Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 CON Maximus - Impact Fee AnalysisAGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND MAXIMUS THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 20th day of January, 2004, by and between the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, a municipal corporation (the "CITY"), and MAXIMUS (the "CONTRACTOR"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the CITY desires to employ a CONTRACTOR to provide a Development Impact Fee Study. WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that the CONTRACTOR is a corporation and is qualified by experience and ability to perform the services desired by the CITY, and the CONTRACTOR is willing to perform such services. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO DO MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. ENGAGEMENT OF CONTRACTOR. The CITY hereby agrees to engage the CONTRACTOR and the CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to perform the services hereinafter set forth in accordance with all terms and conditions contained herein. The CONTRACTOR represents that all services required hereunder will be performed directly by the CONTRACTOR or under direct supervision of the CONTRACTOR. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES. The CONTRACTOR will perform services as set forth in the attached Exhibit 1 Technical Proposal beginning on page 8. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for all research and reviews related to the work and shall not rely on personnel of the CITY for such services, except as authorized in advance by the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall appear at meetings cited in Exhibit 1 to keep staff and City Council advised of the progress on the project. The CITY may unilaterally, or upon request from the CONTRACTOR, from time to time reduce or increase the Scope of Services to be performed by the CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. Upon doing so, the CITY and the CONTRACTOR agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction or increase in the compensation associated with said change in services, not to exceed a factor of 15% from the base amount. Revised August 2003 3. PROJECT COORDINATION AND SUPERVISION. Kathleen Trees hereby is designated as the Project Coordinator for the CITY and will monitor the progress and execution of this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR shall assign a single Project Director to provide supervision and have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this Agreement for the CONTRACTOR. Richard Pearl thereby is designated as the Project Director for the CONTRACTOR. 4. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT. The compensation for the CONTRACTOR shall be based on monthly billings covering actual work performed. Billings shall include labor classifications, respective rates, hours worked and also materials, if any. The total cost for all work described in Exhibit 1 shall not exceed the schedule given in Exhibit 1 Cost Proposal on page 14 (the Base amount) without prior written authorization from the Project Coordinator. Monthly invoices will be processed for payment and remitted within thirty (30) days from receipt of invoice, provided that work is accomplished consistent with Exhibit 1 as determined by the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall maintain all books, documents, papers, employee time sheets, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred and in -kind services provided and shall make such materials available at its office at all reasonable times during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement, for inspection by the CITY and for furnishing of copies to the CITY, if requested. 5. LENGTH OF AGREEMENT. Completion dates or time durations for specific portions of the Project are set forth in Exhibit 1 Schedule on page 13. 6. DISPOSITION AND OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. The Memoranda, Reports, Maps, Drawings, Plans, Specifications and other documents prepared by the CONTRACTOR for this Project, whether paper or electronic, shall become the property of the CITY for use with respect to this Project, and shall be turned over to the CITY upon completion of the Project, or any phase thereof, as contemplated by this Agreement. Contemporaneously with the transfer of documents, the CONTRACTOR hereby assigns to the CITY and CONTRACTOR thereby expressly waives and disclaims, any copyright in, and the right to reproduce, all written material, drawings, plans, specifications or other work prepared under this agreement, except upon the CITY's prior authorization regarding reproduction, which authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld. The CONTRACTOR shall, upon request of the CITY, execute any further document(s) necessary to further effectuate this waiver and disclaimer. The CONTRACTOR agrees that the CITY may use, reuse, alter, reproduce, modify, assign, transfer, or in any other way, medium or method utilize the CONTRACTOR's written work product for the CITY's purposes, and the CONTRACTOR expressly waives and disclaims any residual rights granted to it by Civil Code Sections 980 through 989 relating to intellectual property and artistic works. 2 Revised August 2003 Any modification or reuse by the CITY of documents, drawings or specifications prepared by the CONTRACTOR shall relieve the CONTRACTOR from liability under Section 14 but only with respect to the effect of the modification or reuse by the CITY, or for any liability to the CITY should the documents be used by the CITY for some project other than what was expressly agreed upon within the Scope of this project, unless otherwise mutually agreed. 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Both parties hereto in the performance of this Agreement will be acting in an independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners or joint venturers with one another. Neither the CONTRACTOR nor the CONTRACTOR'S employees are employee of the CITY and are not entitled to any of the rights, benefits, or privileges of the CITY's employees, including but not limited to retirement, medical, unemployment, or workers' compensation insurance. This Agreement contemplates the personal services of the CONTRACTOR and the CONTRACTOR's employees, and it is recognized by the parties that a substantial inducement to the CITY for entering into this Agreement was, and is, the professional reputation and competence of the CONTRACTOR and its employees. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned by the CONTRACTOR without the prior written consent of the CITY. Nothing herein contained is intended to prevent the CONTRACTOR from employing or hiring as many employees, or subcontractors, as the CONTRACTOR may deem necessary for the proper and efficient performance of this Agreement. All agreements by CONTRACTOR with its subcontractor(s) shall require the subcontractor to adhere to the applicable terms of this Agreement. 8. CONTROL. Neither the CITY nor its officers, agents or employees shall have any control over the conduct of the CONTRACTOR or any of the CONTRACTOR's employees except as herein set forth, and the CONTRACTOR expressly agrees not to represent that the CONTRACTOR or the CONTRACTOR's agents, servants, or employees are in any manner agents, servants or employees of the CITY, it being understood that the CONTRACTOR, its agents, servants, and employees are as to the CITY wholly independent contractors and that the CONTRAC- TOR's obligations to the CITY are solely such as are prescribed by this Agreement. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW. The CONTRACTOR, in the performance of the services to be provided herein, shall comply with all applicable State and Federal statutes and regulations, and all applicable ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of National City, whether now in force or subsequently enacted. The CONTRACTOR, and each of its subcontractors, shall obtain and maintain a current City of National City business license prior to and during performance of any work pursuant to this Agreement. 10. LICENSES, PERMITS, ETC. The CONTRACTOR represents and covenants that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to practice its profession. The CONTRACTOR 3 Revised August 2003 represents and covenants that the CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, any license, permit, or approval which is legally required for the CONTRACTOR to practice its profession. 11. STANDARD OF CARE. A. The CONTRACTOR, in performing any services under this Agreement, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the CONTRACTOR'S trade or profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. The CONTRACTOR shall take all special precautions necessary to protect the CONTRACTOR's employees and members of the public from risk of harm arising out of the nature of the work and/or the conditions of the work site. B. Unless disclosed in writing prior to the date of this agreement, the CONTRACTOR warrants to the CITY that it is not now, nor has it for the five (5) years preceding, been debarred by a governmental agency or involved in debarment, arbitration or litigation proceedings concerning the CONTRACTOR's professional performance or the furnishing of materials or services relating thereto. C. The CONTRACTOR is responsible for identifying any unique products, treatments, processes or materials whose availability is critical to the success of the project the CONTRACTOR has been retained to perform, within the time requirements of the CITY, or, when no time is specified, then within a commercially reasonable time. Accordingly, unless the CONTRACTOR has notified the CITY otherwise, the CONTRACTOR warrants that all products, materials, processes or treatments identified in the project documents prepared for the CITY are reasonably commercially available. Any failure by the CONTRACTOR to use due diligence under this sub -paragraph will render the CONTRACTOR liable to the CITY for any increased costs that result from the CITY's later inability to obtain the specified items or any reasonable substitute within a price range that allows for project completion in the time frame specified or, when not specified, then within a commercially reasonable time. 12. NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS. The CONTRACTOR shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of age, race, color, ancestry, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, physical handicap, or medical condition. The CONTRACTOR will take positive action to insure that applicants are employed without regard to their age, race, color, ancestry, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, physical handicap, or medical condition. Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONTRACTOR agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by the CITY setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause. 13. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. The CITY may from time to time communicate to the CONTRACTOR certain confidential information to enable the CONTRACTOR to effectively perform the services to be provided herein. The CONTRACTOR shall treat all such information as confidential and shall not disclose 4 Revised August 2003 any part thereof without the prior written consent of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall limit the use and circulation of such information, even within its own organization, to the extent necessary to perform the services to be provided herein. The foregoing obligation of this Section 13, however, shall not apply to any part of the information that (i) has been disclosed in publicly available sources of information; (ii) is, through no fault of the CONTRACTOR, hereafter disclosed in publicly available sources of information; (iii) is already in the possession of the CONTRACTOR without any obligation of confidentiality; or (iv) has been or is hereafter rightfully disclosed to the CONTRACTOR by a third party, but only to the extent that the use or disclosure thereof has been or is rightfully authorized by that third party. The CONTRACTOR shall not disclose any reports, recommendations, conclusions or other results of the services or the existence of the subject matter of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the CITY. In its performance hereunder, the CONTRACTOR shall comply with all legal obligations it may now or hereafter have respecting the information or other property of any other person, firm or corporation. CONTRACTOR shall be liable to CITY for any damages caused by breach of this condition, pursuant to the provisions of Section 14. 14. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS. The CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of National City, its officers and employees, against and from any damages and liability directly caused by the negligent actions or willful misconduct of the CONTRACTOR, its employees or agents. The CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible for any damages or liability resulting, in whole or part, from the negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY or any third party. 15. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. The CONTRACTOR shall comply with all of the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Insurance and Safety Acts of the State of California, the applicable provisions of Division 4 and 5 of the California Government Code and all amendments thereto; and all similar state or Federal acts or laws applicable; and shall indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY and its officers, and employees from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings and judgments of every nature and description, including reasonable attorney's fees and defense costs presented, brought or recovered against the CITY or its officers, employees, or volunteers, for or on account of any liability under any of said acts which may be incurred by reason of any work to be performed by the CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. 16. INSURANCE. The CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost and expense, shall purchase and maintain, and shall require its subcontractors, when applicable, to purchase and maintain throughout the term of this agreement, the following insurance policies: ❑ A. If checked, Professional Liability Insurance (errors and omissions) with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence. B. Automobile insurance covering all bodily injury and property damage incurred during the performance of this Agreement, with a minimum coverage 5 Revised August 2003 of $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident. Such automobile insurance shall include non -owned vehicles. C. Comprehensive general liability insurance, with minimum limits of $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence, covering all bodily injury and property damage arising out of its operation under this Agreement. D. Workers' compensation insurance covering all of CONSULTANT's employees. E. The aforesaid policies shall constitute primary insurance as to the CITY, its officers, employees, and volunteers, so that any other policies held by the CITY shall not contribute to any loss under said insurance. Said policies shall provide for thirty (30) days prior written notice to the CITY of cancellation or material change. F. Said policies, except for the professional liability and worker's compensation policies, shall name the CITY and its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. G. If required insurance coverage is provided on a "claims made" rather than "occurrence" form, the CONTRACTOR shall maintain such insurance coverage for three years after expiration of the term (and any extensions) of this Agree- ment. H. Any aggregate insurance limits must apply solely to this Agree - Insurance shall be written with only California admitted companies which hold a current policy holder's alphabetic and financial size category rating of no less than A:-VII according to the current Best's Key Rating Guide, or a company equal financial stability that is approved by the City's Risk Manager. J. This Agreement shall not take effect until certificate(s) or other sufficient proof that these insurance provisions have been complied with, are filed with and approved by the CITY's Risk Manager. If the CONTRACTOR does not keep all of such insurance policies in full force and effect at all times during the terms of this Agreement, the CITY may elect to treat the failure to maintain the requisite insurance as a breach of this Agreement and terminate the Agreement as provided herein. 17. LEGAL FEES. If any party brings a suit or action against the other party arising from any breach of any of the covenants or agreements or any inaccuracies in any of the representations and warranties on the part of the other party arising out of this Agreement, then in that event, the prevailing party in such action or dispute, whether by final judgment or out -of -court settlement, shall be entitled to have and recover of and from the other party all costs and expenses of suit, including attorneys' fees. For purposes of determining who is to be considered the prevailing party, it is stipulated that attorney's fees incurred in the prosecution or defense of the action or suit shall not be considered in determining the amount of the judgment or award. Attorney's fees to the prevailing party if other than the CITY shall, in addition, be limited to the amount of attorney's fees incurred by the CITY in its prosecution or defense of the action, irrespective of the actual amount of attorney's fees incurred by the prevailing party. ment. 6 Revised August 2003 18. MEDIATION/ARBITRATION. If a dispute arises out of or relates to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, the parties agree first to try, in good faith, to settle the dispute by mediation in San Diego, California, in accordance with the Commercial Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA") before resorting to arbitration. The costs of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Any controversy or claim arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement, or breach thereof, which is not resolved by mediation shall be settled by arbitration in San Diego, California, in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA then existing. Any award rendered shall be final and conclusive upon the parties, and a judgment thereon may be entered in any court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy. The expenses of the arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties to the arbitration, provided that each party shall pay for and bear the costs of its own experts, evidence and attorneys' fees, except that the arbitrator may assess such expenses or any part thereof against a specified party as part of the arbitration award. 19. TERMINATION. A. This Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by the CITY. Termination without cause shall be effective only upon 60- day's written notice to the CONTRACTOR. During said 60-day period the CONTRACTOR shall perform all services in accordance with this Agreement. B. This Agreement may also be terminated immediately by the CITY for cause in the event of a material breach of this Agreement, misrepresentation by the CONTRACTOR in connection with the formation of this Agreement or the performance of services, or the failure to perform services as directed by the CITY. C. Termination with or without cause shall be effected by delivery of written Notice of Termination to the CONTRACTOR as provided for herein. D. In the event of termination, all finished or unfinished Memoranda Reports, Maps, Drawings, Plans, Specifications and other documents prepared by the CONTRACTOR, whether paper or electronic, shall immediately become the property of and be delivered to the CITY, and the CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of the Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused the CITY by the CONTRACTOR's breach, if any. Thereafter, ownership of said written material shall vest in the CITY all rights set forth in Section 6. E. The CITY further reserves the right to immediately terminate this Agreement upon: (1) the filing of a petition in bankruptcy affecting the CONTRACTOR; (2) a reorganization of the CONTRACTOR for the benefit of creditors; or (3) a business reorganization, change in business name or change in business status of the CONTRACTOR. 20. NOTICES. All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered; or sent by overnight mail (Federal Express or the like); or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested; or sent by ordinary mail, postage prepaid; or telegraphed or cabled; or delivered or sent by telex, telecopy, facsimile or fax; and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of (i) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice, (ii) if sent by overnight mail, the 7 Revised August 2003 business day following its deposit in such overnight mail facility, (iii) if mailed by registered, certified or ordinary mail, five (5) days (ten (10) days if the address is outside the State of California) after the date of deposit in a post office, mailbox, mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service, (iv) if given by telegraph or cable, when delivered to the telegraph company with charges prepaid, or (v) if given by telex, telecopy, facsimile or fax, when sent. Any notice, request, demand, direction or other communication delivered or sent as specified above shall be directed to the following persons: To the CITY: Kathleen Trees, Director Building & Safety Department City of National City 1243 National City Boulevard National City, CA 91950-4301 To the CONTRACTOR: Richard Pearl, Vice President MAXIMUS 4320 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95831 Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner specified in this Section. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of changed address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice, demand, request or communication sent. Any notice, request, demand, direction or other communication sent by cable, telex, telecopy, facsimile or fax must be confirmed within forty-eight (48) hours by letter mailed or delivered as specified in this Section. 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND POLITICAL REFORM ACT OBLIGATIONS. During the term of this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall not perform services of any kind for any person or entity whose interests conflict in any way with those of the City of National City. The CONTRACTOR also agrees not to specify any product, treatment, process or material for the project in which the CONTRACTOR has a material financial interest, either direct or indirect, without first notifying the CITY of that fact. The CONTRACTOR shall at all times comply with the terms of the Political Reform Act and the National City Conflict of Interest Code. The CONTRACTOR shall immediately disqualify itself and shall not use its official position to influence in any way any matter coming before the CITY in which the CONTRACTOR has a financial interest as defined in Government Code Section 87103. The CONTRACTOR represents that it has no knowledge of any financial interests that would require it to disqualify itself from any matter on which it might perform services for the CITY. ❑ If checked, the CONTRACTOR shall comply with all of the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act and the National City Conflict of Interest Code. Specifically, the CONTRACTOR shall file a Statement of Economic Interests with the City Clerk of the City of National City in a timely manner on forms which the CONTRACTOR shall obtain from the City Clerk. 8 Revised August 2003 The CONTRACTOR shall be strictly liable to the CITY for all damages, costs or expenses the CITY may suffer by virtue of any violation of this Paragraph 21 by the CONTRACTOR. 22. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. Computation of Time Periods. If any date or time period provided for in this Agreement is or ends on a Saturday, Sunday or federal, state or legal holiday, then such date shall automatically be extended until 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or federal, state or legal holiday. B. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute but one and the same instrument. C. Captions. Any captions to, or headings of, the sections or subsections of this Agreement are solely for the convenience of the parties hereto, are not a part of this Agreement, and shall not be used for the interpretation or determination of the validity of this Agreement or any provision hereof. D. No Obligations to Third Parties. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the execution and delivery of this Agreement shall not be deemed to confer any rights upon, or obligate any of the parties hereto, to any person or entity other than the parties hereto. E. Exhibits and Schedules. The Exhibits and Schedules attached hereto are hereby incorporated herein by this reference for all purposes. F. Amendment to this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement may not be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing executed by each of the parties hereto. G. Waiver. The waiver or failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any future breach of any such provision or any other provision hereof. H. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. I. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior agree- ments, negotiations and communications, oral or written, and contains the entire agreement between the parties as to the subject matter hereof. No subsequent agreement, representation, or promise made by either party hereto, or by or to an employee, officer, agent or representative of any party hereto shall be of any effect unless it is in writing and executed by the party to be bound thereby. J. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. K. Construction. The parties acknowledge and agree that (i) each party is of equal bargaining strength, (ii) each party has actively participated in the drafting, preparation and negotiation of this Agreement, (iii) each such party has consulted with or has had the opportunity to consult with its own, independent counsel and such other professional advisors as such party has deemed appropriate, relative to any and all matters contemplated under this Agreement, (iv) each party and such party's counsel and advisors have reviewed this Agreement, (v) each party has agreed to enter into this Agreement following such review and the rendering of such advice, 9 Revised August 2003 and (vi) any rule or construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement, or any portions hereof, or any amendments hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first above written. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY rAximus, INC. (Two signatures required for a corporation) By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney By:.,- - C� ,. / )-----*,..e:...-19 (Name) (Title) (Name)/ V1 G2 `,P S, cl e 3 (Title) 10 Revised August 2003 Exhibit 1 City ofNational City Proposal for A Development Impact Fee Study January 5, 2004 MAXIMUS, Inc. Cost Services Division 4320 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95841 916.485.8102 916.485.0111 (Fax) www.maximus.com City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study TABLE OF CONTENTS PROPOSER PROJECT TEAM i 1 IMPACT FEE EXPERIENCE 2 Impact Fee References 3 Recent Impact Fee Studies 3 Additional Project Descriptions S Impact Fee Client List 7 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 8 Scope of Services 8 Facility Types to be Addressed 8 Information to be Provided by the City 9 Work Plan 9 Schedule 13 Conflict of Interest Statement 13 COST PROPOSAL 14 Study Cost 14 Additional Services 14 Expiration of Proposal 14 APPENDIX A Resume — Joseph Colgan, AICP MAXIMUS Page I City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study PROPOSER MAXIMUS, Inc. (The Consultant) 4320 Auburn Blvd. Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95841 (916) 485-8102 (Telephone) (916) 485-0111 (Fax) • Years in business: 27 • Number of employees: 4,500 (Approximate) • Revenues for previous fiscal year: $500 Million (Approximate) The Cost Services Division of MAXIMUS was formerly known as David M. Grif- fith & Associates (DMG) and as DMG-MAXIMUS. Following the acquisition of David M. Griffith & Associates by MAXIMUS in 1998, the company operated as DMG-MAXIMUS, a wholly owned subsidiary of MAXIMUS, until October 2001. At that time, DMG-MAXIMUS was merged into the parent company and now op- erates as the Cost Services Division. Qualifications and experience attributed to MAXIMUS in this proposal include work done by our predecessor companies. The Cost Services Division employees approximately 300 professional consultants in more than 30 offices across the U.S. This engagement would be staffed and managed entirely from our Sacramento regional office. PROJECT TEAM The following MAXIMUS staff would be assigned to this project if MAXIMUS is selected to do the work. Project Director — Richard L. Pearl._ Mr. Pearl. is _a -regional_ Vice President in the Sacramento office of MAXIMUS and has been responsible for management of the company's California cost of service practices, including the impact fee practice, for a number of years. He has almost twenty-five years of experience in local govern- ment consulting, during which time he has managed hundreds of engagements for California clients including Long Beach, Anaheim, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Livermore, Fontana, Santa Clara and Beverly Hills. As project director, Mr. Pearl will be responsible for assigning staff resources, monitoring the contract, and ensur- ing client satisfaction. Project Manager - Joseph Colgan, AICP. Joe Colgan is a Director in the Sacra- mento Office of MAXIMUS, and is primarily responsible for the firm's impact fee practice. He is a professional planner and licensed architect whose background in- cludes more than ten years as a senior planner and planning director for city and MAXIMUS Page 1 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study county governments. Since joining MAXIMUS (then David M. Griffith & Associ- ates) in 1990, Mr. Colgan has managed at least 50 impact fee projects in five states, including more than 40 in California. As project manager, he will interact directly with the client on a regular basis and will have day-to-day responsibility for project organization and scheduling. In addition, he will personally take the lead role in technical analysis, report writing, and presentations associated with this study. His resume is attached to this proposal. Other Staff. MAXIMUS has more than 30 consultants in its Sacramento and Irvine offices. Although we anticipate that most work on this study will be completed by the specific personnel listed above, additional professional and/or support staff may be assigned for the benefit of the project, with the City's approval. IMPACT FEE EXPERIENCE MAXIMUS has been providing development impact fee services to local govern- ment clients since AB 1600 took effect in 1989. Over that period, the firm has completed more than 50 impact fee engagements in several states. Although most of our impact fee work has been in California, we have also performed impact fee studies in Utah, Arizona, Oregon, Florida, and Georgia. MAXIMUS impact fee consultants have experience and professional expertise in many areas related to the development of impact fee programs. Below are listed some of their key qualifications. • Thorough understanding of constitutional and statutorystandards for defensible impact fees and other exactions. • Extensive expertise in impact fee methodology. Knowledge of a va- riety of cost allocation and fee calculation methods, and the ability to apply innovative methods to complex situations. • Experience establishing impact fees for all types of public improve- ments, including water, sewer, transportation, and drainage systems, parks and recreation facilities, open space, libraries, fire, police, and administrative facilities. • Experience in economic, demographic and statistical analysis, and in the use of planning documents, facility master plans, engineering studies, and capital facility plans to support defensible impact fees. • Professional background in land use planning, architecture, and capi- tal facilities programming, planning, design and construction. MAXIMUS Page 2 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study • Experience in cash flow modeling and the use of discounted present value calculations to incorporate future debt service payments into impact fee analysis. • Experience developing a sophisticated Excel -based impact fee model which can calculate and update impact fees for multiple service areas using any one of several fee calculation methods. • Direct experience in local government, sensitivity to local political environments, and skill in techniques for productively involving interest groups and the public in developing impact fee programs. IMPACT FEE REFERENCES City of Temecula Comprehensive Impact Fee Study (2003) City of Orange Library Impact Fee Study (2003) Genie Roberts, Finance Director (909) 694-6430 Nora Jacob, Library Services Director (714) 288-2474 City of Rancho Cucamonga Park Development Fee Update (2003-Ongoing) City of Morgan Hill Comprehensive Impact Fee Study (2002) Karen McGuire Emery, Senior Park Planner (909) 477-2740, ext. 4040 Jack Dilles, Finance Director (408) 779-7238 City of Palo Alto Parks/Rec es' Library Impact Fee Study (2001) City of Visalia Public Safety Impact Fee Study (2001) Libby Dame, Senior Financial Analyst (650) 329-2213 Steve Solomon, City Manager (559) 713-4300 RECENT IMPACT FEE STUDIES Below are descriptions of several recent development impact fee projects completed by MAXIMUS. All projects described in this proposal were managed by Joseph Colgan, AICP, who will be assigned to this study if MAXIMUS is selected for this project. City of Orange — Library Impact Fee Study. This study, completed in May 2003, involved calculation of library impact fees for the City, based on a recently adopted Library Master Plan. Orange had not previously imposed impact fees for libraries. Orange was successful in obtaining library grant funds authorized by Proposition 14, and this impact fee study leveraged the planned grant funded facility to increase the existing level of service used to calculate the fees. The MAXIMUS project manager presented the report to building industry representatives prior to City Council consideration. Fees recommended in the study were adopted unanimously by the City Council. City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study. MAXIMUS was selected in October 2002 to update its 1996 impact fee study for the City of Temecula. This study addressed all types of facilities provided by the City (water and wastewater service are provided MAXIMUS Page 3 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study by special districts). A critical aspect of this study was a tight four -month schedule established by the City Manager to complete a draft of the report. The draft was completed in 3 Y2 months, thanks in large part to the efforts of the City staff in providing information needed by the consultants. The MAXIMUS project manager presented the report to building industry representatives prior to City Council con- sideration. The proposed fees were adopted unanimously by the City Council. City of Morgan Hill — Impact Fee Study (2002). This study, completed in Septem- ber, 2002, is a comprehensive impact fee study addressing all types of capital facili- ties and infrastructure, except water and wastewater facilities, needed to serve fu- ture development within Morgan Hill's Urban Growth Boundary. The impact fee analysis incorporated the availability of non -impact fee funding sources including Redevelopment Agency funds, regional transportation funds, General Fund contri- butions, and a potential library grant. Fees calculated in the study included two new fees —one for open space and one for community and recreation facilities —in addition to updating all of the fees previously in place. Once a draft of the report was completed, the MAXIMUS project manager participated in workshops with developers and presentations to the Morgan Hill City Council. The Council adopted fees based on the MAXIMUS report in August, 2002. City of Palo Alto — Development Impact Fee Study (2001). This study calculated citywide impact fees for parks and open space, community centers and libraries. It also involved a feasibility study for adoption of an impact fee for police facilities. In this study, MAXIMUS worked with the client to evaluate the impact of non- residential development on the facilities under study. The City conducted user sur- veys in Palo Alto's parks, community centers, and libraries to establish the impact of non-residential development on the need for those facilities. Impact fees were calculated using the results of those surveys and the report was presented to a City Council Committee in October, 2001. City of Richmond — Development Impact Fee Study (2001). This study calcu- lated new citywide impact fees for police, fire, parks, open space, and community centers. The study also analyzed the potential for new street impact fees, but rec- ommended that the City's pre-existing street impact fees, which applied to specific development areas, be retained. Those fees had accounted for all significant costs of development -related street improvements in Richmond, and the costs were allo- cated to all anticipated development in the service area. Because future develop- ment in Richmond will consist mostly of infill, it was very difficult to project future development for purposes of the impact fee study. To address that limitation, MAXIMUS was able to use open-ended fee calculation methods that do not rely on projections of future development. The study process included two presentations to a City Council committee. The final draft report was presented to the full City Council in October, 2001. MAXIMUS Page 4 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study City of Visalia — Public Safety Impact Fee Study (2001). This study calculated im- pact fees for police and fire protection facilities and equipment in Visalia. Police impact fees were based on the cost of a proposed new building, with costs allocated between existing and future development on the basis of calls for service. Fire impact fees were based on a combined cost of existing and planned facilities and equipment needs, with existing facilities valued at depreciated replacement cost. Costs for fire protection facilities were allocated on the basis of developed acreage. At the City Council public hearing, one Council member said the impact fee report was the most easily understandable consultant study she had ever seen. The final report was presented to the City Council in June, 2001. ADDITIONAL PROJECT DSCRIP77ONS Below are brief descriptions of a number of additional MAXIMUS impact fee pro- jects completed over the last several years. City of Encinitas, California. MAXIMUS completed an impact fee study for the City of Encinitas addressing street improvements as well as parks, open space, and trails. The study included calculation of Quimby Act fees in lieu of park land dedi- cation and also included separate fees for park land acquisition for projects not in- volving a subdivision of land. MAXIMUS made presentations to developer groups and Chamber of Commerce representatives as well as to the City Council. TheSan Diego County Homebuilders' Association has cited this study as an example of a well -prepared impact fee analysis. The study was completed in March, 2000. City of Arroyo Grande, California. In early 2000, MAXIMUS completed an im- pact fee study for the City of Arroyo Grande addressing street improvements, fire protection, police facilities, and parks and recreation facilities. The analysis also included drainage facilities, but found that there were no such facilities eligible for impact fee funding. MAXIMUS continues to advise the City in matters of impact fee implementation. City of Moreno Valley, California. MAXIMUS prepared an impact fee study for the City of Moreno Valley addressing a wide range of facility types, including, arte- rial streets and traffic signals, police and fire facilities, parks and recreation, librar- ies, and administrative facilities. Impact fees were calculated using a spreadsheet - based impact fee model originally developed for Glendale, Arizona. One of the is- sues addressed in this study was the effect of proposed impact fee changes on out- standing debt related to existing transportation facilities. The final draft report was presented to the City Council in February, 2000. Following completion of this study, MAXIMUS was also contracted to prepare an impact fee study for five inter- changes planned for State Route 60 in Moreno Valley. That study used a select MAXIMUS Page 5 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study link analysis prepared by the City's traffic engineering consultant to calculate im- pact fees for various configurations of multiple service areas in the City. City of Livermore, California. Impact fee work performed for Livermore by MAXIMUS includes a total of five studies between 1991 and 2000. The most recent studies were done in 1999-2000 to develop affordable housing fees for commercial and industrial development and an inclusionary housing program (including in -lieu fees) for residential development. The methodology used in calculating the affordable housing fees was based on one upheld by the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in Commercial Builders v. The City of Sacramento. The commercial/industrial fees were adopted by the City Council in February 1999. The inclusionary housing program was presented to the City Council in March, 2000. Earlier impact fee studies for Livermore addressed water distribution and storage improvements and community facilities such as police, fire, library and general government buildings. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland California. In 1994-95, MAXIMUS headed a team of technical consultants and legal advisors in evaluating the existing Water System Capacity Charge for EBMUD, which is one of the largest water utili- ties in the United States. The System Capacity Charge evolved over a period of fif- teen years and was made up of several components including charges for future wa- ter supply facilities, water main over -sizing and distribution system improvements. The purpose of the study was to make recommendations regarding the legal and technical defensibility of the various components of the SCC, and to advise on ad- ministration and updating. Issues addressed in the study included, facility costs eli- gible for recovery, methods of establishing and updating eligible costs, calculation methods, nexus documentation, incorporation of financing costs, and depreciation allowances, as well as the treatment of operating costs which reduce the need for capital investment. The final report was presented to the District Board and used by the District to revise the structure of the SCC. City of Glendale, Arizona. In 1995, MAXIMUS developed a spreadsheet -based impact fee model which would allow the City staff to calculate and update defensible impact fees for all types of development -related capital facilities. The model provides a choice of three computation methods, and calculates fees for as many as eleven land use types. It allows the user to customize service areas by automatically sorting data for any combination of 58 traffic analysis zones represented in the model's development data bases. The study analyzed service demand for all types of City facilities to establish demand factors used by the model to represent the impacts of different types of development. The model runs in Microsoft Excel for Windows. Key functions are automated using the Microsoft Visual Basic Programming System, and are invoked by means of point -and -click mouse commands. MAXIMUS Page 6 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study IMPACT FEE CLIENT LIST The following cities and counties have been impact fee clients of MAXIMUS. In some cases a.single client represents more than one impact fee engagement. Num- bers in parentheses indicate the number of separate studies done for each of those clients. • City of Angels Camp, CA City of Arroyo Grande, CA • Cedar City Corporation, UT • County of Butte, CA • County of Cherokee, GA • City of Chula Vista, CA • Contra Costa Water Distr., CA • City of Cottage Grove, OR • City of Dana Point, CA • Town of Davie, FL • City of Del Mar, CA • City of Dixon, CA • East Bay MUD, Oakland, CA • City of Encinitas, CA • City of Fairfield, CA • City of Fontana, CA • City of Glendale, AZ • City of Grover Beach, CA • City of Hawthorne, CA • City of Hollister, CA City of La Quinta, CA (2) • City of Lathrop, CA • City of Livermore, CA (5) • City/County of Los Alamos, NM • City of Madera, CA • City of Martinez, CA • City of Moreno Valley, CA (3) • City of Morgan Hill, CA • City of Morro Bay, CA • City of Norco, CA • Northridge Water District, CA. • City of Oceanside, CA • City of Orange, CA • County of Orange, FL • City of Perris, CA • City of Pismo Beach, CA (2) • City of Rancho Cucamonga • City of Rancho Mirage, CA • City of Richmond, CA • County of Sacramento, CA • City of San Clemente, CA (2) • City of San Luis Obispo, CA (2) • County of Santa Clara, CA • Santa Margarita Water Distr., CA • City of Santa Maria, CA • City of St. George, UT • City of Temecula, CA (3) • City of Thousand Oaks, CA • City of Visalia, CA • County of Yuba, CA (2) MAXIMUS Page 7 City of National City, CA — Prop osal for Development Impact fee Study TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services offered in this proposal is based on generally accepted prac- tices in the calculation of development impact fees for California cities. The major steps involved in that process are: • Defining the study area and time frame for the analysis • Defining land use categories to be used in the study • Compiling data on existing and future development in the study area • Identifying applicable level -of -service standards for each type of facility • Analyzing the impact of development on the need for capital facilities • Identifying facilities and costs eligible for impact fee funding • Calculating impact fees Preparing a report documenting the data and methodology used in calculating the impact fees Presenting the report to staff, the City Council and other groups as directed by the City Providing advice on implementation of the impact fees The specific scope of services offered in this proposal is limited to addressing the facility types listed below, and the tasks described in the following work plan. That scope excludes legal, engineering, and architectural services. It also excludes the preparation of planning studies, facility master plans, land use surveys, appraisals, facility cost estimates, and collection or analysis of raw data. This proposal as- sumes that any impact fees calculated as part of this study will be calculated for a citywide service area. FACILITY TYPES TO BE ADDRESSED The types of facilities to be addressed in this study are: • Wastewater Collection • Police Facilities and Vehicles • Street Improvements/Traffic Signals • Parks/Recreation Facilities • Fire Protection Facilities/Equipment • Libraries INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY Much of the work to be performed by the Consultant in the impact fee analysis will depend on information and policy direction to be provided by the City. Some or MAXIMUS Page 8 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study all of the following information may be needed to complete work described in this proposal: • The General Plan, and other relevant planning documents • A tabulation of existing and planned development in the study area, by development type, through buildout of the planning horizon, and for any service areas that are not co -incident with the study area • Facility master plans and cost estimates for each type of facility to be addressed in the analysis, if available. If such plans are not available, some facility types covered by this study can be addressed on a unit cost basis. • Information on any outstanding debt related to existing capital facilities • The City budget, Capital Improvement Program and facility financing plans including other sources of revenue and proposed debt financing for future facilities to receive impact fee funding. This proposal is based on the understanding that all information needed to perform the work covered by the scope of services will be provided by the City or is readily available from published sources (e.g., Dept. of Finance population estimates). WORK PLAN The following work plan represents the anticipated steps to be completed by the consultant for this project. Task 1. Project Initiation. To initiate this study, the MAXIMUS project manager will meet with key City staff and carry out other activities required to initiate the study. Those activities would include the following: • Review and refine goals, work plan and schedule • Establish reporting relationships and procedures • Identify key personnel and information resources • Conduct initial interviews with key staff members • Become familiar with the City's existing impact fee program • Identify and collect data and documents relevant to the analysis • Tour the study area to become familiar with geography, character, development patterns, and existing public facilities In addition, early in the project, the MAXIMUS project manager will be available to conduct an impact fee workshop for all involved City staff to discuss legal requirements, methodology and data needs for the study. MAXIMUS Page 9 City of National C104 CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study Work Product (Task 1): Refined project schedule, if needed; memorandum discussing any policy issues identified in the initial discussions. Task 2. Organize Development Data. The Consultant will review, organize and analyze data on existing and future development provided by the City, and ensure it is in a form useful for the impact fee analysis. Activities related to this task include: • Identify study area boundaries and time frame for development projections • Establish the land use categories to be used in the analysis • Identify units of development to be used for each development type (e.g, dwelling units, acres, building area) • Organize and analyze data on existing development and future de- velopment by land use category • Extract relevant demographic data, such as persons per household by unit type, from Census data and Department of Finance reports Work Product (Task 2): Presentation of relevant development data as part of the report. Task 3. Impact Fee Analysis. The following sub -tasks represent the steps in a typical impact fee analysis as applied to each type of facility addressed in the study. The specifics of the impact fee analysis may vary somewhat depending on the methodology applied to a particular facility type. The impact fee analysis for each facility type would be presented in a separate report chapter. Task 3a. Review Needs Analysis and Service Levels. The Consultant will review needs analyses, adopted level -of -service standards, and actual service levels for each facility type. Activities related to this task include: Review facility plans, fixed asset inventories, and other docu- ments establishing the relationship between development and facility needs, by type • Identify adopted level -of -service standard for each facility type • Identify actual existing service level for each facility type Define service standard to be used in the impact fee analysis Identify any existing deficiencies relative to the service standard Task 3b. Identify Facilities/Costs Eligible for Impact Fee Funding. As an essential part of the nexus analysis, the Consultant will evaluate the impact MAXIMUS Page 10 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study of development on the need for additional facilities, by type, and identify costs eligible for impact fee funding. Elements of this analysis include the following activities: • Convert development data into measures of impact for each type of facility to be addressed in the study (e.g., population, vehicle trips) • Apply defined service standards to data on future development to identify the impacts of development on facility needs • Consider the effect of any existing deficiencies or outstanding debt on existing facilities • Identify facilities eligible for impact fee funding • Compile development -related improvement costs, including interest on borrowed capital, if appropriate • Adjust costs as needed to reflect other funding sources Task 3 c. Calculate Impact Fees. The Consultant will calculate impact fees by facility type and development category. The steps in that process include the following: Select appropriate fee calculation method (e.g., plan -based, capacity -based, or standard -based) Specify formulas to allocate facility costs in proportion to the impact of specific amounts and types of development • Calculate a cost per unit of service for each facility type • Convert cost per unit of service into a schedule of impact fees per development unit, by land use category and facility type Project revenue potential of proposed fees. Work Product (Task 3): A complete impact fee analysis with fee calculations and fee schedules for each facility type addressed in the study, as part of the study report. Task 4. Prepare Reports. As the study proceeds, the Consultant will prepare administrative drafts of portions of the report and submit those drafts for staff review and comments. Upon completion of the analysis, a first draft of the entire study report, incorporating any previous staff comments, will be submitted for review by the City staff and presentation to the City Council, and to representatives of the development industry if desired by the City. The report will include the following components: • Executive summary including summary of proposed impact fees. MAX/MUS Page 11 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study • A chapter discussing legal framework and impact fee methodology. • A chapter presenting data on existing and planned development in the study area as well as impact measures for each type of facility. • A separate chapter for each facility type addressing level of service stan- dards, eligible costs, cost allocation, fee calculations, fee schedules, and projected revenue. • A chapter on implementation recommendations Following completion and presentation of the draft report, one round of additional changes will be incorporated to produce a final report. This proposal assumes that only minor changes will be required following completion of the draft. Work Products (Task 4): Administrative drafts, first draft (10 copies and a reproducible master), and final study report (10 copies and a reproducible master). Task 5. Implementation Assistance. The Consultant will assist the City in drafting technical language and findings to be included in the ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fees. The Consultant will also make recommendations on implementation and administration of the impact fee program. Issues to be addressed regarding implementation focus on the need to protect the integrity of the nexus and comply with the Mitigation Fee Act through proper implementation and administration. They include: • Updating and indexing of fees • Collection, budgeting and expenditure controls • Accounting, and reporting procedures required to satisfy the Mitigation Fee Act • Provision of credits for facilities constructed by developers • Administrative appeals • Adjustment of fees in unusual cases Work Product (Task 5): Technical language and findings for enactment of the fees and implementation recommendations as part of the impact fee report. Task 6. Meetings/Presentations. This proposal includes three site visits by consulting staff to meet with City staff during preparation of the study, and two site visits to present the draft report to the City Council and/or other interested groups. Additional meetings, if requested by the City, would be treated as additional services and charged on a time and expenses basis. MAXIMUS Page 12 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study SCHEDULE The progress of any impact fee study depends to a considerable extent on the amount of time required for the client to provide information needed by the Con- sultant. A normal time frame for this type of study --assuming data collection goes smoothly --is 4-5 months from kickoff to draft report. Only 6-8 weeks of that time is typically required by the consultant to organize data, do the analysis, and com- plete a draft report once all of the required data on development and facility needs and costs are provided. The balance of the time is used by the Consultant to be- come familiar with the locality and background information, and to guide the staff in assembling data needed for the analysis. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT To be best of our knowledge, MAXIMUS has no existing or potential conflicts of interest related to the performance of this study. MAXIMUS Page 13 City of National City, CA — Proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study COST PROPOSAL STUDY COST The following table shows the estimated consulting fees and expenses for the work described in this proposal. It also shows the anticipated number of weeks elapsed before each task is completed, using reasonably optimistic assumptions. Task No. Task Description J. Colgan Hours Total Fees Expenses Total Cost 1 Project Initiation 12 $2,100 $450 $ 2,550 2 Organize Development Data 40 $7,000 $ 7,000 3 Impact Fee Analysis 72 $12,600 $450 $13,050 4 Report Preparation 48 $8,400 $450 $ 8,850 5 Implementation Assistance 8 $1,400 $ 1,400 6 Meetings/Presentations 24 $4,200 $800 $ 5,000 Total Hours/Weeks 204 Hourly Rate $ 175.00 Total Fees/Expenses $ 35,700 $35,700 $2,150 $37,850 Proposed Lump Sum Cost. Based on the above estimates MAXIMUS offers to pre- pare an impact fee study, as described in this proposal, for a total cost of 37,850.00, including all expenses. The proposed cost assumes the work will not be delayed or interrupted by the City for any period exceeding 60 days, or for a cu- mulative period of 120 days before completion of all work covered by this pro- posal. It also assumes that once work performed by the Consultant is approved by the City in the course of the study, the City will not change the information relied upon by the Consultant in the completion of that work. In the event of such delays or revisions, the Consultant shall have the right to request additional compensation for actual costs incurred as a result. Invoicing. Invoices will be submitted monthly, based on time and expenses charged to the project each month, but not to exceed the estimated percentage of the work completed up to that time. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In the event the City requests additional services in not covered by the scope of this proposal, those services will be billed at the standard hourly rates for the personnel involved, plus actual expenses. No such additional services will be undertaken without written authorization from the City. EXPIRATION OF PROPOSAL This proposal will remain in effect for 60 days from the date of submittal. MAXIMUS Page 14 City of National City Office of the City Clerk 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, California 91950-4397 Michael R. Della, CMC - City Clerk (619) 336-4228 Fax: (619) 336-4229 January 27, 2004 Richard Pearl, Vice President Maximus 4320 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 2000 Sacramento CA 95831 Dear Mr. Pearl, On January 20, 2004, Resolution No. 2004-6 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of National City, authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Maximus to provide the City with impact fee analysis. We are forwarding a certified copy of the above Resolution and a fully executed agreement. Sincerely, Martha L. Alvarez, CMC Deputy City Clerk /mla Enclosure cc: Building and Safety File No. C2004-2 ® Recycled Paper City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE January 20, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 ITEM TITLE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH MAXIMUS TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITHHAAN IMPACT FEE NALYSIS PREPARED BY Kathleen Trees 17—e� 4213 � DEPARTMENT Building & Safety EXPLANATION AB 1600, the California Mitigation Fee Act, took effect in 1989. This bill allows jurisdictions to charge developers of new residential and commercial projects fees to mitigate the cost of the increased use of public facilities, such as police stations and equipment, fire stations and equipment, libraries, streets, sewers, and parks. Until recently, the City has not had a large amount of new development that would cause a significant increase in demand on city facilities. The City does, however, currently charge developers of new projects $125 for parks and approximately $1,500 for sewer. The City is now experiencing an increase in new development that will potentially have an impact on the city's current facilities. To determine the size of the impact and whether the City will need to mitigate the impact in the form of impact fees, the City has contacted MAXIMUS to study the problem. MAXIMUS has done impact fee studies since 1989 in over 50 jurisdictions and they are familiar with California law. MAXIMUS will establish the relationship between development and facility needs, and identify any deficiencies resulting from additional development. They will also evaluate the impact of development on the need for additional facilities and identify the costs eligible for impact fee funding. They will then calculate the impact fees the City can charge for each type of facility listed above. This information will be presented to the City Council for use in establishing impact fees in National City. Attached is the proposal with additional information. Environmental Review ✓ N/A Financial Statement $37,850 to be paid out of Unreserved Fund Balance. Approved by anc= Director Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No. 2004-6 Resolution Contract Proposal A-200 (9/80) RESOLUTION NO. 2004 — 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH MAXIMUS TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH AN IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS WHEREAS, the City desires to employ a consultant to provide an impact fee analysis; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that Maximus is a program management and operations consultant and is qualified by experience and ability to perform the services desired by the City, and Maximus is willing to perform such services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City an Agreement with Maximus to provide an impact fee analysis. Said Agreement is on file in the office of the City Clerk. PASSED and ADOPTED this 20th day of January, 2004. ATTEST: 4 Michael R. Dalla City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of National City, California, on January 20, 2004, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Councilmembers Inzunza, Morrison, Natividad, Parra, Ungab. Nays: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. AUTHENTICATED BY: NICK INZUNZA Mayor of the City of National City, California it lerk of the Ciy� Ci of National City, California By: Deputy I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2004-6 of the City of National City, California, passed and adopted by the Council of said City on January 20, 2004. City Clerk of the City of National City, California By: Deputy