, International City/County Management • Fiscal Impact Analysis and Impact Fees, National
Association National Conference Impact Fee Roundtable
• Demand Numbers for Impact Analysis, National • Are Subsidies Worth It?, American Planning
Impact Fee Roundtable Association National Conference
• Calculating Infrastructure Needs with Fiscal
Impact Models, Florida Chapter of the American Publications
Planning Association Conference
• Economic Impact of Home Building, National • "Next Generation Transportation Impact Fees,"
Impact Fee Roundtable American Planning Association.
• Annexation and Economic Development, • "Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for
American Planning Association National Planners,"American Planning Association.
Conference • "Planning and Urban Design Standards,"
• Economics of Density, American Planning American Planning Association, Contributing
Association National Conference Author on Fiscal Impact Analysis.
• The Cost/Benefit of Compact Development • "Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today's Decisions
Patterns, American Planning Association National Affect Tomorrow's Budgets,"ICMA Press.
Conference • "The Cost/Contribution of Residential
• Fiscal Impact Modeling: A Tool for Local Development," Mid-Atlantic Builder.
Government Decision Making, International • "Are Subsidies Worth It?" Economic Development
City/County Management Association National News&Views.
Conference • "Smart Growth and Fiscal Realities," ICMA Getting
• Fiscal Assessments, American Planning Smart! Newsletter.
Association National Conference • "The Economics of Density,"AICP Training Series,
• From Soup to Nuts: Paying for Growth, American 2005, Training CD-ROM (American Planning
Planning Association National Conference Association)
• Growing Pains, International City/County
12
Ti chle Bise
Julie Herlands,AICP, Principal • Salisbury, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
Experience • Easton, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
Julie Herlands is a Principal with TischlerBise and has fifteen years • Talbot County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
of planning, fiscal, and economic development experience. Prior to • Wicomico County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
joining TischlerBise, Ms. Herlands worked in the public sector in • Worcester County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
Fairfax County, Virginia, for the Office of Community Revitalization • North Las Vegas—Impact Fee Study
and for the private sector for the International Economic • Nye County/Town of Pahrump, Nevada — Impact Fee
Development Council (IEDC), Advisory Services and Research Study
Department. Her economic and fiscal impact experience includes a • Abbeville County, South Carolina — Infrastructure
wide-range of assignments in over fifteen states. She is a frequent Financing Study
presenter at national and regional conferences including serving as • Beaufort County, South Carolina — Infrastructure
co-organizer and co-presenter at a half-day AICP Training Financing Study
Workshop entitled Fiscal Impact Assessment at the APA National • Prince George County,Virginia—Cash Proffer Study
Planning Conference. A session on impact fees and cash proffers • Prince William County,Virginia—Impact Fee Study
presented at the APA National Conference is available through the • Spotsylvania County,Virginia—Impact Fee Study
APA training series, Best of Contemporary Community Planning. • Stafford County,Virginia—Impact Fee Study
She is the immediate past Chair of the Economic Development • Sussex County,Virginia—Cash Proffer Study
Division of the APA and chaired the APA Task Force on Planning
and Economic Development.
Education
Selected Impact Fee & Infrastructure Finance Experience Masters of Community Planning, University of Maryland
(Summa Cum Laude, Phi Kappa Phi)
• Apache Junction,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP and B.A., Political Science, University of Buffalo(Magna Cum
Development Fee Study Laude, Phi Beta Kappa)
• Apache Junction Water Company—Capacity Charge Study
• Avondale, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Speaking Engagements
Development Fee Study
Surprise, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, IIP and • Fiscal Impact Assessment, AICP Training Workshop,
• Development Fee Study American Planning Association National Planning
• Tempe, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, IIP and
Conference, 2009 and 2008
Development Fee Study •
Infrastructure Financing: Funding the Gap, American
Wellton, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Planning Association National Planning Conference,
• 2009
Development Fee Study • Economic Development for Planning Practitioners,
• Yuma, Arizona — Land Use Assumptions, IIP and
Development Fee Study Training Workshop, American Planning Association
National Planning Conference, 2009
• Boulder, Colorado—Impact Fee Study • Voluntary Mitigation Payments:An Alternative to Impact
• Durango—Affordable Housing and Transit Linkage Fee
Fees,American Planning Association National Planning
• Evans—Impact Fee Study Conference, 2007
• Castle Rock, Colorado—Impact Fee Study • Proffers vs. Impact Fees: The Virginia Experience,
• Plant City, Florida—Impact Fee Study National Impact Fee Roundtable,2006
• Port St. Lucie, Florida—Impact Fee Study • Impact Fee—Or Is It? American Planning Association
• Stuart, Florida—Impact Fee Study National Planning Conference,2005
• Kellogg, Idaho—Impact Fee Study • Integrating Planning with School Demands, American
• Post Falls, Idaho—Impact Fee Study Planning Association National Planning Conference,
• Shoshone Fire District, Idaho—Impact Fee Study 2005
• Evanston, Illinois—Impact Fec/Excise Tax Study • Planning and Fiscal Reality, American Planning
• Anne Arundel County, Maryland—Revenue Strategies Association National Planning Conference,2004
• Caroline County, Maryland—Schools Excise Tax Study
• Dorchester County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study
3 TischlerBise
Publications • SRPMIC,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP and
• "Should Impact Fees Be Reduced in a Recession?" Development Fee Study
• Economic Development Now, August 10, 2009 • Sedona, Arizona—Land Use Assumptions,IIP and
(International Economic Development Council) Development Fee Study
• "Agreements, Fees, and CIP," The Best of Contemporary • San Luis, Arizona—Land Use Assumptions,IIP and
Community Planning, 2005, Training CD-ROM (American Development Impact Fee Study
Planning Association and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy) • Sedona,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP and
• "The Connection between Growth Management and Local Development Fee Study
Economic Development," Economic Development News & • Somerton, Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP
Views(Economic Development Division of the APA) and Development Impact Fee Study
• Yuma,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP and
Development Impact Fee Study
Benjamin Griffin, Senior Fiscal/Economic Analyst • Lemoore, California-Impact Fee Study
Experience
• Mammoth Lakes, California—Impact Fee Study
Benjamin Griffin is the Senior Fiscal and Economic Analyst at • Suisun City, California—Impact Fee Study
TischlerBise with specialties in finance and economic • Tulare, California—Impact Fee Study
development planning. Prior to joining TischlerBise, Mr. Griffin
worked for the New Orleans Business Alliance (NOLABA) — • Durango, Colorado—Multimodal Impact Fee and
the non-profit agency tasked with leading economic Housing Linkage Fee Study
development initiatives for the City of New Orleans. Mr. Griffin • Fort Collins, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
also worked for the Jefferson Parish Planning Department • Lone Tree—Impact Fee Study
where he gained experience in the short-range planning • Louisville, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
division. Since joining TischlerBise, Mr. Griffin has worked on • Mead, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
fiscal analyses, market analyses, capital improvement plans, • Thornton, Colorado—Impact Fee Study
development impact fees, and revenue strategies for local
governments in sixteen states. • Manatee County, Florida—Impact Fee Study
• Manatee County School District, Florida—School
Impact Fee Study
Selected Impact Fee & Infrastructure Finance • Covington, Louisiana-Impact Fee Study
Experience • Middletown, Rhode Island—Impact Fee Study
• Avondale, Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP and • West Jordan, Utah—Impact Fee Study
Development Fee Study • Jefferson County,West Virginia—Impact Fee Study
• Buckeye,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions,IIP and
Development Impact Fee Study
Education
• Casa Grande, Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP and M.A., Urban and Regional Planning, University of New
Development Fee Study Orleans
• Pinal County,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, 11P and B.B.A., Finance, University of Mississippi
Development Impact Fee Study
• Maricopa,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions,11P and
Transportation Impact Fee Review
• Sedona,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, IIP and
Development Fee Study
14
TischlerBise
„ is
�i
z a / y.^ T .. • k t 4 [v Ai qp 4
yy. • ' - ..
”. x c
x�
n Bi'
, s .. �;
.,fir. ir lir y.. .� r_ ',. +a..;,„ ' ��
s .,
- *f M1
4 ar^iw - pt
r ^�;. fir+ I. 'f £
.v.,,
...„ ,. _.
: ,...
,"` *s ,; m. a -" `� ,br =ate r
etio
,r.,. ..
,..
. ,. _,. , :,-,-,:„.,....
-sat
*
�x
}
4614
1.
- .
. ‘
-
+, it �.
t `
4. _, '4 '':::: - '
011
a + `' wr IOUS
.06
,,,,,, ..1111 1 . ': ;''
r
;..,
q
\ i,
1,t
r
tt
i
i
1
ir
i
I
a
f -
S
SECTION C :
1
DESCRIPTION OF SIMILIAR
PROJECTS
1
SECTION C: SIMILAR PROJECTS
Improvements Plan and associated development fees
Description of similar projects are discussed below. for the following necessary public services: General
Government, Library, Parks and Recreational, Fire,
City of Glendale,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, Police, Streets, Water and Wastewater. We are
IIP and Development Fee Study currently preparing an update to the original IIP and
Project Contact: Jean Moreno, Executive Officer, Development Fee Study.
Special Projects and Initiatives
Phone: (623)930-2973 City of Tempe,Arizona—Land Use Assumptions,
E-mail:JMoreno@glendaleaz.com IIP and Development Fee Study
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise,AICP,Julie Herlands, Project Contact:Julie Hietter, Public Works Manager
AICP, and Benjamin Griffin Phone:(480)350-8371
E-mail:julie_hietter@tempe.gov
Following upon our 2012 assignment, TischlerBise TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise,AICP, and Benjamin
was retained to update our previous SB1525 compliant Griffin
IIP and Development Fee Study. This study includes
an update to parks and recreation, library, police, fire, The City of Tempe hired TischlerBise in 2013 to
water, wastewater and transportation development prepare SB1525 compliant Land Use Assumptions,
fees (this is the fifth time the City has engaged Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Development
TischlerBise). The scope of this work effort included Fee Study for Police, Libraries, Streets, Fire and
developing land use assumptions for the service areas Parks. As part of this effort, TischlerBise prepared
where development fees were to be assessed, several iterations of the fees (e.g., plan-based versus
determining eligible infrastructure projects under the incremental expansion) for the City's consideration. A
new definition of "necessary public services," and primary consideration as part of this assignment was
calculating Infrastructure Improvement Plans. As part the City ability to fund the operating expenses
of this update, TischlerBise is examining the feasibility associated with various planned facilities. TischlerBise
of implementing a tiered transportation development also prepared the residential fees using a progressive
fee structure that is designed to encourage fee structure (e.g., fees vary by size of house), which
development in the downtown area, yet still make the helps with housing equity and affordability issues.
City competitive for economic development TischlerBise was recently retained to update the
opportunities in the West Service Area. Streets fees as well as redo the existing Water and
Wastewater development fees. The current update is
City of Avondale, Arizona — Land Use an ongoing assignment.
Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
Project Contact: David Vaca, CIP Coordinator Town of Florence, Arizona — Land Use
Phone: (623)333-1000 Assumptions, HP and Development Fee Study
E-mail:dvaca@avondale.org (2018)
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, AICP, Ben Griffin and Project Contact: Lisa Garcia,Assistant City Manager
Julie Herlands,AICP Phone: (520)868-7552
E-mail: lisa.garcia@florenceaz.gov
The City of Avondale contracted with TischlerBise TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise,AICP
midway through their SB1525 compliance fee study in
2013 after parting ways with their contracted TischlerBise was retained by the Town of Florence to
consulting firm midway through the process. Since review and update their Land Use Assumptions, IIP
TischlerBise has substantial staff devoted to its and Development Fee Study for fire/rescue, parks,
development fee practice, we were able the trails, water, sewer and transportation. As part of this
immediately bring the necessary resources to bear in update, TischlerBise recommended a reduction in the
order salvage the work effort and successfully number of service areas to make administration of the
compete the assignment to meet the City's deadline. fee program easier for the Town, while still complying
This study included preparing Infrastructure with SB1525.
6 TischlerBise
City of Buckeye, Arizona—Land Use Assumptions, Town of Erie, Colorado—Impact Fee Study(2004
IIP and Development Fee Study and 2016)
Project Contact: George Flores, Development Services Project Contact: Steve Felten, Finance Director
Director Phone:(303)926-2751
Phone: (623)349-6209 E-mail: sfelten@erieco.gov
E-mail:gflores@buckeyeaz.gov TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise,AICP
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise,AICP, and Benjamin TischlerBise was retained to review and update the
Griffin Town of Erie's impact fee program, which pre-dated
TischlerBise is completing an update to the City's the passing of SB15. This update included
SB1525 compliant development fees we completed in parks/recreation, transportation, police, general
2013. This study includes an update to parks and government, and storm drainage. For the Town's and
recreation, library, street, police, fire, water, and stakeholder's consideration, we prepared iterations of
wastewater development fees. Due to Buckeye's the residential impact fees using progressive
acquisition of Global Water, and the complexity of residential multipliers (e.g., by size of house) and with
existing development agreements related to this the traditional "one size fits all" approach (e.g., single
acquisition, Buckeye accelerated its update process. family, multifamily). We also consolidated the
To account for development agreements related to nonresidential impact fee schedule to make
water and wastewater service throughout Buckeye, implementation easier, as well as assist with economic
which often vary within individual Community Master development effort. As part of the public participation
Plan Areas and 208 Areas, TischlerBise and Buckeye process, TischlerBise conducted extensive
staff are designing a GIS-based development fee worksessions with the Board of Trustees on various
schedule to accurately assess fees a t the parcel level. fee options (e.g., plan-based versus incremental
Buckeye's current (four) water and wastewater service expansion for transportation).
areas are projected to increase to approximately ten to City of Longmont, Colorado — Impact Fee Study
twenty service areas for each type of infrastructure — (2015)
Buckeye's water and wastewater development Project Contact: Joni Marsh, Planning and
agreements do not usually have similar geographic Development Services Director
boundaries. The current update is an ongoing Phone:(303)774-4398
assignment. E-mail:joni.marsh@ci.longmont.co.us
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise,AICP and Ben Griffin
Town of Vail, Colorado—Multi-Modal
Transportation Impact Fee Study(2009 and 2017) TischlerBise was retained to review and update the
Project Contact: Tom Kassmel, P.E.,Town Engineer City of Longmont's impact fee program. Three fee
Phone: (970)479-2158 categories were included—Recreation, Public
E-mail:ikassmel@vailgov.com Buildings, and Transportation. This assignment
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise,AICP included updating capital improvement plans and
TischlerBise recently completed an assignment for the calculating impact fees for each fee category. The
Town of Vail, Colorado to prepare a transportation Recreation fee evaluated both a plan-based approach
impact fee that includes unique multi-modal and consumption-based approach in order to gauge
improvements. Natural containment of the urbanized the magnitude of City General Fund
area by the surrounding mountains has helped Vail exposure/commitment. The Transportation fee
become an attractive resort community with a walkable includes both capacity and multimodal improvements.
urban core area. In recognition of this development A unique aspect of the transportation impact fee was
pattern, proposed impact fees are lower in the core the two-tiered structure to encourage redevelopment in
area. Fee amounts are based on planned the downtown core. Urban areas like downtown
improvements such as a shared parking structure with Longmont have distinct demographic profiles and
integrated transit centers and complete-street physical traits that reduce vehicle trips, such as higher
concepts(i.e., pedestrian, bike,and bus facilities). internal capture, design characteristics that promote
walking and biking,and superior transit service.
17 TischlerBise
•
-
s+* . ' 0 w ili +
,f' o.. * 't rear A x
74,774,
,_ . �. .d° S' r # rs �.
F
.i ! .ram ""� .*�pt q►.r �"�yM a
+w m
a
wy1►
�"' "_
.. \-;.i., _ .„.., ...:„.,,..: . 11.1.-a ,,,,,..
-"` 4s„ L4
. 1 i lila , ; ; .; ,. r.: ' .
. * t Iplikr
'- •ii 11 Acapia, v, t
i . IPArlirli ' "4' , , .- r,,. - .
mik ill '4 'llr . ''' 1,:*1' .: ''. '-i -,,' 41"4-,.,.7I'''' ' . '''',.: * . .41..1.t'.
LL
' 4. .7%-,' Nv '
144
k
Af
• „L t
\ . 4.
•
= } ' •
4 I* I
SECTION D :
PROJECT APPROACH AND
SCOPE
SECTION D: PROJECT APPROACH AND SCOPE
Project Approach
total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand.
Development fees are simple in concept, but complex The plan-based method is often the most
in delivery. Generally, the jurisdiction imposing the fee advantageous approach for facilities that require
must: (1)identify the purpose of the fee, (2)identify the engineering studies,such as roads and utilities.
use to which the fee is to be put, (3) show a
reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the Cost Recovery Method - The rationale for the cost
type of development project, and (4) account for and recovery approach is that new development is paying
spend the fees collected only for the purpose(s) used for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of
in calculating the fee. facilities from which new growth will benefit. To
calculate a development fee using the cost recovery
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of approach, facility cost is divided by the ultimate
calculating development fees involves the following number of demand units the facility will serve. An
two steps: oversized wastewater treatment plant.
1. Determine the cost of development-related capital Incremental Expansion Method - The incremental
improvements, and expansion method documents the current level of
2. Allocate those costs equitably to various types of service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both
development. quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an
existing service standard such as square feet per
There is, however, a fair degree of latitude granted in capita or park acres per capita. An incremental
constructing the actual fees, as long as the outcome is expansion cost method is best suited for public
"proportionate and equitable." Fee construction is both facilities that will be expanded in regular increments
an art and a science, and it is in this convergence that with LOS standards based on current conditions in the
TischlerBise excels in delivering products to clients. community.
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to Evaluation of Alternatives. Designing the optimum
calculate development fees for Fountain Hills. Each development fee approach and methodology is what
method has advantages and disadvantages given a sets TischlerBise apart from our competitors. Unlike
particular situation, and to some extent they are most consultants, we routinely consider each of the
interchangeable because they all allocate facility costs three methodologies for each component within a fee
in proportion to the needs created by development. category. The selection of the methodology for each
In practice, the calculation of development fees can component of a development fee category will be
become quite complicated because of the many dependent on which is most beneficial for the Town. In
variables involved in defining the relationship between some cases, we will prepare the development fee
development and the need for capital facilities. The using several methodologies and will discuss the
various trade-offs with the Town. There will likely be
following paragraphs discuss the three basic methods
for calculating development fees and how those policy and revenue tradeoffs. We recognize that "one
methods can be applied. size does not fit all"and we create the optimum format
that best achieves our clients'goals.
Plan-Based Method - The plan-based method
allocates costs for a specified set of future
improvements to a specified amount of development.
The improvements are identified by a CIP. In this
method,the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by
TischlerBise
Lending a Sense of Market Reality to the Task 2: Prepare Land Use Assumptions
Development Projections. Projecting future
residential and nonresidential development is more TischlerBise will review and update annual projections
difficult now than in the past due to shifting trends in of population, employment, housing, commercial,
the housing and retail markets as a result of changing industrial and other nonresidential square footage data
demographics and lifestyle choices. TischlerBise's for at least ten (10) years. This will be based on
extensive national experience conducting market discussions with Town staff, review of recent
analysis and real estate feasibility studies is development activity, approved development plans
invaluable in determining the appropriate and review of published information from the Maricopa
development projections used in the development Association of Governments, and other relevant data
fee calculations. These projections include both the sources. The Consultant will prepare a memorandum
amount of development and the geographic location. discussing the recommended land use projections
Depending on the methodology employed, overly (Land Use Assumptions Document) that will serve as
optimistic development projections can increase the the basis for the IIP and development fee schedule,
Town's financial exposure if development fee revenue including any relevant service areas. TischlerBise will
is less than expected. prepare a plan that includes projections of changes in
land uses, densities, intensities, and population for a
Scope of Work specific service area.A map of the area(s)to which the
The following scope of work provides detailed steps to land use assumptions apply will also be included in
ensure this project is completed successfully and this task.
meets the legal requirements for development fees,
based the State's enabling legislation (SB1525), as Meetings:
well as national case law. The development fees Discussions with the Development Services
categories are assumed to include library, parks and Department will be held as part of Task 1.
recreation, police,and streets.
Deliverables:
Task 1: Project Initiation/Data Acquisition TischlerBise will prepare a draft technical
During this task, we will meet with Town staff to memorandum discussing the recommended Land Use
establish lines of communication, review and discuss Assumptions. After review and sign-off by the Town, a
project goals and expectations related to the project, final memorandum will be issued, which will become
request data and documentation related to new part of the final IIP and Development Fee Report.
proposed development, identify relevant policy
objectives and discuss staffs role in the project. Task 3: Ascertain Demand Factors and Levels-of-
Service for"Necessary Public Services"
Meetings:
Communities in Arizona may assess development fees
One (1) on-site visit to meet with Town staff as for"necessary public services"which have a useful life
appropriate.
of more than three years and that are owned and
Deliverables: operated on behalf of the Town and within the
Data request memorandum (prepared in advance of incorporated boundary. There are several important
meeting). subtasks that are outlined below:
• Proportionate Share — Determine the
proportionate share of the cost of "necessary
public services," based on service units
needed to provide such services to new
development.
20
TischlerBise
• Determine Existing Levels-of-Service—The • Service Units — TischlerBise will define the
costs for the "necessary public services" standardized measures of consumption, use,
required to serve new development are based or generation attributable to an individual unit
on the same level-of-service being provided to of development for each category of
existing development in the service area. We "necessary public services" or facility
will determine the existing level-of-service by expansions.
conducting onsite interviews, evaluating the
appropriate studies, and analyzing relevant ' Review Cost Estimates — TischlerBise will
local data. These onsite interviews will also review the costs of infrastructure
include discussions about and defining of the improvements, real property, financing,
infrastructure components to be included in engineering, and architectural services
the IIP and development fees. associated with the "necessary public
services" to be included in the IIP and
• Determine Service Areas — Specify the development fees.
area(s)within the Town's boundaries in which
development will be served by the "necessary • Financing Costs — TischlerBise will identify
public services" or facility expansions and that projected interest charges and other financial
a substantial nexus exists between the costs which are to be used for repayment of
necessary public services or facility principal and interest of debt used to finance
expansions and the development being construction of "necessary public services"
served as prescribed in the IIP. identified in the IIP.
The above subtasks will enable us to ensure that three • Identify Ineligible Costs — TischlerBise will
important development fee requirements are met, identify costs that are not eligible for inclusion
collectively referred to as rational nexus requirements: in the IIP and development fees. Ineligible
demonstration of impact, benefit, and proportionality. costs include projects not included in the IIP;
repair, maintenance, or operation of existing
Meetings: facilities; projects which serve existing
Two (2) meetings with Town staff to discuss capital development in order to meet stricter
facility needs and levels-of-service. regulatory requirements; projects which
Deliverables: provide a higher level-of-service to existing
Technical Memorandum Discussing Recommended development; and administrative,
Service Areas by Fee Category. maintenance, and operating costs.
Task 4: Identify Capital Needs and Costs As part of calculating the fee, costs for infrastructure
improvements, real properly, financing, engineering,
This task will determine the relevant capital needs and and architectural services will be considered.
costs due to growth.
TischlerBise will consider all of these components in
• Long-Range Capital Need—TischlerBise will developing an equitable allocation of costs.
focus on relevant documents such as relevant
master plans, relevant development Meetings:
agreements, the current Capital Two(2)meetings with Town staff.
Improvements Plan, and other mapping and Deliverables:
data that is available. Discussions will aim not See Task 5
only to understand the specific costs, but also
to assess the size and scope of projects and
whether capital facility needs are due to
normal replacement, catch-up, or new
demand.
21
TischlerBise
Task 5: Discuss Preliminary Methodologies and • Reserve Capacity — The HP will identify
Policy Options infrastructure capacity to be reserved to serve
The requirement that development fees be based on an future development.
IIP does not equate to a requirement that only the plan- • Description of Existing Necessary Public
based methodology can be used in the calculations. The Services in the Service Area(s) — The IIP will
IIP can reflect the past capacity investments in include a description of the existing "necessary
infrastructure that will be repaid by new development with public services" in the service area(s) and the
development fee revenue. Likewise, the Town can plan costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand,
to provide new development the same level-of-service correct, or replace those services to meet
being currently provided to existing development. existing needs and usage and stricter safety,
TischlerBise will evaluate different allocation efficiency, environmental, and regulatory
methodologies for each IIP and development fee standards.
component to determine which methodology is the most • Analysis of Total Capacity - The IIP will
appropriate measure of the demand created by new identify the current usage and commitments for
development. As discussed under the Project Approach, usage of capacity of the existing "necessary
these methodologies include the cost recovery, public services."
incremental expansion and plan-based approaches.
■ Description of "Necessary Public Services"
This comprehensive approach and consideration of Attributable to New Development — The IIP
alternative methodologies will allow maximization of the will describe all parts of the "necessary public
development fees. TischlerBise to prepare draft levels-of- services" of facility expansions and their costs
service tables and methodology recommendations for necessitated by and attributable to development
each infrastructure category and component. We will in the service area(s) based on the approved
discuss this information with Town staff to ensure land use assumptions. Cost forecasts will
understanding and acceptance. Policy alternatives will be include the costs of infrastructure improvements,
discussed as appropriate. This should help ensure "sign- real property, financing, engineering, and
off'and prevent time delays in finalizing the analysis. architectural services.
Meetings: • Equivalency/Conversion Table — The IIP will
One (1) meeting with Town staff and Town Council (if include a table establishing the specific level or
desired) to discuss and explain the preliminary findings, quantity of use, consumption, or generation of a
assumptions, and results. service unit for each category of "necessary
Deliverables: public services" or facility expansions. The table
TischlerBise will prepare a "story board" for staff review will include the ratio of a service unit to various
and comment detailing proposed levels-of-service, cost types of residential, commercial, and industrial
estimates, service areas, credits and recommended
land uses.
calculation methodologies. • Projected Service Units — The IIP will include
Task 6: Prepare Draft and Final Land Use the total number of projected service units
Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvements Plan necessitated by and attributable to new
(IIP) development in the service area(s), based on
the approved land use assumptions.
In this task, TischlerBise's qualified professionals will
prepare an IIP using generally accepted engineering and • Projected Demand for Necessary Public
planning practices for each "necessary public service"for Services — The IIP will include a ten-year
which a development fee can be assessed. Development projection of the demand for "necessary public
of the IIP will include the following subtasks: services" or facility expansions required by new
service units.
22
TischlerBise
• Forecast of Non-Development Fee Revenues Deliverables:
from New Service Units —The IIP will forecast Memoranda as appropriate. See Task 10.
revenues other than development fees Task 8: Conduct Funding and Cash Flow Analysis;
generated by new service units, such as state- Estimate Annual Operating Costs
shared revenue, highway user revenue, federal
revenue, ad valorem property taxes, In order to prepare a meaningful IIP, it is important to
construction contracting or similar excise taxes, evaluate the anticipated funding sources. In this task,
and the capital recovery portion of utility fees TischlerBise will prepare a ten-year cash flow analysis.
attributable to development based on the This calculation will allow the Town to better understand
approved land use assumptions. This subtask the revenue potential of the development fees and the
will include a plan to include these contributions amount which would be needed if the fees were
in determining the extent of the burden created discounted. It will also provide a good understanding of
the cash flow needed to cover the infrastructure costs for
by new development.
new development. The cash flow analysis will indicate
These subtasks will result in a written plan that identifies whether additional funds might be needed or whether the
each"necessary public service" or facility expansion that IIP might need to be altered. This could also affect the
is to be the subject of a development fee and complies total credits calculated in the previous task. Therefore, it
with the requirements of State law. is likely that a number of iterations will be conducted in
Meetings: order to refine the cash flow analysis reflecting the capital
One (1) meeting with Town staff to discuss the Draft improvement needs. Development fee revenues can only
Report. Two (2) presentations/worksessions with the be spent on capital projects that add capacity. Operating
Town Council to present and discuss Land Use and maintenance costs associated with these capital
Assumptions, and Infrastructure Improvements Plan as improvements will have to be funded from other revenue
part of the legislatively required adoption process. sources, mostly likely from the General Fund. To
estimate the annual operational and maintenance costs
Deliverables: of the projected infrastructure, TischlerBise will utilize
Draft and Final Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure several data sources, including:
Improvement Plan.
■ Most recently adopted operating budget.
Task 7: Determine Need for Credits to be Applied
Against Capital Costs • Most recently adopted CIP.
A consideration of"credits"is integral to the development • Capital project/program submittal sheets from
of a legally valid development fee methodology. There is departments.
considerable confusion among those who are not Meetings:
immersed in development fee law about the definition of None.
a credit and why it may be required.
There are two types of "credits" that are included in the Deliverables:
calculation of development fees, each with specific, See Task 10.
distinct characteristics. The first is a credit due to Task 9: Complete Development Fee Methodology and
possible double payment situations. This could occur Calculations
when a property owner will make future contributions The completion of the previous task will enable the
toward the capital costs of a public facility covered by a development fee methodology and calculations to be
development fee. The second is a credit toward the finalized. TischlerBise will calculate the maximum
payment of a development fee for the required justifiable development fee for commercial, residential,
dedication of public sites and improvements provided by and industrial development that can be charged and
the developer and for which the development fee is conform to fee requirements.
imposed. Both types of credits will be considered and
addressed in the development fee study. Meetings:
None.
23
TischlerBise
Deliverables:
Draft Development Fee Report. • An IIP spanning a maximum ten-year planning
horizon, listing projects, costs, timing, and
Task 10: Prepare Final Land Use Assumptions, IIP financing.
and Development Fee Report
• A detailed schedule of all proposed fees listed
TischlerBise will prepare a written report for the Town by land use type and activity.
that summarizes the need for development fees for the
"necessary public services" category and the relevant • Other information which adequately explains
methodologies employed, as well as documentation for and justifies the resulting recommended fee
all assumptions and cost factors. The report will include schedule.
at a minimum the following information: Meetings:
• Executive Summary. One (1) presentations/worksessions with the Town
Council to present and discuss final Development Fee
■ A detailed description of the methodologies Report and IIP as part of the legislatively required
used during the study. adoption process.
• A detailed description of all level-of-service Deliverables:
standards and cost factors used and Final Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee
accompanying rationale. Report and presentation materials for meetings.
24
TischlerBise
•
Project Schedule
The table below indicates our proposed schedule for this assignment, assuming a start date in November. We will
devote the necessary resources to meet a March 2019 completion date.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE-LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS,IIP AND DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY
Tasks Anticipated Dates Meetings' 1 Meetings/Deliverables
I
Task 1:Project Initiation/Data Acquisition December,2018 1 Data Request Memorandum
Task 2:Develop Land Use Assumptions December,2018 1* Land Use Assumptions Document
Task 3:Ascertain Demand Factors and LOS for December,2018-January,2019 2 Technical Memorandum Discussing
"Necessary Public Services" Recommended Service Areas by Fee
Task 4:Identify Capital Needs and Costs December,2018-January,2019 2* See Task 5
Task 5:Discuss Preliminary Methodologies and February,2019 1 "Storyboard"Presention Outlining
Policy Options Preliminary Methodologies and Policy
Task 6:Prepare Draft and Final Land Use February,2019 1 Draft Land Use Assumptions and
Assumptions and IIP Infrastructure Improvement Plan
Task 7:Determine Need for Credits January,2019 0 Memoranda as Appropriate.See Task 4
Task 8:Conduct Funding and Cash Flow Analysis; February,2019 0 See Task 10
Estimate Annual Operating Costs
Task 9:Complete Development Fee Methodologies February,2019 0 Draft Development Fee Report
and Calculations
Task 10:Prepare Final Land Use Assumptions,IIP March,2019 1 Final Land Use Assumptions,IIP and
and Development Fee Report Development Fee Report
Publish Land Use Assumptions and IIP on Town April,2019 0 Land Use Assumptions and IIP Document
Website
Public Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and IIP early June,2019 1 Presentation Materials as Appropriate
Approve Land Use Assumptions and IIP mid July,2019 1 Final Land Use Assumptions and IIP
Publish Development Fee Report on Town Website mid-July,2019 0 Development Fee Report
Public Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and IIP mid-August,2019 1 Presentation Materials as Appropriate
Approve Development Fee Report early September,2019 0 Final Development Fee Report
New Development Fees go into Effect mid-December,2019 0 N/A
*In several cases it is assumed meetings are held with multiple departments over one(1)trip.
Tischle Bise 25
Project Management Approach 3. Third, we will actively manage, the project
TischlerBise utilizes a project management process process. Mr. Bise and Ms. Herlands both have
which ensures that our projects are completed on time, a long history of past project successes (we
within budget, and most importantly, that they yield encourage you to contact our references
results that match our clients' expectations. Our project regarding this aspect) that are supported by
management plan utilizes the following principles strong project management skills. Mr. Bise will
common to successful projects: manage the work in progress, provide guidance
and oversight to staff, and will be accountable to
1. First, we begin by defining the project to be you for meeting the schedule, budget, and
completed. Based on discussions that occur as technical requirements of the project.
part of our Project Initiation task, Carson Bise
will identify the project goals and objectives in 4. Finally, we will review all project deliverables
collaboration with Town staff, list potential and communication through a formal quality
challenges to the process, and develop a plan to assurance process that requires review at the
ensure successful outcomes and effective peer level, project manager level, and chief
communication. executive officer level. Prior to the delivery of
work product to you and staff, deliverables will
2. Second, we will plan the project schedule. As go through a structured quality assurance
part of the Project Initiation task, Mr. Bise will process involving up to three levels of review
work with Town staff to create an agreed-upon and utilizing a formal checklist tool. The first
timetable to meet the project schedule. Prior to level involves a peer-to-peer review of work
beginning the project, Mr. Bise will assign roles products and computer models. Next, Mr. Bise
that will ensure that the project schedule is met will be responsible for the second set of reviews
on time and within budget. comparing the work product to the completed
quality checklist form.
26
TischlerBise
Project Pricing
The following table presents our proposed project fee schedule for this assignment and encompasses the tasks, our
anticipated number of meetings, and anticipated deliverables. Please note this is a fixed fee, not-to-exceed, proposal
and includes direct expenses related to the project.
PROPOSED FEE-INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Project Team Member: Bise Herlands Griffin Total
Hourly Rate* $215 $195 $175 Hours Cost
Task:Project Initiation/Data Acquisition 16 0 0 16 $3,440
Task:Prepare Land Use Assumptions 4 8 24 36 $6,620
Task:Prepare Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and Development Fee 8 24 32 64 $12,000
Task:Prepare Street Facilities IIP and Development Fee 32 4 24 60 $11,860
Task:Prepare Fire Facilities IIP and Development Fee 16 4 24 44 $8,420
Task:Presentations 32 0 4 36 $7,580
Total Cost: 108 40 108 256 $49,920
*Hourly rates are inclusive of all costs,including travel.
27 TischlerBise
Aok. • ' •
' •
•
*'9 , •
• •
1?„ , ' t, , ' •
• "Wlyk
' • /Tr '
.4 • - -• •
• t
.V.1:',"‘;6}?';',.• • 0 `
• •
•".
•
A, •
,;,;
Principle Office
4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S24C)
Bethesda, MD 20816
301 .320.6900 x 12 (w) I 301 .320.,1860 (1)
carson@tischlerbise.com
I