Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.03 CostAllocComprehenFee f CITY CLERK File # DWl[Q]-~~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 16,2004 SUBJECT: Agreement with Public Resources Management Group (PRM) for a Cost Allocation and Comprehensive Fee Study Report Prepared by: Carole A. Perry, Administrative Services Director and Fred Marsh, Finance Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Excerpts From Proposal 2. Proposed Agreement RECOMMENDA nON: ~ ~uthOrize the City Manager to execute the Agreement with PRM. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The cost for consultant services related to Fiscal Year 2004-2005 is estimated at $36,000. Adequate funds are included in the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 for completion of this study. DESCRIPTION: Included in the City's Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 is a high priority Council goal to complete an update of fees charged for City services and indirect charges assessed on development services. The goal is to ensure that the City of Dublin is utilizing comprehensive overhead rates and accurately accounting and charging for the true cost of providing City services. Development of Request for Proposal (RFP) Since the scope of this study affects multiple departments, a committee was formed from members of the City Manager, Community Development, Public Works and Administrative Services Departments to contribute to the development of the RFP and to participate on the panel to interview the finalists. Based upon input from the committee, a RFP was issued which asked the respondents to provide detail on providing an overhead cost allocation analysis and for a comprehensive user fee study. The scope of services required in each of these areas are briefly summarized below: Overhead Cost Allocation Analysis · Work with City staff to develop an Overhead Cost Allocation Model and to define the methodology used for calculating the full cost of providing each City service. · Work with the Administrative Services Department in developing service provisions, cost categories, and allocation criteria for current and future programs. · Draft an overhead cost allocation plan and prepare a final plan for the City. COPIES TO: J. Bradley Wilkes, PRM l~~ ITEM NO. Lt3 G:\RFPS\Cost Overhead~Development Fees\Agenda for Fee-Overhead Study2004rev.doc P, Comprehensive User Fee And Rate Study . Conduct a comprehensive review o,f the City's fee structure for all departments, with the goal of establishing a consistent and objectively based fee structure. Review the documentation supporting the current fee structures for all departments and services. Draft a Comprehensive User Fee Study and prepare a final study for the City. . . Analysis of RFPs Received Four project proposals were received by the due date of September 16, 2004. The following is a breakdown of the four proposals; including "not to exceed" project costs, total hours proposed by each firm for the project and the effective hourly rate for these services (firms are listed from lowest to highest pricing, in terms of the hourly consultant costs): NAME OF FIRM MAXIMUM COST $35,000 $36,000 $41,500 $39,460 PROPOSED HOURS FOR SERVICES 321 327 348 240 Maximus PRM Muni Financial Revenue & Cost S ecialists $110.09 $119.25 $164.42 Firm Backe:round and Selection Rationale On October 15,2004, interviews were conducted with each of the four firms. These interviews provided an opportunity for the interview panel to meet with representatives from each firm. Based upon the review of the proposals, assessments from the interviews, and follow-up reference checks by Staff, Public Resources Management Group (PRM) is being recommended for selection. Although not the lowest bidder for this project, this firm has been selected by Staff for several reasons, including, but not limited to: ,... thorough, comprehensive, reliable and user-friendly product ,... easy to use/Excel based program ,... extensiye knowledge/experience in this field. ,... competitively priced proposal (approximately $1.00/average per hour above the lowest bidder) Attachment 1 includes excerpts from the proposal submitted by PRM. The firm has extensive experience in this type of work, is familiar with the Tri-Valley area, and has conducted numerous overhead cost allocation and user-fee projects for cities, including Campbell, Emeryville, Los Gatos, Roseville, and Sacramento. Additionally, PRM will provide Excel-based software to allow Staff the capability to prepare annual updates on the overhead rates that are assessed and on the fees charged for City services. Attachment 2 includes an agreement for the proposed scope of services. The firm has presented a detailed schedule for pricing and their work plan, which is tailored towards meeting the City's needs. It should be noted that the City has never conducted such an intensive fee study; therefore, a comprehensive and user- friendly product is of critical importance. Reference checks completed on PRM have been positive and have verified the thoroughness, accuracy and ease-of-use of their cost allocation plans, user fee studies and Excel based software. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed agreement with PRM to provide a Cost Allocation and Comprehensive Fee Study. ~0fJ9. )~ " /::i)~.t{{'0~1\\\ !///~\\\\ <!\_I.)J\j\-\~~; \ . L;::;;rB::;;:':r~~:~I~~~",:J ''::1..'';."'.''''':, "':.'.~'.'f."Y: . ,T" :::-.... 1':;:.:7 ~TI."':'r f,"C:o ~ j : ;, ::. ; I l j t ) ) ~ ! I 'I' ,~,;~.j~~',,~~id~.d1 I~:J;~\J~~ ,.~..L". l ~L .t~ ;..~1 ~;~ PUBj..! C RESOU RCE MAN AGEMENT GROUP PR.OPOSAL FOR. A COST ALLOCATION AND COMPREHENSIVE FEE AND RATE STUDY TO: THE CITY OF DUBLIN SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 1380 Lead Hill Blvd, Suite 106, Roseville, CA 95661 ~ Tele: 916+677-4233 ... \'b s 6 PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT FlIl(: 916-677-2283 WWW.pnngroup.net ATTACHMENT 1 11-1 tD-014 L4-.,3 PRM ;A1J '" S .. P U 13 LIe RES 0 U RC E MAN AGE MEN t G R 0 LJ P September '13, 2004 Kay Keck City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Dear Kay Keck, Public Resource Management Group (PRM) is pleased to submit this proposal for an Overhead Cost Allocation and Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study. By way of introduction, PRM was started with the belief that to be successful, a company must focus its attention on a limited number of services, hire only the best people, and provide them with the best tools. I believe that PRM is accomplishing these three objectives. The goal of this PRM proposal is to provide the city with the confidence that PRM has a high level of interest in this proj ect, has the very best people to provide this service, and that the tools and proposed budget will be at a level that will allow us to complete the project in a professional way. I believe there are several key issues that, if addressed properly, will lead to success. People The first person to join PRM after its inception was Ms. Erin Payton. Ms. Payton is the state's expert on user fee/cost plan studies, having completed more of these projects for California city governments than any other person. In just the past year, Ms. Payton and our staffhave successfully completed user-fee projects for the following cities: . Campbell . Emeryville . Cupertino . Folsom . Dixon . Sacramento . Pittsburg . Santa Barbara . Los Gatos . Roseville . La Mirada . La Mesa . Whittier PRM is fortunate to have also provided cost allocation services to the Dublin San Ramon Services District, located just mile from Dublin City Hall. We are pleased that Mr. John Archer in the finance department is an excellent reference for our firm. 1380 L"ad Hm Blvd., Suite 106, Roseville, CA ~)5661 A teI916-677-4233 fax !J16-677-2283 www.prmgroup,net PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT ~1J .;. s In addition to these recent projects, our project team (while with their previous employer), has provided cost plan and user fee services to many other local governments in Northern California. Our Bay Area clients include: Danville, San Francisco, Redwood City, Hercules, and others. fu just the past year, our staffhas grown to twelve professionals. We are the largest firm in the western United States focusing on the cost analysis of local government services. While other firms have lost staff, PRM has had the good fortune of attracting the very best professionals on the West Coast. Communication: PRM prides itself on being able to effectively communicate the often times confusing world of direct and indirect costs. This ability is a result of our long experience providing these services to California local government and our confidence in the accuracy of our work. It has been our experience that the success of a complex cost analysis project is 70% dependent upon the communication ofproject results, and 30% upon the technical ability of the consultant. Therefore, in all of our projects, we recommend and provide several "workshops" and presentations to city staff - including general fund and enterprise fund managers, city councils and outside interested groups. Technical Accuracy: To have confidence in the results findings presentation, it is essential that the consultant has confidence in the data. PRM is extremely confident in our ability to provide your city with a state-of-the-art study. Most of our senior managers have a background preparing county government-related cost studies. This is of utmost importance because these studies are audited on an annual basis by the State Controller's Office. Naturally, this auditing process causes our staff to be very mindful of all the generally accepted accounting guidelines that dictate the calculation of direct and indirect costs. In addition to our county government background, PRM senior managers have personally prepared more city government cost plan/user fee studies than any other team in the Western United States. PRM has the unique combination of solid training - steeped in the demanding world of county cost allocation, and years and years of experience preparing cost allocation and user fee analysis for California city governments. The Dublin RFP referred to the study's objective - which is to ensure that the overhead rates are "accurately accounting for the true cost of providing services". Our background in conducting these studies, for not only hundreds of city governments - but also for hundreds of county governments, will provide the city the assurance that the study will be prepared accurately and in accordance to federal guidelines described in OMB A-87. Prior to our proposal submission, we visited the city to obtain background information on the city's general structure and any specific, unique aspects that would assist in developing a more meaningful proposal. Our visit was very helpful in terms of learning about your city departments that are contract departments, those operated with city staff, general information about fee levels, etc. We also have reviewed the city's use of the two general overhead rates and believe we can offer some excellent advice in terms of a more accurate approach for these rates. Public Resource Management Group mAm City ofDublin Proposal 2 Yt :; ~ PRM has 100% client satisfaction. We welcome reference calls to. any of our clients. Weare confident that your city will be pleased with our work. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our proposal with you in person if our proposal is selected for further consideration. Sincerely, - ~~.~ J Bradley Wilkes Public Resource Management Group Public Resource Management Group miL City ofDubJin Proposal 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Letter Executive Summary Scope of Services Description of Project Team Description of Recent Projects and References Proposed Process, Work plan and Strategy Schedule Meetings Proposed Budget Cost Plan Fee Study Hourly Rates Attachments: Fee Comparison Example Chart Sample Work Product Public Resource Management Group ~ . r 15 rIfJ G~ SECTION I II III IV v City ofDublin Proposal 4 Public Resource Management Group It?'b S~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~ City of Dublin Proposal 5 . lG() 56 Executive Summary Public Resource Management Group (PRM) is a firm focused on the analysis of the full cost of govemmentalservices. This includes the development ofOMB A-87 and full cost allocation plans, indirect cost rates, the full cost of providing user fee and SB 90 claiming services and other related cost and revenue enhancement consulting services. As a focused, California based company; PRM's business model facilitates providing excellent service and quick response at professional fees that reflect a low overhead structure. Its principal consultant and owner has a long history of providing professional consulting services to local government in California. Mr. Brad Wilkes began working with local governments in California in 1982 as a front-line consultant with DMG. Since that time, he has prepared hundreds of cost allocation plans, user fee calculations and indirect cost rate studies. When he left DMG-Maximus he was the company's Director for all consulting projects, staff members and offices in the Western States. The City of Dublin's (City) project presents a complex opporhmity. The services requested are challenging and require not only technically sound consultants, but ones who have the stature required to make presentations to a diverse group of City staff and managers. The PRM team oflocal government consultants represents the most experienced individuals available in the Western United States. Between our proposed project team members, we have completed hundreds of cost of service studies for city governments. PRM will conduct a thorough analysis of the full cost of city services as requested. In addition, we would like to draw particular attention to the following areas of focus: Public Resource Management Group miL City of Dublin Proposal 6 ~ otJ. f;~' 1. Communication Plan: PRM believes the success of this project will hinge on the consultant's ability to communicate results. To address the importance of this factor, PRM recommends the development of a communication plan. This plan can be fine tuned for the unique nature of Dublin, but in general, our plan includes the following broad steps: Step One: Do not wait to introduce the study until the projects completion. There is too much to digest if communication waits until the end of the project. PRM has been successful in laying the groundwork for the underpinnings of the project by conducting a "Full Cost of Governmental Service - Workshop 101". This presentation reviews the principles of direct and indirect costs. We review: what a cost allocation plan is, how it was developed by the federal government, and its historic role in calculating the support costs of government. We walk the audience through how to read a cost plan, how it calculates "overhead" allocations to enterprise funds and how its numbers flow into a user fee study. . It is imperative that a solid understanding of the process be developed up front before the results are presented. The PRM software is linked, so that the flow of data from the cost plan and the user fee study is. seamless and easier to understand than most other professional prepared cost plan and user fee documents. Step Two: With the groundwork laid in step one, our staff fans out across the city and meet individually with city staff. Departments that are cost plan related (both departments that allocate costs and the enterprise funds that receive the allocations) are met with to continue , more detailed discussions These individual meeting solidify what was presented in step one and are meant to inspire confidence in staff members' minds that PRM is well qualified to prepare this study. Step Three: Presentation ofinterim results. When preliminary results are obtained, PRM has found it helpful to provide a presentation to interested parties. This is part of the "no- surprises" approach to consulting to which PRM to. This allows decision makers the opportunity to prepare themselves for the final results, reducing the chances of having staff, managers and elected officials being caught off guard. Step Four: Presentation offinal results. It is our experience that this may require two presentations. The first would be a presentation of the results, and a second follow-up meeting may be required to answer questions and re-present the project, given questions and concerns brought up in the first meeting. PRM believes this communication plan will be vital to the success of this project. However, our long career has taught us that one can not plan for everything. Even the best plans sometimes go awry. Our long histoty in providing these services to local governments gives us the confidence that will be able to address any surprises that will inevitably arise. In addition to our standard references, the following are clients who selected PRM over other firms because of the value they placed on our ability to communicate and present project Public Resource MW1agement Group m&r City of Dublin Proposal 7 q~?? results. Please feel free to call any of these clients to ask specifically about our presentations and workshops. Santa Barbara Ms. Jill Taura Finance Department itaura(cV,ci.santa-barbara.ca. us 805-564-5528 Huntington Beach Mr. Clay Martin Director, Administrative Services cmartin(cV,surfcity-hb.org 714-536-5236 Burbank Ms. Jennifer Kaplan Budget Office ikap1an@ci.burbank.ca.us 818-238-5500 Cupertino (recently moved to Mtn. View) Aarti Shrivastava Principal Planner Aarti. Shri vastava(ci}ci .mtnview. ca. us 650.903.6452 Dublin San Ramon Services Mr. John Archer Finance Department archer(cV,dsrsd. .com 925-875-2271 2. Cost Allocation Plan Development: To accurately calculate citywide indirect costs, a cost allocation plan must be prepared. The city of Dublin has had cost plans prepared in the past - and PRM is confident that the city will appreciate our staff s attention to detail and accuracy in the preparation of the indirect cost analysis. PRM consultants have prepared more cost allocation plans than has any other group of individuals in the State. Our cost plan report was designed with input from clients, the State Controller's Office and our some 70 years worth of experience represented by our consulting team members. The resulting cost plan software and printed report is the most complete and easy-to-read cost plan report available. Weare confident that the city will find our process extremely detailed, rock solid and easy to read. When combined with our "Cost Plan 101" workshops, our cost allocation plan process has been well received by our clients. PRM will develop the city's cost allocation plan, using the generally accepted guidelines that meet all the goals of the study and that are set forth by the State Controller's Office. Our team is second to none in understanding how citywide indirect costs should flow into a user fee calculation. Additionally, the cost plan will: a. Ensure enterprise (if any) funds are being allocated full cost b. Ensure citywide allocations are being allocated to user fee departments in enough detail c. Link the cost plan with the PRM Excel-based user fee system d. Provide OMB A-87 related allocations for State and Federal claiming opportunities Public Resource Management Group m&rr City of Dublin Proposal 8 lO~ ~~. PRM will ensure that the cost plan allocates the correct layers of costs needed for an accurate user fee analysis. We will prepare both an OMB A-87 cost plan and a full cost allocation plan. A detailed description of our cost plan process and an example of our easy to read cost plan report is provided as an attachment to this proposal. 3, User Fee Analysis: PRM software is extremely flexible. The software has a variety of features. These features allow the user to select the degree of complexity they desire. For example, when developing the analysis for a particular user fee service, the user can select an option that details every step in the service and provides a ''per minute" time estimate for each step, all adding up to a ''total time per service." The other option would be a more summary look at the service wherein the user bypasses the "step-by-step" analysis and enters injust the total time per service. Second, the software has built into it an "Interactive Factor." This feature allows the user to enter into factors into the major schedules, which will update the basic cost assumptions in the fee analysis. For example, the city of Campbell, a recent client, wants to use this factor to update the fee study to reflect an inflation factor next year. For example, by entering a factor of 1.02, the cost assumption (salary levels, supply and service costs, etc.) will all be increased 2 percent. 4. User Fee Comparisons: PRM is currently completing the development of a statewide user fee database. Over 150 city fee schedules (mostly planning departments) have been gathered, and a centralized user fee database is being developed for fee comparisons. The database will enable comparisons to be made by county, population size, fee title, etc. Comparisons can be drawn to provide the city with an ''unscientific'' look at As an example of the eompari.wms the database ean how their fees compare. As cost provide, an example ehart is shown in Attachment I of analysts, we know that this proposal The chart displays a listing of over 9() eity comparisons should be made fee examplesfor a planning department Conditional U.,'e carefully, but we also know Permit. As can be seen in the chart, Dublin is one of the through experience that city lowest ill the sample. decision makers (such as city council members) need such comparisons to provide a certain ''unscientific comfort level" as they approach fee increase decisions. 5. New Fees: This statewide user fee database, combined with our team's experience in all areas of city user fee services will enable PRM to assist in identifying new areas of fee opportunity. In addition, PRM will develop the cost allocation process to ensure all areas general fund support costs are being recovered in new and existing fees. Public Resource Management Group Am City of Dublin Proposal 9 ~; \lot)GG 6. Fee Study and Cost Plan Workshops: As a part of our standard use fee study project, PRM offers two additional "workshops" for city decision makers. Our experience has shown that city management and the city council will be better prepared to make fee increase decisions if an introductory workshop has been held in advance of the final presentation of the study results. This "Full Cost Analysis 101" . workshop. describes the process of full cost calculation. This presentation is balanced to provide enough high level detail to give the decision makers a sound understanding of how costs will be calculated - leaving time for questions if more detail is requested. PRM clients have found this process to be critical in the understanding and acceptance of study results. PRM offers to provide three presentations/workshops related to this study. 7, Cost Plan and User Fee Software: PRM is pleased to offer full tested software completely based in Microsoft Excel. As a required part of the city's RFP, PRM is the only firm, to our knowledge, that has both the cost allocation plan and the user fee analysis both developed in Excel. While other firms may suggest that their studies are based in Excel, that usually means that the final reports are Excel based, but the actual formulas that are required to make changes are found in other software. PRM will make both modules available as part of this proposal. In summary, the project proposed is a wide ranging study of all the general fund services in the city. The PRM project team has the varied background and experience to address all the areas of concern expressed by the City. PRM considers this a premier opportunity to work with the City of Dublin. It also offers a chance to tackle a challenging project and build a solid foundation of full cost analyses that will benefit the City for years to come. Public Resource Management Group A City of Dublin Proposal 10 Public Resource Management Group I. SCOPE OF SERVICES wL I ~~ 5'" City of Dublin Proposal 11 r" \ '3-00 St;1 I. Scope of Services As PRM approaches this project for the city of Dublin, we are guided by three overriding goals, 1) produce the most technically sound project possible, 2) manage the project in a professional manner to ensure as much ''buy-in'' as possible by city departments and, 3) produce management reports that are professionally presented, informative and useful. Our project approach supports these objectives. A. Project Approach: 1. Introduction: The city has requested information related to the full cost of providing city services. Specifically the: ,... Development of a cost allocation plan ,... Development of an indirect cost rate ,... Full cost of providing user fee related services The steps required to calculate the full cost of services involve the calculation of 1) indirect cost and 2) direct cost. The chart below provides an overview of the calculation process. Each example of indirect and direct cost is illustrated. Indirect costs are broken into three levels. The first level illustrates costs to support the entire city government structure or "citywide" indirect costs. In the example below, a citywide cost such as payroll service to planning department staff is labeled a citywide indirect service (yellow squares). Department-wide support services, or the second level of indirect costs, are those that support staff in only one department (dark blue squares). Finally, the third level of indirect costs are those accounted for within the program itself (light green squares). This level includes costs such as: clerical support, certain supply and services, etc. Finally, the direct cost is solely the cost of the service provided by the planner I (in the example below) who directly interacts with the customers/citizens (gray square). The chart below illustrates the three levels of indirect versus direct cost: Public Resource Management Group A City ofDublin Proposal 12 Citywide Indirect Costs Payroll Svc Departmentwide Indirect Costs Program Indirect Costs 'L.\lJb sS- Bldg Maint Legal Support Budgeting City Manager PRM uses federally approved guidelines and generally accepted indirect costing methods to identify and calculate these levels of costs. The cost allocation plan is used to allocate citywide indirect costs throughout the city government structure. The development of the city's cost allocation plan is the first step in calculating the full cost of city services. This document Will be key to all other cost calculations made in the study. Departmental and program indirect cost rates are also calculated to determine the level of departmental indirect costs used to support a direct city service. Once the indirect costs are calculated, the data is integrated into the PRM user fee software and combined with the direct cost analysis to form a full cost calculation. The steps involved in a full cost of services study include: 1. Prepare the city's Cost Allocation Plan. Review the following: a. Costs allocated - ensure all indirect costs are being allocated for use in a user fee study (this is key, because a typical cost plan may not be designedfor the allocation of all costs required in an accurate user fee study.) b. Allocation base selection c. Allocations of indirect cost to enterprise funds d. Allocations of indirect costS to user fee services e. Allocations of indirect costs to facilities and fields 2. Development of a User Fee Study a. IdentificationlInventory of all user fee related services b. Calculation of the direct cost of each user fee service i. Salary cost of direct staff supplying service ii. Fringe benefits iii. Direct services and supplies c. Full Cost Identification Public Resource Management Group A ~ City of Dublin Proposal 13 \50055 i. Integrate indirect cost data from the cost allocation plan ii. Integrate direct cost data d. Subsidy Analysis e. Develop a comparison of fee levels among other selected cities. B. Work Plan: Step 1: Proiect Introductory Meeting To ensure a successful start, PRM recommends holding an introductory meeting with key staff members that include both general fund departments and non-general fund departments. Of course, PRM will look to city staff for guidance for the purpose and content of the meeting and for a list of invitees. PRM considers an initial meeting designed to review the project's overall goals and objectives vital to a successful outcome. Agenda items for the introductory meeting could include: ,... An explanation of the cost plan and user fee analysis process ,... The purpose of a full cost study ,... How other cities use full costing ,... Example summary reports produced by the project ,... Questions and answers ,... Etc. Step 2: Data Review As soon as possible, lists of basic data requirements will be developed. They include: lists of selected staff salary levels, benefit cost detail, operational budgets, transaction statistics, etc. PRM will work with the city to develop and gather needed data in the most efficient way. Once this basic data is acquired, the cost plan and rate structures will be developed. Step 3: Cost Allocation Plan Development a) Central Service Department Interview Preparation: After the central city financial and operational data is gathered,PRM interview forms will be completed. PRM interview formsare developed with questions related to staffing lists, actual salary level, staff titles, department expenditure report detail, development of pre-interview questions, etc. The completion of interview forms prior to the City department interviews will facilitate 1) a professionally conducted streamlined interview, and 2) a thorough and complete understanding of city processes. b) Central Service Departmental Interviews: Central service or "allocating departments" are interviewed to ensure that costs are spread in a manner that reflects: the work that was done; the departments that benefited, and which allocation bases are proper - all key principles stated throughout OMB A-87. While PRM staffwill bring a background oflmowledge and ideas to these interviews, it is also important to listen to department staffwho understand more about their particular area of expertise. Examples of departments interviewed will include building maintenance, accounting, Public Resource Management Group A City ofDublin Proposal 14 H~ttb ~S" management and budget, purchasing, etc. In addition, any internal services funds (ISF) that charge for services willbe interviewed with emphasis on ensuring indirect costs are allocated accurately so that they can be included in the full cost analysis when calculating ISF rates. c) Department Personnel Staff Analvsis: Departmental Staffing Analysis (PSA) worksheets will be completed utilizing information gathered in the initial interviews. The PSA provides a basis for the distribution of departmental costs into departmental functions. During our interviews with central service departments, we will discuss each person's assignments and duties. Using time sheets, assignments, or interview notes, we will determine what percentage of each person's time should be divided into departmental functions. This information will be entered into the PSA worksheets to define departmental functions. Once staff members and their corresponding salaries are distributed to functions, other department costs, such as materials and supplies, will also be distributed into the same functions or cost pools. This process takes a departmental budget unit and breaks it into functional cost pools, which can then be allocated throughout the city using a meaningful allocation base. d) Departmental Cost Distribution: This schedule allocates the departmental costs of the central service department and any "incoming costs" being allocated from other central service departments. At this point, the PRM software takes an added step usually not considered in other cost allocation plan software. No other software has the ability to analyze, display and allocate the indirect costs of each central service department in such detail. This detail facilitates review, explanation and audit, leading to reduced errors and re-runs of reports. e) Developing Allocation Bases: After the departmental functions are created, and costs are distributed across functions, a separate meaningful allocation base will be selected that best reflects the benefit each department in the city receives from the various services. For example, in accounting, once the payroll functional cost pool is developed, an allocation base will be selected to distribute the payroll cost to all departments that benefit from the payroll service. Using OMB A-87 as a guide, the allocation base must reflect a connection between the service provided and the service received. An example for payroll could be the number of paychecks issued per department during the fiscal year- in other words - the more paychecks the department received, the more payroll cost is allocated. f) Cost Allocation Management Reoorts: After each central service department is interviewed, departmental costs are distributed to functional cost pools, and each cost pool is given an allocation base, the cost plan is ready to be produced. PRM software is based on off-the-selfMicrosoft products. This provides unlimited flexibility in calculating, formatting and reporting information. Public Resource Management Group ~ CityofDublin Proposal 15 11c6 5~ Step 4: User Fee Direct Cost Analvsis: a) User Fee Inventory: Working with city staff, an inventory of all current user fee charges will be developed. This list will include all general fund services provided to the public for which fees are charged. The objectives of the inventory are to identifY all general fund user fee charges matched to the departments which supply the services. h1 some cases, more than one department will participate on a particular service. Information such as the following will be reviewed: ,... fee history ,... rate increase history ,... revenue history ,... fee purpose ,... # of units completed each year ,... departments providing service b) Departmental Interviews: With information from the fee inventory, each department supplying user fee services will be interviewed. Using the PRM interview forms, the following data will be gathered: ,... Staff members providing service ,... Amount oftime: Required to complete one unit of the service Per year spent supplying the service ,... Activity statistics such as: # completed per year # completed last fiscal year estimated # of units completed in the coming fiscal year The key statistics needed from a departmental interview are: individual staff estimates oftime spent providing each service, and the number of units completed on an annual basis. The attached PRM interview form provides an example of the data needed. In each department interview, 100% of each staffmember's time is identified to ensure that no service, user fee related or not, is excluded from the full cost analysis. (Optional ~ Building Department Nexus Study - this option is shown here for informational purposes only): Traditionally, city building departments have depended on the Uniform Building Code (UBC) rate tables to establish building inspection and plan check fees. A fee study can review the revenue generation of these tables and recommend general increases and/or adjustments to the UBC rate factors depending on the total cost of the building department. Several PRM clients have requested that PRM conduct a more thorough "Nexus" study that develops a new method and basis' for charging fees. This nexus method makes a firm connection between hours and cost of service that some feel is lacking in the traditional UBC table method. We are currently conducting this analysis for the cities ofRoseville and Whittier. Because the process is more detailed and time consuming, we of(er it on Public Resource Management Group miL City of Dublin Proposal 16 '~'b''" optional basis. If the city of Dublin desires this approach PRM, will be pleased to develop a process for it. c) Financial Analvsis: Once the basic time and workload transaction data is gathered from the departmental interviews, salary data, departmental service and supply cost data is entered into the PRM user fee software. This departmental data is integrated with the indirect cost data developed within the PRM cost allocation plan module. The direct costs and indirect cost of each fee is calculated and displayed for review. d) User Fee Management Reports: All the financial, transaction and comparison data is reported in the final management reports. Each department is provided an opportunity to review the cost/revenue data at least two separate times. This ensures that the raw data is as accurate as possible, resulting in a more reliable final report. Deliverables: OMB A-87 Cost Allocation Plan Full Cost Allocation Plan User Fee Detail and Summary Reports Public Resource ManagementGroup nnAm City ofDuhlin Proposal 17 Public Resource Management Group II. PROJECT TEAM Am \q"t) .;~ City of Dublin Proposal 18 c9DDQ ~~. II. Proiect Team: The project will be conducted by a combination of: Mr. Brad Wilkes, Ms. Erin Payton, Mr. Jeff Wakefield, Mr. Patrick Dyer, Ms. Nicky Cass and Mr. Mike Adams. Mr. Wilkes has over 20 years of experience; Ms. Payton and Mr. Wakefield have over 15 years of experience oflocal governmental consulting, specifically, in cost allocation and indirect cost rate calculation. Mr. Dyer, Mr. Adams and Ms. Cass are expert in the calculation of the full cost of city services and will bring added strength to our team. PRM's ability to provide a team of this size is unique among consulting firms. No other firm can offer such a large and experienced staff. All members of our team focus solely on the calculation of local government cost. No junior level or enter level staff will be assigned to this proj ect. FIRM QUALIFICATIONS: PRM is extremely well qualified to complete this study. Our staffhas completed more of these types ofprojects than any other team. While the firmis new, our staffis not. Together our tearri has completed hundreds of user fee projects in the state of California. In just the past year we have completed projects for Los Altos, Campbell, Whittier, La Mirada, Roseville; Placer County, Sacramento, and Dixon. Our growth rate has been excellent and is an independent testament to the quality of our work. We have grown from a 1 person company to a team of twelve within 16 months. Our client list has grown from 1 client in October of 2002 to over 35 current clients. While other consulting firms have lost clients and staff, PRM has grown. Our enthusiasm and dedication to meeting or exceeding our client's expectations has made PRM an attractive place to work. We believe our clients benefit from our success of attracting only the very best professionals that enj oy providing these professional services. Public Resource Management Group A City of Dublin Proposal 19 ~ I '1J5G~ A. Project Management: The consultants offered on ourproject team are all senior level consultants. Together, our team will serve both as management and as on.,site consultants. We will have no junior level consultant working on the Dublin project. Together, we will be responsible for project schedules, on-site interviews, data management, document preparation and presentations. Mr. Wilkes has served as a project consultant, manager, senior manager, vice president and regional director for David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (DMG) and DMG-Maximus. He has participated, managed, and led hundreds of consulting engagements - many similar to the project requested by the City of Dublin. B. Experience: There is no better measure of experience than actual project experience. PRM is led by a group of senior managers with at least 15 years of experience. A sample of the agencies Mr. Wilkes has personally prepared cost full cost studies for includes: City/County of San Francisco City of Campbell, California City of Sacramento, California City of Burbank, California City of Culver City, California City of Concord, California City ofWatsonville, California City of Stockton, California City/County of Kauai, Hawaii City of Los Angeles, California County of Sacramento, California Counties of Glenn, Inyo, Lassen, Mono and Marin California City of Portland, Oregon County of Clackamas, Oregon County of Pierce, Washington City of Provo, Utah County of Salt Lake, Utah City of Tacoma, Washington City Gresham, Oregon Similarly, Ms. Payton has an impressive list of clients. Below is a sample of the 205 cost accounting- related projects she has completed over the last 17 years: Alameda Brentwood Burbank Calistoga Camarillo Campbell Colfax Compton Concord Culver City Danville Dixon El Centro El Segundo Emeryville Fairfield Fresno Grover Beach Hercules Hermosa Beach Lathrop Lompoc Long Beach Los Gatos Manhattan Beach Menlo Park Milpitas Mission Viejo Modesto Moorpark Morgan Hill Morro Bay Ontario Orange Oroville Palo Alto Pasadena Pinole Placer County Public Resource Management Group A City ofDublin Proposal 20 ~~'b'''' Rancho Cucamonga Redondo Beach Richmond Sacramento San Fernando San Francisco San Jose San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Monica Santa Paula South San Francisco Sf. Helena Stockton Suisun City Sunnyvale Temecula Torrance Watsonville 'Wheatland Whittier Woodland Public Resource Management Group A City ofDublin Proposal 21 ~3ObS-5 Mr. Brad Wilkes ProiectDirector Mr. Wilkes specializes in governmental cost of service studies. He has a 20 year background in local government consulting focusing on cost allocation development, user fee rate calculations, indirect cost rate calculations, information technology, operations reviews, and cost of services for state and local governments. He is the former Regional Director for all DMG-Maximus consulting offices in the Western United States. His areas of expertise include state and local OMB A-87 cost allocation plans and user fee analyses, information technology requirement and cost-benefit studies, project management, and rate and service cost analyses. During his consulting career, Mr. Wilkes served as a consultant, manager, senior manager, vice president, regional director and board member ofDMG and DMG-Maximus, both national management consulting firms. Mr. Wilkes received his RA. from Brigham Young University, and his M.RA. from California State University. Representative Experience 1982-1985: As a consulting staff member, Mr. Wilkes.was responsible for approximately 20 annual cost allocation plans, user fee and indirect cost rate calculations for city and county governments in California, Oregon and Washington. As a team member, Mr. Wilkes participated in data gathering efforts, departmental interviews, and document preparation. 1985-1987: As a consulting manager and senior manager, Mr. Wilkes was responsible for all phases of a consulting project. Responsibility for client management and project scheduling were added to the day-to-day responsibilities ofproject work. 1987-1992: As a vice president, Mr. Wilkes became responsible for project staff, project scheduling, and project management. During this time, Mr. Wilkes was responsible for over 100 annual cost allocation plan and indirect cost rate projects. 1992-2002: DMG-Maximus Regional Director for all consulting offices in the Western States. Duties . included the direction of 90 employees, five consulting offices, and over 400 annual individual consulting engagements. 1982-2002: Each year during this 20 year period, Mr. Wilkes continued to participate in all phases of consulting projects. In addition to his management responsibilities, he consistently maintained a list of local government clients for whom he completed cost allocation plan and indirect cost rate projects. By maintaining a continuous exposure to on-site client work, Mr. Wilkes maintained all the consulting skills needed to complete any cost analysis related consulting project. 2002- Present: Owner of Public Resource Management Group (pRM)currently completing cost of service projects for several California public agencies. . Public Resource Management Group A City ofDublin Proposal 22 2~Gb'"~ Ms. Erin Pavton Senior Manazer Ms. Payton has been performing governmental cost of service studies since 1985. She has a background in local government consulting focusing on cost allocation development, and user fee rate calculations. She was formerly a Senior Manager at Maximus Inc. Ms. Payton received her degree from UC Santa Barbara. Representative Experience . 1995~2002: As a senior manager with DMG-Maximus and Maximus Ms. Payton was responsible for the management of all complex cost allocation and user fee related projects She participated in all levels of service - project design, on~site interviewing and data gathering, computer modeling, and all levels of presentations. . 1990-2002: As a senior member ofDMG, DMG-Maximus and Maximus, Ms. Payton continued to service her cost allocation clients while taking on the additional responsibilities of training new consultants, product development and other managerial duties. . 2003: As the frrst person to join the PRM team, Ms. Payton has completed several cost allocation plans and user fee studies. She is the most experienced cost analyst in the western united states - having completed hundreds of cost plan and user fee studies for local governments The following is a sample of representative governmental entities for which Ms. Payton has provided professional services: Alameda Brentwood Burbank Calistoga . Camarillo Campbell Colfax Compton Concord Culver City Danville Dixon El Centro El Segundo Emeryville Faiifield Fresno Grover Beach Hercules Hermosa Beach Lathrop Lompoc Long Beach Los Gatos Manhattan Beach Menlo Park Milpitas Mission Viejo Modesto Moorpark Morgan Hill Morro Bay Ontario Orange Oroville Palo Alto Pasadena Pinole Placer County Rancho Cucamonga Redondo Beach Richmond Sacramento San Fernando San Francisco San Jose San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Monica Santa Paula South San Francisco St. Helena Stockton Suisun City Sunnyvale Temecula Torrance Watsonville Wheat/and Whittier Woodland Public Resource Management Group ~ City ofDublin Proposal 23 ,. 26Db s!> III. RECENT PROJECTS AND REFERENCES Public Resource Management Group A City of Dublin Proposal 24 2l.a"b s ~ III. REFERENCES PRM has 100 percent client satisfaction. To underscore how confident we are about our client service, we have requested, and have received positiye letters of recommendations from our PRM clients - a sample of which are attached. PRM includes the following project synopsis. These projects are described because they each have an aspect that relates well with the requirements of this project. They include a large county project which requires great communication and management skills (County of Spokane), a large complex cost allocation plan project (City of Sacramento), and finally, user fee projects that attest to PRM's determination and commitment to meeting project schedules and providing client service (Cities of Campbell, La Mirada and Whittier). County of Spokane Washington: This is the fourth largest county in the state of Washington. It is a full-service county which faces budget, organizational and political issues. PRM was selected to replace its traditional cost plan consultant in order to bring a fresh look at challenges that were facing the county. The PRM contract was initially designed to address just the traditional Citywide cost allocation plan. Once the initial meetings were held with the county, additional responsibilities were added. All the PRM contract additions centered on the calculation of full cost, with the goal of finding alternative methods that could be used to increase revenue to the general fund. Jail rate calculations, low security holding facilities rates, departmental indirect rate calculations, etc. were all added to the PRM list of responsibilities. In addition, charging issues related to county services being provided to the city of Spokane, and the newly incorporated Spokane Valley City presented challenges to the county. PRM was asked to assist in the full cost analysis of these county-supplied services to these city governments within the county. Since the beginning of the project, PRM has met with over 15 county departments and senior county financial officials in an effort to explain the full cost calculation process and develop strategies that will ensure that the county is recovering as much cost as possible from services it provides to outside agencies and to non-general fund operations. PRM was able to establish a sense of trust and confidence with the county Public Resource Management Group mL City of Dublin Proposal 25 21abS-S in a very short period of time, which led to PRM becoming an integral part of the county's strategy to increase general fund revenue in a very tight budget year. City of Sacramento: This project is highlighted to show PRM's ability to handle one of the most complicated cost allocation plan projects in the country. The City of Sacramento's cost plan has over 45 central service departments and hundreds of cost plan functions and allocation bases. The cost plan printout is over 1,100 pages. PRM recently completed the city's cost plan after interviewing over 90 individuals spread over the 45 central service departments. PRM held citywide cost plan workshops to address the negativity that had developed across the city as related to the previous cost plan process. PRM was selected by Sacramento after having a previous cost plan consultant for over 15 years in a row. The Sacramento project is an example of the power of the PRM software, our communication style and our determination to tackle a very difficult project which was surrounded with built-up confusion and discouragement. City of La Mirada: The city of La Mirada is a full-service city. They had particular concerns related to facility and field use and rental. PRM provided added service and attention to areas not usually addressed in fee studies. The full cost of facility, field, and theatre use was analyzed in conjunction with the citywide cost of service analysis. Several city council workshops and presentations were made, and the project was enthusiastically received by all levels of staff and managers within the city. Cities of Campbell and Whittier: These projects are highlighted to represent our determination to meet project schedules. Both cities requested user fee full cost studies for fees charged by their general funds. The projects included cost allocation plan development and the analysis of the direct costs of user fee related services. In both cases, the demands for increased general fund revenue required the cities to request the studies be completed in two to three months. Most citywide user fee projects take 5 to 6 months. But in order to meet the new fiscal year starting in July, both cities requested the very aggressive completion schedule. PRM worked with the city finance departments and created strategies to meet the schedule. City departments were broken up into groups, with teams ofPRM consultants assigned to different groups. This allowed PRM to complete all the department full cost analysis in parallel instead of in the linear approach typically employed. Both cities were pleased with PRM's ability to tackle difficult obstacles and to develop solutions by thinking outside the norm. Public Resource Management Group Arr City ofDublin Proposal 26 2~~ t;,"' Please feel free to contact any PRMclient, as we have 100% client satisfaction. The following are a sample ofPRM references: Mr. Bob Peirson Finance Director City of Santa Barbara 735 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 9310 1 Mr. Jesse Takahashi Finance Department City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1436 408.866~2111 John DiMario Assistant City Manager City of La Mirada 13700 La Mirada Blvd. Client References: La Mirada, CA 90638 562-943-0131 Mr. Rod Hill Finance Manager City of Whittier 13230 Perm Street Whittier, CA 90602 Jennifer Kaplan Management Service Department City of Burbank 275 E. Olive Ave. Burbank, CA 91502 818-238-5500 PRM Clients (please call any city finance director or county auditor on the list below for a reference: Campbell La Mirada Burbank Salinas Whittier Cupertino Santa Barbara San Clemente Pittsburg California Only San Francisco Sacramento Roseville Stockton Redding Los Gatos Ojai Oxnard Dixon Orange Cmmty Glenn County Calaveras County Placer County (Asst. CAO) San Mateo County Lassen County Marin County Monterey County In addition, PRM has recently been selected in recent cost plan/user fee RFP processes in the cities of: La Mesa (Carol McLaughlin, Asst. to the City Manger 619-667-1162) Chino Hills (Judy Landcaster, Finance Director, 909-364-2640) Folsom (Nav Gill, Finance Director, 916-355-7347) Emeryville (Debbie Yamamoto, Finance Department, 510'-596-4326) Huntington Beach (Clay Martin, Administrative Services 714-374-5358) Public Resource Management Group A City of Dublin Proposal 27 2&f~~~ IV. WORKPLAN Public Resource Management Group A City ofDublin Proposal 28 3076 S' ~ IV. PROCESS, WORKPLAN & STRATEGY PRM proposes to conduct the project in a team approach, with each team dedicating the . necessary amount oftime required. As with our other successful projects, a commitment from city staffis also a requirement. Using the team approach, the project will be divided up into 2 teams - or focus groups. With the goal of completing each task in a parallel marmer, the two teams will focus on the following areas: (The teams/tasks are as follows)@ 1. Cost Allocation Plan Team 2. User Fee Study Team The teams are as follows: Team One - Cost Allocation Plan Review Team Two- User Fee Study Brad Wilkes and Nicky Cass Erin Payton, or Jeff Wakefield with Mike Adams and Patrick Dyer Since no firm discussion has been held regarding the City's desired schedule, the following example schedule is provided for proposal purposes. The schedule is an illustration of our step- by-step process and can be adjusted to meet the city's needs once the contract is signed and the project starts. Each on-site visit is described. PRM will work with the City to fine-tune the schedule to meet the City's goals and objectives: Week One and Two: On-site meetings in Dublin 1) Meet with City management team and department heads to introduce study. 2) Obtain budgets, salary levels, staff lists, etc. to begin the cost plan. 3) Begin meetings with departments Explain the data needs for the study Hand out the already developed PRM data sheets Public Resource Management Group m&rr City ofDublin Proposal 29 31 'b ~~ 4) Begin development of the cost allocation plan by entering basic data into PRM software. Week Three-Four: On-site meetings in Dublin: 1) Obtain any feedback from departments, continue communication, and answer questions. 2) Continue cost plan review and user fee department interviews and data collection Week Five -Nine: 1) Continue to meet with departments and obtain draft fee data and begin to enter data into PRM software. Week Ten-Twelve: 1) Project teams will provide a draft of the cost allocation plan and user fee data back to City staff for review. 2) Project teams will update data as needed. Week Thirteen-Fourteen: 1) Staff changes and comments will be used to update cost plan and user fee data. 2) Project teams will update data as needed. Week Fifteen-Sixteen: 1) Changes and comments will be addressed and a second draft of the user fee and a final draft of the cost plan will be developed. 2) Project teams will update data as needed. Meetin!!s with City Council and Manaf!ement: 1) Management reports will be developed for each department in the study. The user fee and cost plan will be finalized. Meetings, will be held as scheduled by the City and the PRM. Updates and Corrections: 1) Any changes as requested during the management meetings will be made and final reports will be delivered. Public Resource Management Group Am City of Dublin Proposal 30 32'0 .;~' ~ PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE OUTLINE: Project Step: Project Week: Month 1 1 2 3 4 5 Month 2 6 7 8 9 Month 3 10 11 12 13 14 Month 4 15 16 17 18 Initial Mtgs: Cost Plan Development: User Fee Interviews: Draft Cost Plan Completed: - 1 st Draft of User Fee Data: Final Cost Plan Delivered: 2nd Draft of User Fee Data: Final User Fee Reports Delivered: The schedule above is representative of a summary of the steps required to complete a thorough cost allocation plan and user fee study. The schedule allows for a number of draft reports which allows Dublin several opportunities to review the study fmdings and make changes. The number of draft iterations is limited by the desired schedule. If the city desires additional chances for review, the schedule can be adjusted to reflect the City's final goals and objectives. Public Resource Management Group .. :mieim: City of Dublin Proposal 31 Public Resource Management Group 33JtG> v. PROJECT BUDGET Am. City of Dublin Proposal 32 34'0 5~ v. PROJECT BUDGET PRM has been successful in providing the best level of service for reasonable prices. During the competitive bidding process, a city often selects the lowest bidder. PRM has developed this proposal using the following three assumptions - all of which affect the price of the study. 1) Using only experienced staff: The price proposed below is based on using only experienced team members. Mr. Wilkes, Ms. Payton, or Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Adams and Ms. Cass will actually be on-site working day-to-day. 2) Special Land Development Team Analvsis: Our proposed budget provides a range of fees to reflect that each project is unique. Several of our recent clients have asked for specific analysis of their planning related services that are processed in several departments. The resulting study details all costs - across departmental lines - for these servIces. 3) Statewide fee database: Our proposed fees below reflect a study that will take advantage of our statewide user fee database to make comparisons to other cities in the state. These factors make the PRM proposal unique, perhaps making an apples-to--apples comparison with other proposals difficult. Therefore, it is important to note that PRM has the ability to reduce our fee by using less experienced staff and/or by increasing the project schedule. We have shown our fees using a range so that the city can select how detailed our study needs to be to match the city's goals and objectives. For example, some of our clients request a simple fee comparison, while others have requested an extensive comparison. Decisions such as this and the number of formal presentations greatly affect the cost of the study. We will be pleased to negotiate our prices to reflect the final goals and objectives of the city. Public Resource Management Group mAm City ofDublin Proposal 33 Our proposed professional fees are: Cost Allocation Plan Development: General Fund User Fee Study: Hourly Rates (for informational use:) Senior Team Members: Team Members: Support: Payment Schedule: 3~ro;;~ $8,000 $24,000 - $28,000 $1401hr. $125/hr. $ 15/hr. PRM requests that payment be made on a monthly basis during the project tenn. Public Resource Management Group mAm City of Dublin Proposal 34 Public Resource Management Group .a tJ, J'o 5 '>" ATTACHEMENT A FEE COMPARISON EXAMPLE roAm City ofDublinProposal 35 PRM FEE DATABASE EXA.MPLE REPORT PLANNING FEES Conditional Use Permit OubH7 1 Cerritos 2 Hayward 3 Bell Gardens 4 Dixon 5 South EI Monte 6 Danville 7 Omville 8 Encinitas 9 Duarte 10 Tehachapi 11 Downey 12 Gardena 13 Lomita 14 San Anselmo 15 Woodland 16 Marysville 17 Fair1ax 18 Santa Rosa 19 Lemon Grove 20 Alameda 21 Temple City 22 Union City 23 Porterville 24 Alhambra 25 Beaumont 26 Calabasas 27 Pinole 28 Walnut 29 Costa Mesa 30 Montebello 31 Woodland 32 Burlingame 33 Monterey Park 34 Rosemead 35 San Carlos 36 Anaheim 37 Mill Valley 38 Hanford 39 Milpitas 40 Orange 41 Sausalito 42 Los Altos Hills 43 Covina 44 EI Monte 45 Danville 46 Martinez 47 National City 48 Redondo Beach 49 Arcadia 50 laVerne 51 Perris 52 San Gabriel 53 La Habra 54 Lincoln 55 Mountain View 56 Moorpark 57 Stanton 58 San Jose 59 Downey 60 Santa Clara 61 Pomono 62 Woodside 63 Lawndale 64 Upland 65 Oceanside 66 EI Segundo 67 Hawthorn 68 Colton 69 Santa Ana 70 Brea 71 Lathrop 72 Torrance 73 Westminster 'itiot18/ Vse 'it Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit S5l7-$T.JO $200 $200 Plus HeM $206 $250 $250 $263 $350 $400 $450 $470 $500 $500 $500 $500 Deposit $533 $550 $578 $600 $625 $676 Plus HeM $682 $699 $700 $750 b~e fee $750 $ 750 Plus $25 per llddt'llot $750 $750 $770 $781 $811 $850 $850 $875 $890 $904 $31/ecre if over 5 ecres $945 $1.000 $1.000 Deposit $1.000 $1.000 $1.125 $1,200 $1.200 $1,250 Deposit $1.280 Minimum cost [$BO/hr.} $1,325 $1.400 $1,500 for 55.000.65.000 square feet $1.500 Deposit $1.500 $4500 Deposil $1,500 $1,537 $1,550 $1.574 $1.584 $1.705 $1,715 $1,750 $1.750 $1,785 $1,790 $1.800 $1,800 $1,828 $1,835 $1,875 $1.950 plus $35 per 101 $1,990 $2.000 Deposit $2,045 $2,075 $2.100 a. 700 >~ $500 for projects over $150.000.00 plus $70 for each 5,000 ft plus B4 code waiver fee $4000 Mex Deposit Pey Time end Melerials T&M PIHM Nom: SuphA/Jo... it unsci6nbfic 06l6/S r.ok""F""" cqf"n Sch<NIu/tM .S_2IKJ.1 0616 Shou'd b6 Uud 60S 74 Ontario Conditional Use Permit $2,230 a~ 5'" 75 Fullerton ConditionallJse Permit $2,335 76 Campbell Conditional Use Permit $2,500 50% COllt Recovery n San Juan Capistrano Conditional Use Permit $2,500 78 Carlabad Conditional Use Permit $2.950 79 Laguna Hills Conditional Use Permit $3.000 Deposit 80 Manhattan Beach Conditional Use Permit $3,005 Commercilll ReIidentiet $2420 81 Los Gates Conditional Use Permit $3,278 82 Yucaipa Conditional Use Permit $3,400 Deposit. Pll.l' actual cost 83 Saratoga Conditional Use Permit $3,500 Deposit 84 TemeaJla Conditional Use Permit $3,TT7 85 Riverside Conditional Use Permit $3,850 86 Murrieta Conditional Use Permit $4,000 minlIr permit $1000 87 Citrus Heights Conditional' Use Permit $4,263 88 Lake Forest Conditional Use Permit $5,500 Deposa 89 Rocklin Conditional Use Permit $5,851 90 Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit $6,490 91 Santa Oarita Conditional Use Permit $7,407 92 Thousand Oaks Conditional Use Permit $7.740 $1340 er acre betwlllln 2.10 acrM 1 2 3 Hermosa Beach Conditional Use Permit, minor $118 4 Daly City Conditional Use Permit. minor $300 Plus $1 00 per acre 5 Monrovia Conditional Use Permit, mihor $345 6 Cypress Conditional Use Permit, minor $350 Plus Enwormenlal E vlIlualion 7 Fillmore Conditional Use Permit. minor $350 Deposit 8 Dana Point Conditional Use Permit. minor $392 9 Hermosa &ach Conditional Use Permit, major $409 10 Auburn Conditional Use Permit. minor $415 11 Costa Mesa Conditional Use Permit, minor $500 12 Albany Conditional Uae Permit, minor $550 13 Chowc:hilla Conditional Use Permit, minor $600 Deposit Pa,lIAlC 14 Cypress Conditional Use Permit, major $800 Plus E nwonmenllll Evaluation 15 Higland Conditional Use Permit, minor $740 16 San Dimas Conditional Use Permit. minor $750 17 Yuba City Conditional Use Permit, minor $792 18 Petaluma Conditional Use Permit. minor $800 19 Monrovia Conditional Use Permit. major $825 20 Azusa Conditional Use Permit. minor $845 21 Albany Conditional Use Permit, major $1,000 minimum. or AIC $1 000 deposa 22 Davis Conditional Use Permit, minor $1,000 Depori 23 San Dimas Conditional Use Permit, major $1,000 24 Coronado Conditional Use Permit, minor $1.070 Depo.t 25 SunnyVale Conditional Use Permit, minor $1.100 28 SunnyVale Conditional Use Permit. minor $1,100 27 Daly City Conditional Use Permit. major $1.200 Plus $1 00 pllr IIcrll 28 Santa Paula Conditional Use Permit, minor $1.200 29 Ria/to Conditional Use Permit. minor $1,400 30 Auburn Conditional Use Permit, major $1,443 31 Chowchilla Conditional Use Permit, major $1,500 Deposit Pa,lIAlC 32 Los Altos Conditional Use Permit, minor $1,622 33 Yuba City Conditional Use Permit, major $1,848 34 Camarillo Conditional Use Permit. minor $2,000 35 Dana Point Conditional Use Permit, major $2,355 36 Coronado Conditional Use Permit, major $2,365 37 SunnyVale Conditional Use Permit, major $2,400 38 Los AJtos Conditional Use Permit. major $2,493 39 Calabuas Conditional Use Permit, major $2.500 ply. $25 pIlr 1 .000 .qlt 40 Ria/to Conditional Use Permit, major $2,790 41 Fillmore Conditional Use Permit, major $2,860 Deposa 42 Livermore Conditional Use Permit, minor $2,939 43 Davis Conditional Use Permit, major $3,000 Deposit 44 Petaluma Conditional Use Permit. major $3,075 Deposit 45 Santa Paula Conditional Use Permit, major $3,200 46 Livermore Conditional Use Permit. major $3,290 47 Azusa Conditional Use Permit, major $3,370 48 Camarillo Conditional Use Permit, major $4,400 49 Hi hland Conditional Use Permit. m 'or $6,200 De ~N""" S.....u-.i:t~ P14I, r""."r_Qpr_S~.S_2lK11 P<<06 Should"" U.-I", '3'1'1> 66 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND PUBLIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP (PRM) THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of Dublin ("City") and Public Resource Management Group (PRM) as of November 16, 2004. Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail. 1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date first noted above and shall end on the date of completion specified in Exhibit A, and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City's right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8. 1.2 Standard of Performance, Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, firsklass manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession. 1.3 Assianment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons. 1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant's obligations hereunder. Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed Thirty Six Thousand Dollars ($36,000), notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant's proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, attached as Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner speCified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM G:\RFPSlCost Overhead_Development FeeslUser Fee - Cost Plan contract agreement. doc October 23, 2004 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 2 4DDl) G~" Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant's estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. 2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this fixed fee Agreement, based on the cost for services performed prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information: · Serial identifications of progress bills; Le., Progress Bill No.1 for the first invoice, etc.; · The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; · A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion; · At City's option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense; 2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant. 2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed. 2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment. 2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown in the consultant's proposal. Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 2 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 ~IDb &6 2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded. 2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. 2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date. 2,9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator. Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein. City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant's use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall procure "occurrence coverage" insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consultant shall provide proof satisfactory to City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects to the City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. 4,1 Workers' Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative, Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 3 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 42.~' Consultant may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement. An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. 4.2.1 General reauirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MilLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non- owned automobiles. 4.2.2 Minimum scope of coveraae. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 (ed. 11/88) or Insurance Services Office form number Gl 0002 (ed. 1/73) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number Gl 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 1 ("any auto"). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. 4.2.3 Additional reauirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as an endorsement to the policy: a. City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 4 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 r 43ZSb S ~ automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. b. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis. c. An endorsement must state that coverage is primary insurance with respect to the City and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. d. Any failure of CONSULTANT to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to CITY and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. e. An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 4.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals' errors and omissions. 4.3.1 Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed $150,000 per claim. 4.3.2 An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 4.3.3 The policy must contain a cross liability or severability of interest clause. 4.3.4 The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverages are written on a claims-made form: a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement. b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates. Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23,2004 Page 5 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 4 4CS/J 5~ c. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five years after completion of the Agreement or the work. The City shall have the right to exercise, at the Consultant's sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage. d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. 4.4 All Policies Requirements. 4.4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. 4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required herein. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 4.4.3 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 4.4.4 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverages, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City's interests are otherwise fully protected. 4.4.5 Deductibles and Self.lnsured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23,2004 Page 6 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 r" Lft;~5~ administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them. 4.4.6 Notice of Reduction in Coveraae. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, or materially affected in any other manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than five days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage. 4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant's breach: · Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; · Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or · Terminate this Agreement. Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the extent caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23,2004 Page 7 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 4lPIb5~ Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT. 6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.2 Consultant No Aaent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 7.1 Governina Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. 7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder. 7.3 Other Governmental Reaulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program. 7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 8 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 L.n 'b 5:) legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City. 7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby. Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement. Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION. 8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant. Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. 8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period. 8.3 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the parties. Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 9 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 Section 9. 9.1 Lf~Ub GG 8.4 Assianment and Subcontractina. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant's unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. 8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8,6 Options upon Breach bv Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City's remedies shall included, but not be limited to, the following: 8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement; 8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; 8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or 8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS. Records Created as Part of Consultant's Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties. Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 10 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 4'1c1b ;;5 9.2 Consultant's Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. 9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement. . Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Attorneys' Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Alameda or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement. 10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. 10,6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper. Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 11 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 ~. 5D~S~ 10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq. Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code 91090 et.seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code 9 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California. 10,8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials. 10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee. 10,10 Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to: J. Bradley Wilkes Public Resource Management Group (PRM) 1380 Lead Hill Blvd., Suite 106 Roseville, CA 95661 (tel) 916.677.4233 (fax) 916.677.2283 Any written notice to City shall be sent to: Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 12 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 61t{) 56 10.11 Intearation. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. CITY OF DUBLIN CONSULTANT Richard C, Ambrose, City Manager Attest: Kay Keck, City Clerk Approved as to Form: City Attorney G:\RFPSICost Overhead~Development FeeslUser Fee - Cost Plan contract agreement. doc Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 13 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 G~6b 55 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES PRM will perform a cost allocation plan and general fund user fee study per the PRM proposal submitted to the City October 15th, 2004. The scope of services include: The steps involved in a full cost of services study include: 1. Prepare the city's Cost Allocation Plan. Review the following: a. Costs allocated - ensure all indirect costs are being allocated for use in a user fee study (this is key, because a typical cost plan may not be designed for the allocation of all costs required in an accurate user fee study.) b. Allocation base selection c. Allocations of indirect cost to enterprise funds d. Allocations of indirect costs to user fee services e. Allocations of indirect costs to facilities and fields 2. Development of a User Fee Study a. Identification/Inventory of all user fee related services b. Calculation of the direct cost of each user fee service i. Salary cost of direct staff supplying service ii. Fringe benefits iii. Direct services and supplies c. Full Cost Identification i. Integrate indirect cost data from the cost allocation plan ii. Integrate direct cost data d. Subsidy Analysis e. Develop a comparison of fee levels among other selected cities. B. Work Plan: Step 1: Proiect Introductory Meeting To ensure a successful start, PRM recommends holding an introductory meeting with key staff members that include both general fund departments and non-general fund departments. Of course, PRM will look to city staff for guidance for the purpose and content of the meeting and for a list of in vi tees. PRM considers an initial meeting designed to review the project's overall goals and objectives vital to a successful outcome. Agenda items for the introductory meeting could include: ,... An explanation ofthe cost plan and user fee analysis process ,... The purpose of a full cost study ,... How other cities use full costing ,... Example summary reports produced by the project ,... Questions and answers Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 14 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 G3'bS,"" ,... Etc. Step 2: Data Review As soon as possible, lists of basic data requirements will be developed. They include: lists of selected staff salary levels, benefit cost detail, operational budgets, transaction statistics, etc. PRM will work with the city to develop and gather needed data in the most efficient way. Once this basic data is acquired, the cost plan and rate structures will be developed. Step 3: Cost Allocation Plan Development a) Central Service Department Interview Preparation: After the central city financial and operational data is gathered, PRM interview forms will be completed. PRM interview forms are developed with questions related to staffing lists, actual salary level, staff titles, department expenditure report detail, development of p:.;-e-interview questions, etc. The completion of interview forms prior to the City department interviews will facilitate 1) a professionally conducted streamlined interview, and 2) a thorough and complete understanding of city processes. b) Central Service Departmental Interviews: Central service or "allocating departments" are interviewed to ensure that costs are spread in a manner that reflects: the work that was done; the departments that benefited, and which allocation bases are proper - all key principles stated throughout OMB A-87. While PRM staff will bring a background of knowledge and ideas to these interviews, it is also important to listen to department staff who understand more about their particular area of expertise. Examples of departments interviewed will include building maintenance, accounting, management and budget, purchasing, etc. In addition, any internal services funds (ISF) that charge for services will be interviewed with emphasis on ensuring indirect costs are allocated accurately so that they can be included in the full cost analysis when calculating ISF rates. c) Department Personnel Staff Analysis: Departmental Staffing Analysis (PSA) worksheets will be completed utilizing information gathered in the initial interviews. The PSA provides a basis for the distribution of departmental costs into departmental functions. During our interviews with central service departments, we will discuss each person's assignments and duties. Using timesheets, assignments, or interview notes, we will determine what percentage of each person's time should be divided into departmental functions. This information will be entered into the PSA worksheets to define departmental functions. Once staff members and their corresponding salaries are distributed to functions, other department costs, such as materials and supplies, will also be distributed into the same functions or cost pools. This process takes a departmental budget unit and breaks it into functional cost pools, which can then be allocated throughout the city using a meaningful allocation base. Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 15 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 ",," IS t.J:fI!:>G f;;) d) Departmental Cost Distribution: This schedule allocates the departmental costs of the central service department and any "incoming costs" being allocated from other central service departments. At this point, the PRM software takes an added step usually not considered in other cost allocation plan software. No other software has the ability to analyze, display and allocate the indirect costs of each central service department in such detail. This detail facilitates review, explanation and audit, leading to reduced errors and re-runs of reports. e) Developing Allocation Bases: After the departmental functions are created, and costs are distributed across functions, a separate meaningful allocation base will be selected that best reflects the benefit each department in the city receives from the various services. For example, in accounting, once the payroll functional cost pool is developed, an allocation base will be selected to distribute the payroll cost to all departments that benefit from the payroll service. Using OMB A-87 as a guide, the allocation base must reflect a connection between the service provided and the service received. An example for payroll could be the number of paychecks issued per department during the fiscal year - in other words - the more paychecks the department received, the more payroll cost is allocated. f) Cost Allocation Management Reports: After each central service department is interviewed, departmental costs are distributed to functional cost pools, and each cost pool is given an allocation base, the cost plan is ready to be produced. PRM software is based on off- the-self Microsoft products. This provides unlimited flexibility in calculating, formatting and reporting information. Step 4: User Fee Direct Cost Analysis: a) User Fee Inventory: Working with city staff, an inventory of all current user fee charges will be developed. This list will include all general fund services provided to the public for which fees are charged. The objectives ofthe inventory are to identify all general fund user fee charges matched to the departments which supply the services. In some cases, more than one department will participate on a particular service. Information such as the following will be reviewed: ,... fee history ,... rate increase history ,... revenue history ,... fee purpose ,... # of units completed each year ,... departments providing service b) Departmental Interviews: With information from the fee inventory, each department supplying user fee services will be interviewed. Using the PRM interview forms, the following data will be gathered: Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23, 2004 Page 16 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 ~t!>6G ,... Staff members providing service ,... Amount oftime: Required to complete one unit ofthe service Per year spent supplying the service ,... Activity statistics such as: # completed per year # completed last fiscal year estimated # of units completed in the coming fiscal year The key statistics needed from a departmental interview are: individual staff estimates oftime spent providing each service, and the number of units completed on an annual basis. The attached PRM interview form provides an example of the data needed. In each department interview, 100% of each staffmember's time is identified to ensure that no service, user fee related or not, is excluded from the full cost analysis. (Optional- Building Department Nexus Study - this o?tion is shown here for informational purposes only): Traditionally, city building departments have depended on the Uniform Building Code (UBC) rate tables to establish building inspection and plan check fees. A fee study can review the revenue generation of these tables and recommend general increases and/or adjustments to the UBC rate factors depending on the total cost of the building department. Several PRM clients have requested that PRM conduct a more thorough "Nexus" study that develops a new method and basis for charging fees. This nexus method makes a firm connection between hours and cost of service that some feel is lacking in the traditional UBC table method. We are currently conducting this analysis for the cities ofRoseville and Whittier. Because the process is more detailed and time consuming, we offer it on optional basis. If the city of Dublin desires this approach PRM, will be pleased to develop a process for it. c) Financial Analysis: Once the basic time and workload transaction data is gathered from the departmental interviews, salary data, departmental service and supply cost data is entered into the PRM user fee software. This departmental data is integrated with the indirect cost data developed within the PRM cost allocation plan module. The direct costs and indirect cost of each fee is calculated and displayed for review. d) User Fee Management Reports: All the financial, transaction and comparison data is reported in the final management reports. Each department is provided an opportunity to review the cost/revenue data at least two separate times. This ensures that the raw data is as accurate as possible, resulting in a more reliable final report. Deliverables: OMB A-87 Cost Allocation Plan Full Cost Allocation Plan User Fee Detail and Summary Reports PRM Excel Cost Plan and User Fee Software Consulting Services Agreement between City of Dublin and PRM October 23,2004 Page 17 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2