Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 760.777.7000 November 30, 2018 Jason Moody, Managing Principal Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Development Impact Fee Study Update Proposal Dear Mr. Moody: Thank you for your proposal for the development impact fee study update. We are pleased to have the attention of firms with your qualifications propose on projects within the City of La Quinta. Unfortunately, another firm was selected to provide the development impact fee study update as identified on the request for proposals (RFP). We appreciate the time and effort your team invested in your proposal and encourage you to submit work proposals in the future. Sincerely, Bryan McKinney City Engineer cc: Danny Castro Design and Development Director Project File Work Proposal La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update Prepared for: City of La Quinta Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. October 15, 2018 EPS #184031 October 15, 2018 Bryan McKinney, PE City Engineer, Design and Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Work Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study Update for the City of La Quinta Dear Mr. McKinney: On behalf of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), I am pleased to submit this response to the request for proposals (RFP) to conduct a Development Impact Fee Study Update and propose Development Impact Fees for the City of La Quinta. Founded in 1983, EPS is a land use economic consulting firm with offices in Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, and Denver. The firm has completed numerous development impact fee nexus studies for jurisdictions throughout California. Our broad public finance practice allows us to consider how development impact fees can complement other financing mechanisms and resources. We also apply our real estate economic practice to ensure fee programs effectively balance the need for quality public facilities with the feasibility of new development. EPS proposes a multi-phased work plan that includes a sequence of project milestones designed to gain concurrence on the key building blocks of the fee program at key points in the study process. In the first phase, EPS will work collaboratively with the City to develop the project parameters and a strategy for navigating the entire process. The second phase includes the key tasks and technical analysis associated with calculating the preliminary maximum fees for each of the fee categories. The third and final phase is focused on the economic feasibility, determining final fee levels and program implementation and administrative considerations. As the leader of the EPS team, I am personally committed to the success of this engagement. Formation of development impact fee programs and related policy to support infrastructure and capital facility needs for local governments has long been a specialty of mine. I will participate in a hands-on manner in this project, extensively involved in the analytical effort and readily available for face-to-face meetings or by phone. Bryan McKinney October 15, 2018 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions about our submittal. As always, we are happy to discuss modifications to the scope that better suit your needs. I can be reached at 510-841-9190 or by e-mail at jmoody@epsys.com. Sincerely, ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC. Jason Moody Managing Principal One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 510-841-9190 jmoody@epsys.com Table of Contents 1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ............................................................................. 1 Selected Project Profiles ............................................................................................ 3 Staffing ................................................................................................................... 6 2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH .................................................................. 10 Project Understanding ............................................................................................. 10 Study Approach ...................................................................................................... 10 3. SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................ 12 4. WORK SCHEDULE ............................................................................................... 16 5. REQUIRED FORMS AND DOCUMENTATION .................................................................... 18 Conflicts of Interest ................................................................................................. 18 Insurance .............................................................................................................. 18 List of Tables Table 1 Representative EPS Impact Fee and Nexus Studies in California .............................. 2 Table 2 Project Milestones and Proposed Schedule ......................................................... 16 Table 3 Detailed Proposed Work Schedule ..................................................................... 17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx 1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE EPS is a land economics consulting firm experienced in the full spectrum of services related to real estate development, the financing of government services and public infrastructure, and land use planning. EPS’s areas of expertise include the following: Public Finance and Development Impact Fees Housing Policy and Affordable Housing Programs Fiscal Impact Analysis Economic Impact Analysis Development Negotiations Support Land Use Planning and Growth Management Real Estate Market and Feasibility Analysis Regional Economics and Industry Analysis Since 1983 EPS has provided consulting services to hundreds of public and private sector clients in California and throughout the United States. Clients include cities, counties, special districts, multi-jurisdictional authorities, property owners, developers, financial institutions, and land use attorneys. The firm excels in preparing concise analyses that disclose risks and impacts, support decision making, and provide solutions to real estate development and land use-related problems. Our balanced portfolio of clients allows us to understand and incorporate both public and private sector needs and perspectives. Impact Fee Services As part of its broader public finance practice, EPS prepares development impact fee studies and programs for cities, counties, special districts, and private sector clients. EPS’s impact fee-related products and services range from single-purpose fees focusing on particular facilities or sub- areas to more comprehensive, multi-improvement programs spanning entire cities or numerous jurisdictions. A representative list of the recently completed development impact fee analyses is shown in Table 1 below, with selected project profiles described later in this section. It is worth noting that EPS also prepares special purpose development impact and in-lieu fees for items that do not fall into the traditional category of “infrastructure” (e.g., affordable housing and habitat mitigation) and may be adopted under the jurisdiction’s police power or other mechanisms rather than AB 1600. By way of example, EPS has extensive experience with inclusionary housing ordinances and fee programs, having crafted both for many California jurisdictions over more than 20 years. EPS has also developed a strong practice crafting habitat mitigation fees, including recent work on the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Whatever the type or basis for the fee, the EPS approach accounts for the interplay between legal developments and the policy and economic environment, while considering the overarching political context on which successful implementation will hinge. La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update and Proposal of Development Impact Fees EPS Proposal 10.15.18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx Table 1 Representative EPS Impact Fee and Nexus Studies in California Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Programs Area Development Impact Fees Burbank Public Facilities Nexus Study Mountain View North Bayshore Traffic and Utility Impact Fee Fairfield Capital Facility Fee Santa Rosa SW and SE Development Impact Fee Updates Turlock Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Sacramento North Natomas Financing Plan, and Nexus Study Newark Public Facilities Impact Fee Study Napa Big Ranch Road Area Development Impact Fee Madera Public Facilities Impact Fee Study Woodland Major Projects Financing Plan and Fee Nexus Study Union City Capital Facilities Program and Fee Turlock Westside Industrial Specific Plan Fee Nexus Study Alameda Capital Facilities Fee Program Sacramento Railyards Infrastructure Financing Plan & Nexus Study Santa Rosa Capital Facilities Fee Turlock East Area Specific Area Plan Fee South San Francisco Public Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study Yuba East Linda Specific Plan Road and Park Fee Update Westminster Comprehensive Impact Fee Study Elk Grove Laguna South Public Facilities Fee Program Calistoga Comprehensive Impact Fee Nexus Study Yuba County Plumas Lake / North Arboga Road Fee Nexus Study Antioch Public Facilities and Transportation Nexus Study Eastern Elk Grove Park and Fire Fee Nexus Study Martinez Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Affordable Housing Residential Nexus Studies Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Program San Bruno Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Solano County Comprehensive Impact Fee Study Newport Beach Housing In-Lieu Fee Fresno Comprehensive Impact Fee Study Sonoma County Workforce Housing Linkage Study West Covina Public Facilities Fee Program Pleasanton Lower Income Housing Fee San Luis Obispo Infrastructure Financing Analysis Palm Desert Affordable Housing Linkage Fee Transportation Development Impact Fees Santa Rosa Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Fresno Major Street Impact Fee Nexus Study Mountain View Affordable Housing Nexus Analysis Grass Valley Traffic Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Rohnert Park Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Dublin Downtown Transportation Impact Fee Update Sunnyvale Affordable Housing Nexus Study East Contra Costa Regional Transportation Impact Fee Habitat Conservation Fee Studies San Joaquin Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Coachella Valley Regional Transportation Fee Program North Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan (City of Sacramento) Solano County Regional Transportation Fee Program San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Ukiah Regional Transportation Fee Los Osos Habitat Conservation Plan (San Luis Obispo County) Cupertino Traffic Impact Fee & Nexus Study East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan West Los Angeles Regional Transportation Nexus Study Development Fee Program Review Martinez Road and Parks Impact Fee Study Mammoth Lakes Development Impact Fee Review Santa Cruz County TIF Review and Recommendations La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update and Proposal of Development Impact Fees EPS Proposal 10.15.18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx Selected Project Profiles CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley, California The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) was seeking to update its Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), a one-time charge on new development to cover the cost of new regional transportation improvements designed to serve ten jurisdictions in central Riverside County. EPS was retained by CVAG to prepare a Nexus Report to update the TUMF as well as assist with on-going administration and implementation protocol. Working the transportation and civil engineering consultants, EPS updated nexus study based on based on new land use growth assumptions and a prioritized project list. In addition to regional serving arterial improvement, the project list included bicycle, pedestrian, and low speed electric vehicle (LSEV) networks designed to provide a multimodal compliment and/or alternative to automobiles. EPS also provided guidance related to applicable land use categories and exemptions, cost escalation, and other matters that were ultimately codified in a TUMF manual. As part of this effort, EPS participated in numerous stakeholder outreach efforts, including multiple presentations to the CVAG Executive Committee. Reference Eric Cowle, Transportation Program Manager Coachella Association of Governments 760-346-1127 ecowle@cvag.org West Covina Public Facilities Fee Program West Covina, California The City of West Covina was interested in the study and potential establishment of development impact fees as a method to help fund the costs of new capital facility demands associated with new development within the City. In particular, the City, which at the time did not have any development impact fees, was interested in police, fire, parks and recreation, and city administrative development impact fees. EPS worked closely with the City’s Planning Department and staff from the City’s Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works departments to conduct the necessary nexus analysis consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act. This analysis involved identifying capital improvements, and costs, determining the appropriate allocation to new development and, finally, determining the maximum development impact fee. Subsequent to City Council presentations and direction and after a comparison of proposed fees to fees in neighboring judisdictions, EPS prepared the nexus study that supported the adoption of the fees by City Council in 2015. Reference Jeff Anderson, Planning Director City of West Covina 626-939-8422 jeff.anderson@westcovina.org La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update and Proposal of Development Impact Fees EPS Proposal 10.15.18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx Burbank Capital Facilities Fee Update Burbank, California The City of Burbank sought to update its existing development impact fees and investigate the addition of several new fee categories. While the City’s traditional residential neighborhoods had approached build-out, the commercial and industrial areas were experiencing significant growth pressures driven by the City’s competitive attributes in a thriving regional economy. Meanwhile, the City’s old fee structure was based on outdated growth assumptions, which would have failed to capture “fair share” fiscal contributions from high-growth development sectors—primarily, media studio, multifamily residential, and lodging. Finally, the City was interested in the feasibility of expanded fee categories to address its evolving capital facilities needs (e.g., information technology, childcare, affordable housing). EPS worked closely with the City’s Community Development Department to perform an AB1600 nexus analysis that revised the existing fee program, incorporated new fee categories, and broadly considered financing and economic implications. This work built on an earlier fee program developed by EPS in 2005. In both cases, EPS held workshops with City departments and key stakeholder groups to clarify the goals and standards of the nexus analysis. After calculating the proposed fees, EPS performed a competitiveness analysis, evaluating the existing and proposed total fee burden in Burbank relative to fees in neighboring jurisdictions. Reference Beverly Wong, Senior Administrative Analyst City of Burbank 818-238-5262 BWong@burbankca.gov Westminster Development Impact Fee Study Westminster, California The City of Westminster was seeking to approve and implement a development impact fee program to ensure that the City can provide adequate public facilities and infrastructure as it continues to grow. Based on a recently approved General Plan, the City was expecting significant growth in the years to come but did not have an impact fee program in place to help pay for necessary infrastructure investments. EPS was part of a team hired to prepare a Capital Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study for the City. The study provided the analysis required to establish the nexus-based fee program based on city growth and the cost of associated capital facilities, including transportation, park and recreation, public safety, and other public facilities. For political reasons, the City ultimately elected to develop two separate fee programs, one for parks and recreation and the other for all other facilities. EPS prepared a draft nexus study that calculated the maximum allowable development impact fee consistent with the requirements of AB 1600. Reference Steve Ratkay, Planning Manager City of Westminster 714-548-3484 sratkay@westminster-ca.gov La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update and Proposal of Development Impact Fees EPS Proposal 10.15.18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx San Luis Obispo Impact Fee, Infrastructure Financing, and Economic Development San Luis Obispo, California The City of San Luis Obispo had eight approved impact fee programs: transportation, water, wastewater, affordable housing, public art, two park programs, and airport-area open space. In some cases, the level of these fees varied considerably by area of the City and/or exceeded typical feasibility standards. The City was anticipating the preparation of a new AB1600 nexus study based on the infrastructure improvements identified in its Land Use and Circulation Element update. In advance of preparing a new fee study, the City sought advisory services to review its current development impact fee program and evaluate and understand the implications for economic development in the City. EPS created a series of informative study sessions for the San Luis Obispo City Council that focused on the purpose and intent of development impact fees, all aspects of preparing, adopting and administering a fee program, and the typical benefits and concerns associated with fee programs. The study sessions were supplemented with information about other available methods of infrastructure financing. Particular attention was paid to the key issues identified in the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan, including the need to overcome the substantial challenges of funding infrastructure investment in new Specific Plan growth areas and reducing barriers to creating head of household jobs. Reference Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 805-781-7274 xfowler@slocity.org Western Riverside Analysis of Development Fees and Impacts on Economic Development Western Riverside County, California The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), a Joint Powers Authority between seventeen cities, Riverside County, and other public agencies, oversees regional transportation investments, including the TUMF (Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program). The TUMF was adopted in 2004 in conjunction with a new County General Plan, a Regional Transportation Plan, and a Habitat Conservation Plan. In combination with a regional sales tax measure and other State and federal funding sources, the TUMF has helped fund an extensive of array of transportation improvements throughout Western Riverside County over the last twelve years. Despite this success, the Great Recession and ongoing concerns over the feasibility of new private development in the area resulted in a debate over the utility and role of the TUMF, especially as fee increases were being contemplated to account for the increasing costs of infrastructure over time. EPS conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the program to inform the WRCOG Board and its member jurisdictions about the benefits and costs of the program. This included a regional fee comparison effort considering development fees in Western Riverside County jurisdictions as well as peer and competitor jurisdictions in San Bernardino County, Orange County, San Diego County, and the Coachella Valley. EPS also evaluated the role of development impact fees in the overall development economics of new residential and industrial projects in Western Riverside County, and articulated the economic development implications of investments in regional transportation infrastructure. La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update and Proposal of Development Impact Fees EPS Proposal 10.15.18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx Western Riverside Analysis of Development Fees and Impacts on Economic Development Western Riverside County, California Reference Chris Gray, Director Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) 951-405-6710 cgray@wrcog.us Staffing The role and background of the proposed EPS staff for this project are summarized below, with detailed staff resumes on the following pages: Jason Moody, Managing Principal, will serve as the EPS Project Lead, providing hands-on technical direction and availability for all meetings and client communication. Jason has led many impact fee studies throughout California, including in Burbank, Westminster, Coachella Valley, Pleasanton, and Turlock. Jason has also worked extensively in Riverside County and elsewhere along the I-10 corridor. Michael Nimon, Vice President, will serve as a technical advisor for the project. Michael has worked on fee studies in various jurisdictions including West Los Angeles, Calistoga, Pleasanton, Antioch, Fairfield, and South San Francisco and has sophisticated analytical and modeling skills. Julie Cooper, Senior Associate, will serve as the Project Manager and Technical Analyst. Julie will provide day-to-day organizational support between EPS and the City to ensure the tasks are completed with high quality and in a timely manner. She will also assist with financial analysis for the project, bringing technical expertise in land use economics. Julie is based in the EPS L.A. office and has four years of land use and economic development consulting experience. Additional staff in EPS’s Oakland and Los Angeles offices will assist with research and analysis tasks as needed. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 The Economics of Land Use 510.841.9190 jmoody@epsys.com www.epsys.com Jason Moody Managing Principal Education Master of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, 1995 Bachelor of Arts in Economics, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1988 Previous Employment Budget Analyst for City of San Francisco (1995) Research Analyst, Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics (1994–5) Business Analyst, Port Authority of New York/New Jersey (1994) Print Media Journalist, States News Service, Washington, DC (1989–1992) Affiliations International Downtown Association San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association International Economic Development Council Publications / Presentations “Town Centers: Typologies and Policy Directions,” Bay Area Planning Directors Association (BAPDA), Spring 2017 Meeting “Building Livable Communities with Transit: Making the Case with Data,” Rail-Volution 2016 Annual Conference “Innovation Districts,” 2016 National APA Conference “Urban-Suburbia,” Urban Land, October 2008. “Transit Joint Development,” with Bruce Appleyard, Urban Land, August 2007. “The Town and Gown,” Economic Development Journal, Fall 2004. “Spontaneous Research Districts,” Association of University Related Research Parks conference paper. ABOUT Jason Moody has been with EPS since 1995. Jason has extensive professional experience in the areas of public finance, real estate market and financial analysis, redevelopment, and regional economics. Jason has substantial experience developing comprehensive financing and implementation plans for public facilities and infrastructure and has managed numerous successful development impact fee programs throughout California. SELECTED PROJECT MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE Burbank Development Impact Fee Program Jason managed development of a comprehensive capital facilities fee program, including park and recreation, transportation, affordable housing and other public facilities, for the City of Burbank. Westminster Development Impact Fee Program EPS is currently conducting a comprehensive impact fee Nexus Study for the City of Westminster that includes transportation, park and recreation, public safety and other public facilities. Turlock Capital Facilities Fee Program Jason developed a capital facilities fee program, covering a wide range of infrastructure improvements, including parks and recreation, transportation, and government buildings that was approved by the City of Turlock in 2014. Madera Capital Facilities Program Jason managed development of a comprehensive capital facilities fee program, including a traffic component, for the City of Madera that was approved by the Council. Newark Development Impact Fee Program Jason managed development of a comprehensive capital facilities fee program, including a traffic component, for the City of Newark that was approved by the Council. Martinez Development Impact Fee Program Jason managed development of a comprehensive capital facilities fee program for the City of Martinez that was approved by the Council. CVAG Regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Jason completed a nexus study to update the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) regional transportation fee program serving 11 jurisdictions. EPS also assisted with implementation and administrative protocol, including land use categories and exemptions, cost escalation, and other factors. The update was approved in 2018. 7 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 The Economics of Land Use 510.841.9190 mnimon@epsys.com www.epsys.com Michael Nimon Vice President Education Master of Business Administration in Real Estate, Florida State University (in progress) Master of Urban and Regional Planning, San Jose State University (2011) Bachelor of Science in Management Science (Economics and Finance), University of California, San Diego (2005) Previous Employment Associate, Grubb & Ellis (2005-2006) Intern, San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation (2005) Leadership Board of Directors Member, Diablo Hills Home Owners Association, 2012-2016 term ABOUT Michael Nimon is a land-use economist and has been with EPS since 2006. He has professional experience in the areas of infrastructure financing, financial feasibility, affordable housing, fiscal impact, economic, and market analysis studies, major site reuse, negotiations support, as well as prior experience in commercial real estate and financial modeling. SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Hollywood Community Plan Transportation Fee EPS teamed with a transportation engineering firm to assist the City of LA evaluate the economic implications of a transportation fee program, focusing on ATP and transit facilities, as part of the Hollywood Community Plan. West L.A. Mobility Plan EPS teamed with a transportation engineering firm to assist the City of LA evaluate the economic implications of various fee levels as part of the West LA Mobility Study. Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study EPS prepared a comprehensive capital facilities fee program, including park and recreation, transportation, affordable housing and other public facilities. The study also compared the maximum fees to surrounding communities to assess market implications. Antioch Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Prepared a citywide development impact fee for the City of Antioch to cover a complete range of infrastructure and capital facilities. Different fees were developed for different land uses to fund critical public investments, including general government, public works, police, and parks. Fairfield Capital Facilities Fee Program Participated in the citywide fee update study along with establishing an area development impact fee for the City's primary new growth area. The work included an update the citywide fees for traffic improvements and parks and recreation improvements in light of the changing real estate conditions as well as the need to ensure necessary infrastructure. Calistoga Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Project manager for the fee update of the City’s public facilities, affordable housing, and parking in lieu fees. Completed a set of nexus studies providing technical and organizational support for establishing the nexus for a range of costs based on the City’s growth expectations, capital needs, and public policy goals. 8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 949 S. Hope Street, Suite 103 Los Angeles, CA 90015 The Economics of Land Use 213.489.3838 jcooper@epsys.com www.epsys.com Julie Cooper Senior Associate Education Master of Public Policy, Harris Public Policy at the University of Chicago, 2014 Certificate in Municipal Finance Bachelor of Arts, International Studies, University of Chicago, 2007 Previous Employment Associate, Development Strategies, Saint Louis, MO (2014-2018) Director of Public Relations, Israel Government Tourist Office Midwest Region, Chicago, IL (2008-2012) ABOUT Julie Cooper joined EPS as a Senior Associate in 2018, bringing professional experience in land use, economic, and community development consulting. She has provided strategic planning services for a variety of public, private, and institutional clients, including analysis of market and economic conditions, development feasibility and fiscal impact modeling, and policy recommendations. She also has extensive experience in stakeholder and community engagement. Before joining EPS, Julie served as an Associate at Development Strategies, a St. Louis-based consulting firm. SELECTED PROJECT AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Olive Corridor Catalyst Sites Strategy and Developer Solicitation and Negotiation The City of Olivette, an inner-ring suburb of St. Louis, engaged Development Strategies to analyze the market potential for development on two catalyst sites along its main east-west corridor. The firm tested a number of development types on each site and advised the City on which uses would be most successful and generate the most public benefit in terms of municipal revenues and community needs. The plan included recommendations for the establishment of TIF and CID districts along the corridor, which would leverage the value of future development to raise funds for desired public improvements on the corridor. Subsequently, Development Strategies served as an advisor to the City during its solicitation of developers for the sites and negotiations with interested parties. This included drafting RFPs, reviewing proposals and conducting third-party assessment of developer pro formas, participating directly with discussions with developers, and preparing necessary documents for the formation of financing districts. As Project Manager, Julie was involved in all parts of the project, including conducting market, feasibility, and fiscal impact analysis; writing RFPs; evaluating developer proposals; and presenting findings to city staff and elected officials. South Clarksville Redevelopment Plan The town of Clarksville, Indiana is located along the Ohio River, with waterfront views of Downtown Louisville. Development Strategies was hired as part of a team of designers, planners, and engineers to create a strategic plan for the redevelopment of a large industrial property along the town’s riverfront. The firm was tasked with analyzing market demand for a variety of land uses and the potential municipal revenues that could be generated through redevelopment. The firm concluded that the site and market were best positioned to accommodate the development of a mixed-use town center. As the project’s primary analyst, Julie was responsible for the study’s market supply and demand analysis, feasibility analysis for recommended development types, and municipal revenue projections. 9 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx 2.PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH Project Understanding The City of La Quinta’s Development Impact Fee Program was last updated in February 2013. This update was based on the information contained in the City’s 2035 General Plan Update, including projections of the development potential of all of the City’s undeveloped land. As it has done several times over the past twenty years, the City is requesting a review and update of its fee program in order to ensure that the current fees are still sufficient to support the infrastructure needed to serve the City’s projected growth. The study update will include, at minimum, a review of the following existing fees: 1.Transportation Improvements 2.Parks and Recreational Facilities 3.Civic Center 4.Libraries 5.Community Center Facilities 6.Maintenance Facilities 7.Fire Protection Facilities There will also be an option for the study to include an evaluation of implementing a new impact fee for future drainage improvements, as well as consideration of additional fees not currently included in the City’s fee program. Study Approach EPS’s approach to development impact fee programs is based on a firm grasp of the Mitigation Fee Act statutory requirements, broader public financing issues and options, and economic conditions and limitations, as well as administrative and institutional considerations. EPS combines sound technical analysis grounded in legally defensible nexus arguments with economic implications, consideration of the concerns of various stakeholders, and policy direction from the client (e.g., City staff and elected officials). We endeavor to ensure that our analytical process clearly distinguishes between policy issues and technical analysis, and deliverables are clear and well documented. Our proposed study effort is designed to culminate in a comprehensive fee program that meets the following key objectives: Legally defensible. The fees must be developed and implemented in a fashion that complies with applicable State law, including meeting all applicable nexus requirements. The fees should be based on explicit growth and cost assumptions and sound nexus arguments that ensure the types of facilities and the costs of the facilities are directly attributable to benefiting land uses. Financially effective. Developed fees should provide sufficient means to help successfully fund the new and improved capital facilities identified through the study effort. La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update and Proposal of Development Impact Fees EPS Proposal 10.15.18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx Economically and politically feasible. The fees developed in this process should be set at a level that is politically and economically acceptable. This should include careful consideration of fees in peer cities and incorporate input from key stakeholders active in the real estate market. Easily administrated. As a practical matter, a fee program should not create unnecessary burdens on either City staff and/or project applicants (e.g., developers or property owners) from an administrative perspective. For example, the scope of the fee (who pays and how much) should be relatively easy to determine and implement. Our basic methodology involves a series of analytical tasks to develop a schedule of maximum fees, by land use category, which are justifiable based on the Mitigation Fee Act. The maximum allowable fee levels then act as a starting point for review and discussion concerning fee levels and program implementation, recognizing there are a number of economic and policy considerations that inform fee program decisions beyond the specifics of the technical work. From past experience, we have found that the technical analysis can be conducted much more efficiently and effectively if there is fundamental agreement on key principles, parameters, and objectives. Accordingly, EPS proposes a phased approach to this study that is linked to key project milestones and deliverables that are presented for review and input by the City and other stakeholders. Of course, throughout the study, we will remain flexible and able to adapt to changes in policy direction and circumstances that might arise. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx 3.SCOPE OF WORK This section details key phases and tasks that EPS proposes to undertake for this study. Phase I: Establish Study Parameters, Background Data, and Methodology Phase I is designed to identify the basic parameters of the fee programs, develop agreement on key data and methodological approaches, and outline a process for resolving the key issues that arise. It will set the stage for the nexus calculations to follow, ensuring that they are undertaken in a manner consistent with the expectations and objectives of the City. The key tasks in this phase include the following: Task 1.1: Initial Strategy Sessions, Kick-off Meeting, and Department Interviews Early on in the study process EPS will participate in meetings and interviews to identify and to the extent possible resolve the foundational issues and overall direction of the study. We anticipate an initial kick-off meeting with the City Team to refine the scope, schedule, and deliverables, as needed; identify key resources and data; establish the study outreach and communication protocol; and identify key technical and policy issues/challenges and to resolve how they will be addressed. This initial kick-off meeting will also address critical policy and implementation issues such as fee credits, land use exemptions, zones of benefit, and other factors, given their potential impact on the methodology and resulting fee calculations. Following the project initiation process, EPS will seek input from City Department staff on long-term capital goals and priorities, service standards, and other factors relevant to the fee program. EPS generally initiates these one-on-one Department meetings with an introductory letter (sent in advance) describing the basic components of an Impact Fee Program and listing the type of information sought from each. Task 1.2: Evaluate existing fee studies and other “foundational” documents EPS will review relevant studies, plans, and related data that will provide foundational inputs into the fee program. Specifically, EPS will gain an understanding of the City’s existing standards, including its 2035 General Plan Update and other conceptual frameworks, and conduct a comprehensive review of the City’s existing development impact fees, rates and charges, prior fee studies, master plans for capital facilities, land use plans, and vacant land inventories. This will include, in particular, a review of the updated Citywide Transportation Deficiency Analysis and its impact on eligible transportation infrastructure improvements. Task 1.3: Define Infrastructure Categories and Level of Service Goals Each of the fee categories and associated calculations is based on defined infrastructure projects and improvements that are needed, in part or in whole, to serve new development. These infrastructure needs are typically based on level of service (LOS) standards and/or specific planning documents (e.g., General Plan or Master Plans). LOS standards, in turn, can be based on a variety of factors, including existing service levels (e.g., park acres per 1,000 residents) or established and emerging best practices from comparable cities. In identifying the right LOS for a particular fee, it is important to balance the desire to “aim high” for service provision with funding constraints. While the existing fee studies may provide a good starting point, many of the facilities may no longer apply (e.g., they have been completed) and the supporting La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update and Proposal of Development Impact Fees EPS Proposal 10.15.18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx methodologies must be revisited in light of changing technology, demand for services, and other factors affecting infrastructure needs. Task 1.4: Land Use and Growth Assumptions Working with City staff, EPS will develop the land use growth assumptions and forecasts that will be used to estimate future facility needs and cost allocations, including the following: Land Use Categories: EPS and the City Team will need to define the land use categories for which separate fees will be calculated. As a starting point, it is expected that this categorization will be similar to the land use categories used in the existing fee programs, with an understanding there may be a need for simplification and reconciliation. The land use categories should reflect the types of development the City anticipates but should keep the categories as broad as practicable to ease administration of the fee program. Land Use Growth Assumptions: This task will conclude with a total projection of the amount of development expected to occur for each land use category over the time frame specified. EPS will rely on the City’s 2035 General Plan as a starting point, but will consider additional sources identified by the City. Fee Geography: In some circumstances, a single fee may not fit all circumstances and a system of subarea fees and/or layering may be appropriate (fees that vary by geography). In other circumstances, geographic-based zones may add unnecessary complexity. While the need for subarea fees are technically based, EPS will provide recommendations as to which fees may warrant a zone approach and which are best suited as Citywide. Phase II: Conduct Technical Analysis and Documentation The purpose of this phase is to perform the technical analysis needed to support the fee calculations. The technical analysis will reveal cost analysis, nexus findings, and potential maximum fee levels. Preliminary table sets will be prepared for review by staff and other designated study participants. The work will be guided by the results of Phase I, but also include additional analytical tasks. Task 2.1: Facility Needs and Costs Analysis EPS will generate the list of facilities included in the fee program, by category, based on service standards and the land use growth assumptions developed in Phase I. The baseline scope and budget assume that EPS will work worth City staff to identify facility costs estimates based on our in-house expertise and standard industry sources on unit cost factors. To the extent the City requests more rigorous cost estimates than is normally required for an impact fee program, EPS will work to provide such estimates, but more detailed cost analysis may be subject to additional budget. Task 2.1a: Evaluation of Additional Fee Categories (Optional) If requested by the City, EPS will evaluate the need and costs for a drainage improvement fee, as well as for additional fee categories that may arise in conversations with City staff. As with Task 2.1, it is assumed that EPS will work with City staff to identify facility cost estimates for these additional categories. La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update and Proposal of Development Impact Fees EPS Proposal 10.15.18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx Task 2.2: Facility Cost Allocation A nexus analysis consists of a series of assumptions and calculations that allocate the cost of required infrastructure between the City’s new and existing service populations (e.g., residents and employees) and by land use (e.g., residential and nonresidential). It is based on data and analysis on how residents and employees use various City facilities (e.g., employee demand for park and recreation facilities). While each facility category will likely have different service demand factors, it will be important to maintain consistency with regard to key growth and related land use assumptions. Task 2.3: Preliminary Maximum Allowable Fee Calculation EPS will establish the maximum allowable fee level for each land use by adding up all fees for each facility category. EPS will summarize the fees by improvement type and land use for the City’s review. The fees will include the administrative costs component for the fee program implementation and oversight. The actual approved fee may be less than the maximum based on considerations described in the subsequent tasks. Phase III: Fee Program Documentation and Implementation Protocol The maximum allowable fee levels calculated in Phase II serve as a starting point for review and discussion concerning fee levels and program implementation, recognizing there are a number of economic and policy considerations that inform fee program decisions beyond the specifics of the technical work, including issues related to development feasibility and equity. The purpose of this phase is to integrate the final fee structure with capital planning recommendations in a holistic manner that ties together the LOS analysis as well as the availability of other funding sources. Task 3.1: Fee Comparisons and Economic Analysis The maximum allowable fee levels are only the starting point to the implementation and approval process since decision-makers may ultimately approve a lower fee to advance economic and other policy considerations. Once the preliminary impact fee is derived, EPS will evaluate its impact on local economic development goals. This analysis may result in modifications to the fee program, and perhaps another round of project prioritization. The economic analysis will summarize and compare the total fee burden relative to other benchmark jurisdictions. Task 3.2: Implementation Protocol and Procedures EPS will work closely with the City (and other designated stakeholders) to assist in updating the process for implementing and administrating the fee program, including those elements that are ultimately part of the enabling Ordinance and Resolutions. These elements will include, without limitation, fee collection, cost escalation, and record keeping protocol; fee exemptions; credit and reimbursement provisions (if any); coordination with other City financing mechanisms; and other policy considerations. Task 3.3 Administrative, Draft, and Final Study Documents Once the fee schedule is finalized, EPS will prepare Technical Reports that document the assumptions and methodology and establish the required nexus for creating each fee. For each development fee, EPS will complete a comprehensive background report as well as a technical report that documents study results. Together, the reports will clearly describe the nexus findings and rationale for allocating facility cost to new development. La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update and Proposal of Development Impact Fees EPS Proposal 10.15.18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx EPS will maintain a working database of all documents, interviews, and other resources used in the study. We believe that thorough documentation and transparency is critical to achieving consensus and a successful study outcome. Accordingly, all assumptions and calculations will be clearly sourced, easily replicable, and prepared as user-friendly deliverables. Meetings and Presentations EPS will participate in numerous meetings throughout the study process to ensure City staff, elected officials, and key stakeholders are provided ample opportunities to provide feedback and course correction, as necessary. While a detailed meeting schedule is provided in the subsequent section of this proposal, our general approach is to maintain open lines of communication, clearly document all input, and effectively address and incorporate the information or direction received, as appropriate. Project milestones and checkpoints are set, at which stakeholders are provided the analytic findings and are asked to respond with any questions or comments. Based on direction from stakeholders, further research can be performed and appropriate modifications can be made. Formal scoped meetings will include a kick-off meeting with the City Team, meetings with Department Heads and staff to gather information on facility needs, meetings with key stakeholders including the DVBA and BIA, and monthly meetings with the Project Development Team. In addition, EPS will participate in one (1) Financial Advisory Committee meeting, one (1) City Council study session, and one (1) City Council meeting. Participation in additional formal meetings can be added to the budget if desired by the City. EPS will also be available to speak with City staff as needed throughout the process to discuss progress and address any questions or concerns as they arise. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx 4.WORK SCHEDULE We are suggesting an efficient sequencing of tasks and frequent communication with the City Team. We plan to begin work on December 3, 2018 and aim to complete the Draft Study Report by April 2019 with completion of the final report in June 2019. Table 2 below describes key project milestones and target completion dates for each of the milestones, and Table 3 on the next page provides a detailed schedule of the proposed tasks. EPS is open to refining the timeframe based on the City’s needs, and the EPS Team will make efforts to exceed this timeline with the understanding that time is of the essence for the City. Earlier completion of the technical work will largely depend on coordination of inputs and assumptions with the City. Table 2 Project Milestones and Proposed Schedule Milestone/Deliverable Description Target Date Kick-off Meeting and Department Interviews Kick-Off Meeting One (1) kick-off meeting with City Team December 2018 Informational Meetings Discussions with Department Heads and Staff December 2018 Administrative, Draft, and Final Study Documents Draft Study April 2019 Final Study June 2019 Presentations and Meetings Stakeholder Meetings Two (2) outreach meeting with key stakeholders, including the BIA; the DVBA; and others identified by the City. February 2019 Project Development Team Meetings Monthly meetings with Project Development Team Dec. 2018-June 2019 (one per month) Financial Advisory Committee Meeting One (1) Financial Advisory Committee Meeting February 2019 City Council Study Session One (1) City Council Study Session March 2019 City Council Meeting One (1) City Council Meeting May 2019 La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update and Proposal of Development Impact Fees EPS Proposal 10.15.18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx Table 3 Detailed Proposed Work Schedule Description12/3 12/10 12/17 12/24 12/31 1/7 1/14 1/21 1/28 2/4 2/11 2/18 2/25 3/4 3/11 3/18 3/25 4/1 4/8 4/15 4/22 4/29 5/6 5/13 5/20 5/27 6/3 6/10 6/17 6/24Phase I: Establish Study Parameters, Background Data, and MethodologyTask 1.1: Project Initiation and Department Interviews [1]M* MTask 1.2: Evaluate existing fee studies and other "foundational" documentsTask 1.3: Define Infrastructure Categories and Level of Service GoalsTask 1.4: Land Use and Growth AssumptionsPhase II: Conduct Technical Analysis and DocumentationTask 2.1: Facility Needs and Costs AnalysisTask 2.1a: Evaluation of Additional Fee Categories (Optional)Task 2.2: Facility Cost Allocation Task 2.3: Preliminary Maximum Allowable Fee Calculation Phase III: Fee Program Documentation and Implementation ProtocolTask 3.1: Fee Comparisons and Economic AnalysisTask 3.2: Implementation Protocol and ProceduresTask 3.3 Administrative, Draft, and Final Study Documents DReviewDReviewFMeetings and PresentationsStakeholder MeetingsS*S*Project Development Team Meetings [2]P* P P* P* P P* PCommission and Council MeetingsA* C* C*Note: The schedule assumes a seven month duration.[1] Initial phase includes an in-person kick-off meeting with the City and follow-up phone meetings with Department heads and staff.[2] Scope accounts for seven total monthly meetings with the Project Development Team - four in-person meetings and three teleconference meetings.KEY:Work ongoingA indicates Financial Advisory Commission meetingM indicates meetings with City staffC indicates City Council session or meetingP indicates meetings with Project Development TeamD indicates a draft deliverable to City staffS indicates meetings with stakeholdersF indicates a final deliverable to City staff* Indicates an in-person meetingDecember20182019June20192019 2019January February May20192019March April Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 M:\Proposals\184000\184031-LaQuintaDIF\184031_Work Proposal.docx 5.REQUIRED FORMS AND DOCUMENTATION Conflicts of Interest EPS affirms to the best of our knowledge that there exists no actual or potential conflict between the firm’s business or financial interest and the services proposed or any commissioner, officer, employee, or agent of the City of La Quinta. A signed Non-Collusion Affidavit form is provided at the end of this section. Insurance Evidence of insurance is provided at the end of this section. EPS will obtain certificates of insurance upon contract execution (our insurance policy does not allow us to issue certificates of insurance unless under contract). 19 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER F : INSURER E : INSURER D : INSURER C : INSURER B : INSURER A : NAIC # NAME:CONTACT (A/C, No):FAX E-MAILADDRESS: PRODUCER (A/C, No, Ext):PHONE INSURED REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. OTHER: (Per accident) (Ea accident) $ $ N / A SUBR WVD ADDL INSD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $ $ $ $PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY (Per accident) BODILY INJURY (Per person) COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT AUTOS ONLY AUTOSAUTOS ONLY NON-OWNED SCHEDULEDOWNED ANY AUTO AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Y / N WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH) DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below If yes, describe under ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE $ $ $ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT EROTH-STATUTEPER LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EXP(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EFFPOLICY NUMBERTYPE OF INSURANCELTRINSR DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) EXCESS LIAB UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE $AGGREGATE $ OCCUR CLAIMS-MADE DED RETENTION $ $PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $GENERAL AGGREGATE $PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $MED EXP (Any one person) $EACH OCCURRENCE DAMAGE TO RENTED $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICY PRO-JECT LOC CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CANCELLATION AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2016/03) © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. CERTIFICATE HOLDER The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD HIRED AUTOS ONLY 4/17/2018 Andreini & Company-San Mateo 220 West 20th Ave San Mateo CA 94403 650-573-1111 650-378-4361 ktotten@andreini.com Federal Insurance Company 20281 ECONO-5 Republic Indemnity Co of Calif 43753Economic & Planning Systems 400 Capitol Mall, 28th Floor Sacramento CA 95814 Continental Casualty Company 20443 113230341 A X 1,000,000 X 1,000,000 10,000 excluded 3,000,000 X Per Project/Loc Y Y 35929623WCE 4/1/2018 4/1/2019 3,000,000 Per Project Agg 3,000,000 A 1,000,000 X X Y Y 73558746 4/1/2018 4/1/2019 A X 1,000,000 X 79871994 4/1/2018 4/1/2019 B XY161508154/1/2018 4/1/2019 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 C Errors & Omissions Adv/Personal Injury Retro 1/1/83 425343942 4/1/2018 4/1/2019 Per Claim Annual Aggregate 2,000,000 2,000,000 20