HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.5 FireFacilitiesImpactSdy (2)
. "".','.,
'._. "' '4IlI'"
~
CITY CLERK
File # D~[Q][Q]-b3][Q]
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 7,1997
SUBJECT:
Consultant Agreement to Conduct Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study
Report Prepared by: Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Proposal by Hausrath Economics Group
Consultant Agreement for Services
RECOMMENDATION: ~ ./1) Authorize Mayor to execute agreement with Hausrath Economic
.~ Group; 2) Approve Budget Change Form authorizing transfer of
$11,300 from the City's Budgeted Contingent Reserve.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The proposed Consultant Services are estimated at
$11,300. A budget transfer in the amount of
$11,300 from the City's Budgeted Contingent Reserve will be
required. The cost for the Study can be recovered through
the collected impact fees in the future.
.
DESCRIPTION: The dissolution of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority on July 1,
1997 will result in the expiration of the Fire Facilities Impact Fee currently imposed by the Dougherty
Regional Fire Authority on new development within its boundaries.
Unless the City of Dublin adopts a new Fire Facilities Impact Fee to replace DRFA's fee, the City will not
be able to fund the fire stations, equipment and apparatus necessary to serve new development.
Before the City Council can adopt an impact fee on development, it will be necessary for the City to
undertake a study to establish a fee in order that the Council may make those findings required by Section
66001 of the State of California Government Code. If the fee is to be effective on July 1,1997, the
Council must practically adopt the fee by April, 1997.
Staff has solicited proposals from three firms experienced in conducting development impact fee studies
and providing adequate documentation for the City Council to make sufficient findings to adopt the fee.
The three firms which submitted proposals were Angus McDonald & Associates, Management Services
Institute and Hausrath Economics Group. The cost of services for proposals ranged from $9,080 to
$39,500 as shown below.
.---------- -- - -
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. -'1. ;
gfcc-m tgsf97-qtr If 1-7-97/firc-fcc.doc
"""'F ". .,""_-:_< "'Wf"':
Firm
Management Services Institute
Hausrath Economics Group
Angus McDonald & Associates
Cost
$ 9,080
$10,800
$39,500
Proposed Hours'
87
144
345
The level of effort also varied considerably. After reviewing each of the proposals, it is Staff conclusion
that the Hausrath Economics Group's proposal best meets the required services to be performed at the
most competitive cost. The proposed Project Manager for this work has previously prepared the City of
Dublin's Public Facility Impact Fee and, therefore, will require less Staff support to complete the Fire
Facilities Impact Fee Study. Staff does believe it would be prudent to build the cost of an additional
meeting into the proposal at an additional cost of$500. This would bring the total contract cost to
$11,300.
Recommendation
It is Staff s recommendation that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with
Hausrath Economics Group to conduct a Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study and approve a Budget Change
Form authorizing a transfer of$II,300 from the City's Budgeted Contingent Reserve.
.
.
.
.
.
.
!
,
HAUSRATH
ECONOMICS
GROUP
December 26, 1996
Richard C. Ambrose
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Subject: Proposal for a Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study (Revised)
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
Hausrath Economic Group (HEG, formerly Recht Hausrath & Associates) is pleased to submit
this proposal to the City of Dublin to prepare documentation necessary to update the current fire
facilities impact fee. As you know, we completed an original public facilities fee study for the
City in 1995 that included parks, the civic center, libraries, and community and recreation
facilities. Earlier this year, we extended that study to include Western Dublin. We look forward
to building on this prior work by documenting a new citywide fire facilities impact fee consistent
with the City's approach to its existing public facilities fee program.
This proposal is presented under the following sections. The outline follows the "Minimum
Content of Responses" format, as required by the Request For Proposals (RFP).
. Situation . Schedule
. Work Plan . Client References
. Firm Qualifications (plus . Budget
attachment)
. Staffing (plus attachment)
SITUATION
The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRF A) has been providing fire services to the City of
Dublin and portions of the City of San Ramon since a joint powers agreement was signed
between the two cities in 1988. The City of San Ramon decided to reduce costs by allo\ving the
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District to annex areas of the City served by the DRF A,
consolidating fire services for the City into one agcncy. As a rcsult, the cities will dissolve thc
1212 Broadway, Suite 1700 . Oakland, CA 94612-1841 . (510) 839-8383 · FAX (510) 839-8415
, EXHIBIT 1
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose
December 26, 1996
Page 2
DFRA as by July 1, 1997. The City of Dublin decided to contract with the Alameda County Fire .
Department to provide citywide fire services.
The County Fire Department will provide service from the one DRF A fire station located in the
City. The City will likely gain title to the station, plus certain apparatus, upon dissolution of the
DFRA. The Department will be able to provide service to Eastern Dublin, at least on an interim
basis, from a County-owned station in the area.
The DRFA has been collecting a fire facilities impact feel from new development to
accommodate the impacts of growth within its service area. The DRF A last updated the fee in
1988 to $600 per dwelling unit and per 2,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
Dissolution of the DRF A requires the City to now consider imposing its own fire facilities
impact fee on new development within the City. The fee is needed to fund the fire facilities
necessary to accommodate growth in its Eastern and Western planning areas where the City
recently added substantial development capacity.
This proposal is in response to an RFP issued by the City for a Fire Capital Development Impact
Fee Study. Given the situation described above, the study must achieve the following objectives:
. Calculate an impact fee that fairly allocates to new development the total
costs of fire facilities necessary to accommodate growth citywide;
. Develop a financing plan for funding facilities in advance of receiving fee
revenue; and
. Calculate and document the fee in a manner consistent with California
Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. and relevant case law.
.
WORK PLAN
Our proposed work plan is described below, by task. Completion of the work plan would
achieve the study objectives listed above, and would fully respond to the scope of work described
in the RFP.
Task 1: Estimate Amount and Phasin!! of New Development
Given our prior work for the City, we are already highly familiar with the City's projections for
new development, including recent planning approvals for Eastern Dublin and Shaefer Ranch.
Using those build-out projections, the purpose of this task is twofold:
I The phrase "fire facilities impact fee" used in this proposal is synonymous with "fire capital development .
impact fee" used in the RFP, and includes facilities for emergency medical services.
Hau.I'rath Economics Group
)...
.
.
.
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose
December 26, 1996
Page 3
. Develop a phasing schedule for new development; and
. Estimate potential build-out capacity beyond the current General Plan.
The phasing schedule is needed to estimate impact fee cash flows and develop the financing plan
in Task 4. To prepare the schedule we will estimate growth by land use type summarized in five-
year increments. We have budgeted sufficient time to consider several regional growth
scenarios. We expect to base these scenarios on the Association of Bay Area Goverrunents'
Projections '96, recent City growth rates, and direction from City staff.
Estimates of potential build-out capacity beyond the current General Plan are important to the
extent that funding for new fire facilities must be shared between existing planned growth and
potential future growth. Both the Eastern and Western Dublin Extended Planning Areas contain
substantial potential growth capacity. Using existing patterns of approved development, with
input from City staff, we will develop build-out estimates for these areas.
This analysis of potential build-out capacity will overlap with subsequent tasks as we develop
estimates of fire facilities costs and determine financing requirements. Estimates of potential
build-out capacity will only be needed to the extent that potential growth must or should share in
the funding of facilities with existing planned growth.
Task 2: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs
The purpose of this task is determine (1) total fire facilities needs and costs to serve build-out of
the City, and (2) the timing of station construction. We will use currently-adopted service
standards as expressed in by General Plan policies and fire service requirements for Eastern
Dublin and Shaefer Ranch to justify facilities needs. The timing of station construction will be
based on the phasing schedule developed in Task 1. We will have to evaluate the following
planning issues regarding three potential new stations:
. Determine the appropriate time, based on the phasing of new development,
to construct a permanent station in Eastern Dublin to replace the County's
station;
. Evaluate the need for a second station in Eastern Dublin, and whether it
could be completely funded by potential (currently unapproved) growth in
the Extended Planning Area; and
. Evaluate the timing and need for a station to serve the Western Dublin
Extended Planning Area.
F or each needed new station, we will estimate land, construction, and apparatus costs. We will
also estimate costs associated with expansion of central facilities needed to serve growth, such as
administration offices and communication systems.
HOllsrath Economics Croup
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose
December 26, 1996
Page 4
We will complete this task by relying on available information and interviews with City staff and
local fire professionals. The product of this task will not be at the level of detail of a facilities
master plan, but will provide a reasonable, defensible estimate of the cost of facilities necessary
to accommodate new development. The results will be used to support the finding required
under California Government Code Section 66001 that there be a reasonable relationship
between the need for and use of the fire facilities impact fee, and new development.
.
Task 3: Allocate Facilities Costs to New Develo{>ment
The purpose of this task is to determine a method for equitably allocating total facilities to new
development. Based on our extensive experience, the per dwelling unit and per building square
foot allocation approach of the current DRF A fee is adequate. In addition, we would suggest
using a per capita measure (persons per dwelling unit and employees per square feet) to allocate
among land uses. The DRF A fee uses floor-to-area ratios to allocate among land uses. The
former approach has the advantage of incorporating population as a measure of demand for fire
and emergency medical services.
The results of this task will be used to support the finding required under California Government
Code Section 66001 that there be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the
cost of fire facilities needed to accommodate new development. Results will also meet the .
"rough proportionality" standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. City ofTigard.
Task 4: Develop Financinl! Plan and Calculate Impact Fee
The purpose of this task is to develop a comprehensive financing plan for fire facilities. The
financing plan will be based on the phasing schedule developed in Task 1, and the allocation of
facilities costs per unit of new development from Task 3. To complete this task, we will develop
a long-range cash flow computer model for the fire facilities fee fund that accounts for;
. Estimated fee revenue, by year;
. Need for funds based on the timing and cost of new station(s);
. Annual interest earnings on fund balances; and
. Annual debt financing costs (annual interest expense and one-time
issuance costs), as necessary.
The model will enable us to fine tune the fee schedule to incorporate financing costs along with
the facilities costs developed in Task 2.
We will discuss options for debt financing mechanisms that the City could use. The most likely .
option is a lease-to-own arrangement with a leasing entity financed by certificates of
Hausrath Economics Croup
tf
.
.
.
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose
December 26, 1996
Page 5
partIcIpation. The City likely will make the final decision on what type of debt financing
mechanism to use sometime after adoption ofthe impact fee. Consequently, the impact fee
documentation and fee schedule will be based on the approach considered most likely by City
staff at this time. The City will retain the flexibility to alter the fee schedule as necessary to
accommodate any alternative financing approaches in the future.
Task 5: Prepare Fee Documentation
The purpose of this task is to summarize the results of the study in a final report. The report will
serve as adequate documentation for the fire facilities impact fee, incorporated into any fee
resolution by reference, and for use as a capital improvement program to enable collection of the
fee at building permit issuance. We will prepare an administrative draft for City staff review.
We will incorporate staff comments into a public draft for review by the City Council,
developers, and the general public. Upon review by the City Council, we will prepare a final
report. We have budgeted for one public meeting during this task.
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS
Rausrath Economics Group (REG) is a firm of urban economists with extensive experience
applying the tools of economic, real estate, and fiscal analysis to a variety of local and regional
planning projects, development impact assessments, and financing programs. The firm's
principals and staff have expertise in the fields of urban and land economics, public policy, and
financial and fiscal analysis. HEG is a woman-owned business and has been located in
downtown Oakland since 1982. After operating as Recht Hausrath & Associates since the firm's
formation in 1978, the firm's name was recently changed to Hausrath Economics Group. Work
for both public and private sector clients statewide has included:
. Infrastructure and public facility planning and financing;
. AB 1600 nexus analyses;
· City, county, and school development impact fee analyses;
. Public service fiscal impact analysis;
. Socioeconomic analysis and forecasting;
. Market and feasibility studies;
. California redevelopment law implementation;
. Economic and fiscal assessment methodologies; and
. Economic analyses for public policy evaluation.
REG has specific expertise preparing public facility financing plans for a wide range of
development projects and infrastructure types. Often these studies require close coordination
with public agencies, landowners, and developers to devise a plan that achieves each
participant's goals. Our approach is sensitive to equity concerns between new and existing
development, as well as between difTerent land uses and phases of development. Maintaining
Hallsrath Economics Grollp
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose
December 26, 1996
Page 6
project viability is an important focus of our studies as more communities force new
development to shoulder the full cost of public facilities required to accommodate it. We provide
the technical analysis upon which project participants can resolve policy issues and develop a
consensus approach to a financing plan.
.
Public facility financing and public service funding have continued to change dramatically since
the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. In response, HEG has been at the forefront in developing
new approaches, such as Concord's transportation impact fee and San Francisco's Office-
Affordable Housing Production Program. Our staff remains up-to-date on the latest legislative
actions and court decisions affecting this rapidly-changing field. We have practical experience
with a variety of public facility and services financing techniques. These range from traditional
alternatives such as general obligation bonds and assessment districts to more recently-developed
and irmovative approaches such as Mello-Roos Districts, impact fees, and Infrastructure
financing Districts.
ST AFFING
Robert D. Spencer has been the principal-in-charge and project manager for all prior HEG work
for the City. He will continue in that role for this project. Mr. Spencer is a principal with HEG
and has been with the firm for over seven years. He earned a Masters in Public Policy from the
Kermedy School of Govemment at Harvard University, and is the firm's expert on public .
facilities financing programs, including impact fees. Mr. Spencer will be responsible for all
technical decisions, policy advice, financial modeling, and report quality. He will also represent
HEG at all staff and public meetings.
Mr. Spencer will be assisted in this project by Mr. Andrew Delaney. Mr. Delaney earned a
Masters of City Planning degree from the University of California at Berkeley and joined HEG
in 1995. He assisted in preparing the recent update to the City's facilities fee program. Mr.
Delaney will be responsible for gathering data for the project and drafting interim work products.
For more detailed resumes ofthese individuals, see Attachment A.
SCHEDULE
We appreciate that time is of the essence for this study because of the impending, date for
dissolution of the DRF A. The City needs to be able to start collecting its own fire facilities
impact fee when it begins contracting with the Alameda County Fire Department for fire services
on July 1, 1997. The state law requiring a 60-day waiting period between Council adoption of
the fee and collection means that this study must be completed during the first quarter of next
year. As a result, we are committed to achieving the project schedule outlined in the RFP, as
follows:
.
Hausrath Econo/l/ics Group
,
.
.
.
7
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose
December 26, 1996
Page 7
. Contract award by January 7, 1997;
. Administrative draft report to City staff by February 17, 1997;
. Public draft report to the City by March 7, 1997; and
. Adoption by the City Council by April 1, 1997.
CLIENT REFERENCES
Below is a list of client references. For each client we have recently completed a project directly
relevant to the proposed project.
Fire and Emergency Services Feasibility Study
Fort Hartsfield, Battalion Chief
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
1500 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
(510) 838-6680
Dublin Fee Study
Diane Lowart, Director
Parks and Community Services
City of Dublin
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
(510) 833-6645
Public Facilities Fundi"!! Analvsis
John Sprague, Manager
Housing and Redevelopment
City of RoseviIIe
405 Vernon Street, Suite 1
Roseville, CA 95678
(916) 774-5270
Housralh Economics Group
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose
December 26, 1996
Page 8
BUDGET
.
We will completed the scope of work described in the "Work Plan" section of this letter for a
cost not to exceed $10,800. Refer to the table below for a detailed allocation of the budget by
task and by assigned staff. The budget assumes one or two staff meetings during the course of
the project, and one public meeting or hearing to present the final report to the City Council. The
cost of additional meetings is $500 per meeting.
PROPOSED BUDGET
Hours By Staff Total
... >.
<l) <l)
u a
~
<l) ~
P- o Staff Labor
CI)
Task P2 < Hours Costs
1. Estimate Amount and Phaing of New Development 8 20 28 $ 1,920
2. Determine Facilities Needs and Costs 8 24 32 2,160
3. Allocate Facilities Costs to New Development 4 8 12 840
4. Develop Financing Plan and Calculate Impact Fee 12 24 36 2,520
5. Prepare Fee Documentation 20 24 44 3,240
Subtotal Hours 52 100 152 $ 10,680
Hourly Rate (Burdened) $ 90 $ 60
Subtotal Labor Costs $ 4,680 $ 6,000 $ 10,680
Direct Expenses 120
Total Costs $ 10,800
.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this proposal, please give me a call.
Yours Very Truly,
~~
Ro bert D. Spencer
Principal
.
HOllsmth Economics Group
r
.
.
.
'I
ATTACHMENT A
This attachment consists of the following parts:
. Examples of relevant experience; and
. Resumes of the personnel who will be assigned to work on this project.
1/uII.I'l'uIII ECUllulllic.l' GI'Ullp
HAUSRATH ECONOMICS GROUP
EXAMPLES OF RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
FEASIBILITY STUDY
San Ramon Valley, California
Client: San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District
The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD) was faced with the decision of
whether to build a new fire station to serve 825 dwelling units of new development on the edge
of its existing service area. I-lEG conducted an analysis of the fiscal feasibility of building,
equipping, and operating a new fire station. The study calculated the fees that would be required
to fully fund the capital costs of a new station, and the annual assessments required to fund
ongoing operating costs net of the projected SRVFPD share of property taxes.
DUBLIN FEE STUDY
Dublin, California
Client: City of Dublin, California
The City of Dublin projects to double its size through the development of its Eastern Annexation
Area. A number of complications were encountered in this study to adequately document the
nexus between needed public facilities, impact fees, and new development. The annexation area .
is geographically separated from the rest of the City, such that assignment of facilities standards
required careful identification of service areas of existing and proposed facilities. The fee
structure, therefore, was split between citywide and Eastern Dublin components to accurately
reflect the impact of development in different parts of the City. Park standards were also split
between neighborhood and citywidc parks, to leave open the option of funding ncighborhood
parks under either the City's existing Quimby Act ordinance, or a new set of fees under AB 1600.
PUBLIC FACILITIES FUNDING ANALYSIS
Roseville, California
Client: City of RoseviIIe, California
In conjunction with its General Plan Update, the City requested that HEG evaluate projected
public facility needs associated with the proposed Land Use Element Update. The purpose of the
analysis was to determine if the existing level of fees was sufficient to fund public facilities that
would be required by the amount of additional growth allowed under the proposcd update.
SAN LUIS OBISPO FIRE DISTRICT
IMP ACT FEES
San Luis Obi!Jpo County, California
Client: Cayucos and San Miguel Fire
Pl'otection Districts and Cambria
COllllllunity Services District
The unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County are served by the County fire Department
and eight independent fire districts. While HEG was conducting a comprehensive impact fee
.
Hallsra/Ii Ecunomics Gruup
/6
.
program for San Luis Obispo County, County Fire and three of the districts agreed to implement
a common fire impact fee. The advantages of this approach included administration of a single
impact fee regardless of whether development occurred in the County's or the district's
jurisdiction, and savings to the districts in study costs. HEG assisted by gathering the necessary
information from the districts and including them in the documentation for the County fire
impact fee.
PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNING AND
AB1600 FEE DOCUMENTATION
Santa Clarita, California
Client: City of Santa Clarita, California
with Black & Veatch
In 1987, the City of Santa Clarita became the largest incorporation in the history of California.
The City lacked any type of civic center and inherited large public facility deficiencies in areas
such as parks and recreation facilities. The City engaged HEG to compile existing plans for new
facilities and document an impact fee program to finance new developments' share. The
financing plan was based on raising facility standards by committing non-fee revenues over the
20-year period to fund existing developments' share of deficiencies.
AREAWIDE TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE
FEASIBILITY STUDY
. Alameda County, California
HEG studied the feasibility of an areawide traffic mitigation fee that would be adopted by
multiple local jurisdictions in Alameda County. HEG estimated revenue potentials under the fee,
comparing fee revenues to alternative funding sources such as sales tax and gas tax. HEG
evaluated the applicability of revenue sources for the purposes intended, assessed the political
acceptability of a fee either on a countywide or planning area basis, and evaluated potential
economic impacts. During the effort, HEG conducted surveys and facilitated meetings to gather
local jurisdiction input. The final report included a comparison of the costs and benefits of an
areawide fee against alternate funding sources, plus policy recommendations to the CMA Board
regarding the most effective approach to funding desired improvements.
Client: Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency
FIRE DISTRICT IMPACT FEE
DOCUMENTATION
Stanislaus County, California
Client: Stanislaus County Fire District
HEG prepared impact fee documentation for six of the 18 independent fire districts in Stanislaus
County. The districts are semi-rural, predominantly volunteer fire districts. Although similar in
many ways, each fire district has its unique features. Hence, individual documentation was
required for each district. The County (and City) adoption of the fees was required for
implementation on behalf of the fire districts.
.
Hausrat/1 Ecollolllics Croup
"
EMERYVILLE DEVELOPMENT FEES AND
FACILITY FINANCING ANALYSIS
City of Emeryville, California
Client: City of Emeryville, California
.
The City of Emeryville engaged HEG to provide assistance in developing the City's first impact
fee program. The primary focus of the study was the implementation of a traffic impact fee.
HEG worked closely with City staff and the City's traffic engineering consultants to identify
improvements required to serve new development while maintaining existing levels of service.
In addition, HEG provided prototype fees for other public facilities, including fire, park, police,
and administrative facilities, and helped the City evaluate alternative financing mechanisms for
capital improvements in these areas.
COST OF GROWTH
Solano County, California
Client: County of Solano, California
Hausrath Economics Group worked with a committee composed of the Chief Administrative
Officer and the City Attorneys and City Managers from the County's four largcr cities. We
assisted the committee in their effort to reach a consensus on two basic issues: (1) the impact of
growth on the County's ability to provide adequate service levels, and (2) new development's
responsibility to fund the additional infrastructure needed to serve it. Our tasks included
estimating the cost of maintaining the County's current facility standards, comparing each city's .
fiscal capacity with that of the County, evaluating the County's current fees and charges, and
suggesting alternative methods of mitigating any impacts from growth. '
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
DOCUMENTATION
San Diego, California
Client: City of San Diego, California
The City of San Diego adopted development impact fees addressing some of the City's specific
facility needs several years ago. However, the City became aware that the earlier fecs did not
address some of the facilities needed citywide, i.e., facilities which serve the entire city, or
systems of facilities which serve the entire city. (The existing fees focused on facility
improvements required in specific neighborhoods.) Therefore, the City undertook a study to
prepare information in anticipation of a fee program which would fund these facilities on a
comprehensive citywide basis. The study was also regarded as an opportunity to evaluate the
funding adequacy and the level of documentation for existing fees.
The majority of the staffing for the study was provided by the Facilities financing Section of the
City of San Diego, the department that supervises the existing fee program. The City contracted
with BEG to assist them in structuring the research effort, evaluating the information gathered
and determining the appropriate fees, and fee levels, to be recommcnded to the City Council.
Finally, HEG assisted the City staff in prcparing documentation ofthejustiJlcation for the fees. .
/Iallsralh Economics Gruup
I~
.
.
.
'~
MARKET, FISCAL, AND FACILITIES ANALYSIS Client: County of Placer, California
OF AUBURNIBOWMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
Placer County, California
HEG completed a combined market feasibility and fiscal analysis of a community plan for the
Auburn/Bowman area in Placer County. The plan covered 16,000 acres and included a potential
build-out of 6,000 units. One hallmark of the plan was higher density housing in proximity to
employment-generating land uses. HEG established the market feasibility of the plan and
projected housing absorption by type and value of unit. The study also considered the market
potential for retail, office, and industrial uses. Based on the results of the market study, HEG
then estimated the fiscal impact of the plan and its alternative on the County.
/-!ausrath Ecullomics Gruup
RESUMESOFPERSONNAL
ASSIGNED TO WORK ON
THIS PROJECT
It!
Hausralh Economics Group
.
.
.
.
.
.
1':5
ROBERT D. SPENCER
WORK EXPERIENCE
Mr. Spencer is a principal with Hausrath Economics Group, having joined the firm in 1989. He
has extensive experience assisting public agencies with the economic analysis of projects, plans,
and policies. Based on this analysis, Mr. Spencer assists with policy-making in the areas of land
use, growth management, economic development, and business regulation.
Mr. Spencer has broad experience assisting cities, counties, and school districts with public
facilities financing programs that emphasize development impact fees. He managed a project for
San Luis Obispo County to develop a comprehensive impact fee program to finance public
facilities over a 20-year period. As with most public financing studies, this study included
extensive public participation to build consensus and enable elected officials to make informed
policy decisions. Mr. Spencer worked with the City of Santa Clarita in southern Califol11ia to
develop a similar comprehensive financing program that included roads, mass transit, parks,
child care, and other public facilities. He recently completed a project for the Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency evaluating the feasibility of instituting an areawide traffic
impact mitigation fee. These studies typically include analysis of alternative financing methods
so that staff and elected officials can evaluate options besides development impact fees.
In addition to impact fee programs, Mr. Spencer has experience with nearly all of the financing
methods used by public agencies today to finance capital facilities. Mr. Spencer has evaluated
for both private and public clients the pros and cons of financing districts such as redevelopment,
Mello-Roos, benefit assessment, Mark-Roos, and Integrated Financing districts. This assistance
includes working closely with public officials, property owners, and developers, as well as legal
advisors and bond underwriters to structure a fair allocation of costs and achieve a feasible
financing plan. This work includes detailed calculations of public and private tax burdcns under
each alternative. Specific projects have included a 50-acre health care facility, a 300-acre mixed-
use development, and streetscape and infrastructure improvements to a 20-block do\vntown area.
Mr. Spencer has extensive experience analyzing financial impacts and developing options to
accommodate the etIects of growth on local government. He has conducted studies of both thc
operating and capital budget impacts of new development, and developed financing methods to
fund new public facilities. This work often includes demographic analysis such as population
and employment projections, as well as analysis of land development patterns. I-Ie was project
manager of four studies for the City of Roseville's General Plan Update, including a long-range
market analysis, fiscal impact analysis, economic development strategy, and dcvelopment of
HEG's FlSCPAC@ fiscal impact analysis computer software.
Mr. Spencer has also played a lead role in projects that seek to use land use and transit strategies
to achieve congestion management and economic development goals. For the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, he is co-managing a half-million-dollar countywide deficiency plan
that includes an aggrcssive attempt to intcgrate land use and transportation planning. He also
Hausrat/r Ecollomics Cruup
played a major role in a study for AC Transit to examine how local land use policies and
regulations could be more supportive of light rail and other transit improvements along major .
corridors in the East Bay (Oakland and surrounding cities). Mr. Spencer was project manager on
a study to analyze the potential economic impacts of a proposed peak-hour truck restriction
ordinance for the City of Los Angeles, and also served as technical advisor for the firm's
transportation fee analysis work for the Los Angeles Transit Authority and the San Diego
Association of Governments.
Typically, these transportation, land use, and economic studies are the subject of workshops and
public hearings with interested parties. In the case of the San Luis Obispo County and Santa
Clara County projects, Mr. Spencer had to develop regional, multi-jurisdictional programs that
required extensive consensus-building among affected agencies. The San Luis Obispo County
public facilities financing study, in particular, required numerous workshops to explain study
results and extensive public participation among the development industry and environmental
groups to build consensus.
Prior to Hausrath Economics Group, Mr. Spencer was lead consultant at the international
accowlting and consulting firm of Ernst & Young.
EDUCATION
Masters of Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1986, with .
concentration in Urban Economic Development.
Bachelor of Arts in Economics, Colorado College, 1982.
.
HOlism/ii Economics Group
/(;,
ANDREW DELANEY
. WORK EXPERIENCE
Mr. Delaney joined HEG in 1995 after completing his Master of City Planning at U.C. Berkeley.
Mr. Delaney has a background in city planning and financial analysis, and has held positions in
both the public and private sector.
Mr. Delaney has experience analyzing the financial and fiscal impacts of growth and developing
programs to fund public facilities. He recently completed a study for the Sam Ramon Valley
Fire Protection District which evaluated the fiscal feasibility of building, equipping, and
operating a fire station to serve new development. He conducted studies for Solano County and
the City of Dublin which determined public facilities costs for growth projected over a 20-year
period, and developed comprehensive impact fee programs which allocated a fair share of these
costs to new development. He also helped develop a fee program to fund flood control
improvements in San Joaquin County. Mr. Delaney was project manager for a study which
assessed the fiscal impacts of a proposed residential subdivision in Roseville. Further, Mr.
Delaney has prepared several studies which provided justification of maximum statutory school
fees for school districts throughout California. For the update of the North Coast Area Plan in
San Luis Obispo County, Mr. Delaney is currently designing the framework for implementation
and funding of a development rights reduction program and analyzing the costs of public
facilities required to accommodate growth versus the costs of development reduction under five
growth scenarios.
.
Mr. Delaney also has experience assisting public agencies evaluate the economic and land use
impacts of projects, plans, and policies. His experience includes an evaluation of the economic
impacts of a proposed power center in Sacramento, and a market feasibility study for a proposed
housing development in Marin County whieh analyzed existing and projected housing markets,
including absorption potential for a variety of design and price alternatives. More recently, Mr.
Delaney prepared a market feasibility study on the reuse potential of an abandoned timber mill
site in Arcata, and assisted with a survey which analyzed market demand for a proposed
affordable housing development in downtown Oakland.
For the two years Mr. Delaney was in school at U.C. Berkeley, he worked for the City of
Oakland Office of Platming and Building, where he performed research and analysis that was
used for the update of the City's General Plan. His work included analysis of the feasibility of
various zoning alternatives and the development of several major zoning amendments. Mr.
Delaney also managed data collection and analysis for a citywide land llse inventory, conducted
survey analysis, atld facilitated public meetings.
Mr. Delaney also has two years of experience working with the business, land use and tax
departments of Morrison & Foerster, a large legal firm with headquarters in San Francisco. At
that finn, Mr. Dehmey conducted research and analysis for a broad range of rcal estate
investment matters.
.
1-10/1.1'1'0(11 Ecol/o/J/ics Gro/lfl
17
EDUCATION
Master of City Planning, Dual Concentrations in Land Use Planning and Environmental
Planning and Policy, University of California, Berkeley, 1995.
B.A., Magna cum laude, Communication Studies, Business Administration Specialization,
University of California at Los Angeles, 1991.
1-lulIsrath Economics Group
/1
.
.
.
.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DUBLIN AND
HAUSRATH ECONOMICS GROUP
FOR PREPARATION OF A
FIRE FACILITIES IMPACT FEE STUDY
THIS AGREEMENT is made at Dublin, California, as of January 7, 1997 by and between the
CITY OF DUBLIN, a municipal corporation ("City"), and HAUSRATH ECONOMICS GROUP
("Contractor"), who agree as follows:
1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Contractor
shall provide to City the services described in Exhibit A. Contractor shall provide said services at the
time, place and in the manner specified in Exhibit A.
2. PAYMENT. City shall pay Contractor for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement
at the time and in the manner set forth in Exhibit B. The payments specified in Exhibit B shall be the
only payments to be made to Contractor for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor
shall submit all billings for said services to City in the manner specified in Exhibit B; or, if no manner
be specified in Exhibit B, then according to the usual and customary procedures and practices which
Contractor uses for billing clients similar to City.
3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth in Exhibit C, Contractor shall,
at its sole cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment which may be required for furnishing
~ervices pursuant to this Agreement. City shall furnish to Contractor only the facilities and equipment
~isted in Exhibit C according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C.
4. GENERAL PROVISIONS. The general provisions set forth in Exhibit D are part of
this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any other terms
or conditions of this Agreement, the other term or condition shall control insofar as it is inconsistent
with the general provisions.
5. EXHIBITS. All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and are by this reference
incorporated herein.
6. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. This Agreement shall be administered by the City
Manager ("Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Administrator or his
designee.
7. NOTICES. Any written notice to Contractor shall be sent to:
Mr. Robert D. Spencer
HAUSRA TH ECONOMICS GROUP
1212 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94612-1841
- greement
~age 1 of 1
1
EXHIBIT 2
Attest:
Any written notice to City shall be sent to:
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Executed as of the day first above stated:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Agreement
Page 2 of2
~o
CITY OF DUBLIN, a municipal
corporation
By
"City"
HAUSRA TH ECONOMICS GROUP
By
"Contractor"
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The proposed Scope of Services is in response to an RFP issued by the City for a Fire Capital
Development Impact Fee Study. The Study must achieve the following objectives:
. Calculate an impact fee that fairly allocates to new development the total costs of fire facilities
necessary to accommodate growth citywide;
. Develop a financing plan fur funding facilities in advance of receiving fee revenue; and
. Calculate and document the fee in a manner consistent with California Government Code Section
66000 et. seq. and relevant case law.
The proposed work plan is described below by task. Completion of the work plan would achieve the
study objectives listed above, and would fully respond to the Scope of Work described in the RFP.
Task 1: Estimate Amount and Phasing of New Development
Given Contractor's prior work for the City, Contractor is already highly familiar with the City's
projections for new development, including recent planning approvals for Eastern Dublin and Schaefer
Ranch. Using those build-out projections, the purpose ofthis task is twofold:
. Develop a phasing schedule for new development; and
· Estimate potential build-out capacity beyond the current General Plan.
The phasing schedule is needed to estimate impact fee cash flows and develop the financing plan in Task
4. To prepare the schedule, Contractor will estimate growth by land use type summarized in five-year
increments. Contractor has budgeted sufficient time to consider several regional growth scenarios.
Contractor expects to base these scenarios on the Association of Bay Area Governments' Projections
'96, recent City growth rates, and direction from City Staff.
Estimates of potential build-out capacity beyond the current General Plan are important to the extent that
funding for new fire facilities must be shared between existing planned growth and potential future
growth. Both the Eastern and Western Dublin Extended Planning Areas contain substantial potential
growth capacity. Using existing patterns of approved development, with input from City Staff, we will
develop build-out estimates for these areas.
This analysis of potential build-out capacity will overlap with subsequent tasks as we develop estimates
of fire facilities costs and determine financing requirements. Estimates of potential build-out capacity
will only be needed to the extent that potential growth must or should share in the funding of facilities
with existing planned growth.
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 3
.
~I
Task 2: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs
The purpose of this task is determine (1) total fire facilities needs and costs to serve build-out of the
City, and (2) the timing of station construction. Contractor will use currently adopted service standards
as expressed in by General Plan policies and fire service requirements for Eastern Dublin and Schaefer
Ranch to justify facilities needs. The timing of station construction will be based on the phasing
schedule developed in Task 1. Contractor will have to evaluate the following planning issues regarding
three potential new stations:
. Determine the appropriate time, based on the phasing of new development, to construct a permanent
station in Eastern Dublin to replace the County's station;
. Evaluate the need for a second station in Eastern Dublin, and whether it could be completely funded
by potential (currently unapproved) growth in the Extended Planning Area; and
.
. Evaluate the timing and need for a station to serve the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area.
F or each needed new station, Contractor will estimate land, construction, and apparatus costs.
Contractor will also estimate costs associated with expansion of central facilities needed to serve growth,
such as administration offices and communication systems.
Contractor will complete this task by relying on available information and interviews with City Staff and
local fire professionals. The product of this task will not be at the level of detail of a facilities master
plan, but will provide a reasonable, defensible estimate of the cost of facilities necessary to
accommodate new development. The results will be used to support the finding required under
California Government Code Section 66001 that there be a reasonable relationship between the need for .
and use of the fire facilities impact fee, and new development.
Task 3: Allocate Facilities Costs to New Development
The purpose of this task is to determine a method for equitably allocating total facilities to new
development. Based on Contractor's extensive experience, the per dwelling unit and per building square
foot allocation approach of the current DRF A fee is adequate. In addition, Contractor would suggest
using a per capita measure (persons per dwelling unit and employees per square feet) to allocate among
land uses. The DRF A fee uses floor-to-area ratios to allocate among land uses. The former approach
has the advantage of incorporating population as a measure of demand for fire and emergency medical
services.
The results of this task will be used to support the finding required under California Government Code
Section 66001 that there be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of fire
facilities needed to accommodate new development. Results will also meet the "rough proportionality"
standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. City ofTigard.
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 3
.
z;l-
Task 4: Develop Financing Plan and Calculate Impact Fee
.The purpose of this task is to develop a comprehensive financing plan for fire facilities. The financing
plan will be based on the phasing schedule developed in Task 1, and the allocation of facilities costs per
unit of new development from Task 3. To complete this task, Contractor will develop a long-range cash
flow computer model for the fire facilities fee fund that accounts for:
. Estimated fee revenue, by year;
· Need for funds based on the timing and cost of new station(s);
· Annual interest earnings on fund balances; and
· Annual debt financing costs (annual interest expense and one-time issuance costs), as necessary.
The model will enable Contractor to fine tune the fee schedule to incorporate financing costs along with
the facilities costs developed in Task 2.
Contractor will discuss options for debt financing mechanisms that the City could use. The most likely
option is a lease-to-own arrangement with a leasing entity financed by certificates of participation. The
City likely will make the final decision on what type of debt financing mechanism to use sometime after
adoption of the impact fee. Consequently, the impact fee documentation and fee schedule will be based
on the approach considered most likely by City Staff at this time. The City will retain the flexibility to
alter the fee schedule as necessary to accommodate any alternative financing approaches in the future.
Task 5: Prepare Fee Documentation
.he purpose of this task is to summarize the results of the study in a final report. , The report will serve
as adequate documentation for the fire facilities impact fee, incorporated into any fee resolution by
reference, and for use as a capital improvement program to enable collection of the fee at building
permit issuance. Contractor will prepare an administrative draft for City Staff review. Contractor will
incorporate Staff comments into a public draft for review by the City Council, developers, and the
general public. Upon review by the City Council, Contractor will prepare a final report.
SCHEDULE
Contractor appreciates that time is of the essence for this study because of the impending date for
dissolution of the DRF A. The City needs to be able to start collecting its own fire facilities impact fee
when it begins contracting with the Alameda County Fire Department for fire services on July 1, 1997.
The state law requiring a 60-day waiting period between Council adoption of the fee and collection
means that this study must be completed during the first quarter of next year. As a result, Contractor is
committed to achieving the project schedule outlined in the RFP, as follows:
· Contract award by January 7, 1997;
· Administrative draft report to City Staff by February 17, 1997;
· Public draft report to the City by March 7, 1997; and
· Adoption by the City Council by April 1, 1997.
..-ixhibit A
~ge 3 of3
C' 11
.J
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
.
1. City shall pay Contractor an amount not to exceed the total sum of Eleven Thousand Three
Hundred and No/lOO Dollars ($11,300.00) for services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement and
in accordance with the budget shown below. The budget assumes one or two staff meetings during the
course of the project, and one public meeting or hearing to present the final report to the City Council.
The cost of additional meetings is $500 per meeting.
IMk
1. Estimate Amount & Phasing of New Development
2. Determine Facilities Needs & Cost
3. Allocate Facilities Costs to New Development
4. Develop Financing Plan & Calculate Impact Fee
5. Prepare Fee Documentation
Subtotal Hours
Hourly Rate (Burdened)
Subtotal Labor Costs
Direct Expenses
Subtotal
Additional Meeting
TOTAL COSTS
PROPOSED BUDGET
Hours Bv Staff
R. Spencer
8
8
4
12
2Q
52
$90
$4,680
Imm
A. Delaney
20
24
8
24
~
100
$60
$6,000
Staff Hours
28
32
12
36
M
152
Labor Costs
$ 1,920
2,160
840
2,520
~
$10,680
$10,680
----.l1Q
$10,800
-----..5..QQ.
$11,300
.
2. Direct expenses will be billed at cost. Labor will be billed at cost based on the following rate
schedule:
HEG Staff
Robert D. Spencer
Andrew Delaney
Hourly Rate
$ 90
$ 60
3. Contractor shall submit invoices, not more often than once per month, based upon the work
completed as identified in EXHIBIT A "Scope of Work".
4. City shall retain 1 0% of all billings, until the City has determined that the scope of work pursuant
to this Agreement have been satisfactorily performed.
5. The total sums stated above shall be the total which City shall pay for the services to be rendered
by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost
whatsoever incurred by Contractor in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement.
Exhibit B
Page 1 of2
P-'I
.
.6. City shall make no payment for any extra, further or additional service pursuant to this
Agreement unless such extra service and the price therefor is agreed to in a written Change Order
executed by the City Manager, or other designated official of the City authorized to obligate City
thereto. Said Change Order shall be executed prior to the time such extra service is rendered and in no
event shall such change order exceed twenty-five (25%) of the initial Cont:act price stated in Section 1
above. In the event the event the Change Order exceeds this limitation, City Council approval shall be
required.
7. The services to be provided under this Agreement may be terminated without cause at any point
in time in the sole and exclusive discretion of City. In this event, City shall compensate the Contractor
for all outstanding costs incurred as of the date of written notice thereof and shall terminate this
Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate logs and time sheets in order to verify costs incurred to
date.
8. The Contractor is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the
terms of this Agreement until receipt of a fully executed copy of this Agreement.
.
Exhibit B
Page 2 of2
.
"~5
EXHIBIT C
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be
reasonably necessary for Contractor's use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records
and the information in possession of City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing said physical
facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility
which may involve incurring any direct expense, including, but not limiting the generality of this
exclusion, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 1
)/e>
.
.
.
EXHIBIT D
.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor
shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to
control Contractor only insofar as the results of Contractor's services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement; however, City shall not have the right to control the means by which Contractor
accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
2. LICENSES: PERMITS: ETC. Contractor represents and warrants to City that he has all licenses,
permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Contractor to
practice his profession. Contractor represents and warrants to City that Contractor shall, at his sole cost
and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and
approvals which are legally required for Contractor to practice his profession.
3. TIME. Contractor shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this
Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of Contractor's obligations
pursuant to this Agreement.
4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the
contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or
in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, his agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid.
.
(a) Minimum Scope ofInsurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. 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; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability
coverage ("occurrence" form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile
Liability, code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025.
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers Liability Insurance.
(b) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage. If commercial General Liability Insurance or other form
WIth a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily
injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability: Workers' compensation limits
as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000
per accident.
.Xhibit D
age I of 4
;;.1
(c) Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must
be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer shall reduce or
eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials and
employees; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
.
(d) Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the
following provisions:
1. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages.
a. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered
as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor;
products and completed operations of the Contractor, premises owned, occupied or used by the
Contractor, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall
contain no special limitations the scope of the protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers.
b. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects
the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by
the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and
shall not contribute with it.
c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not
affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
d. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
2. Worker's Compensation and Employees Liability Coverage.
The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Contractor
for the City.
3. Professional Liability.
Contractor shall carry professional liability insurance in an amount deemed by the
City to adequately protect the Contractor against liability caused by negligent acts, errors or omissions
on the part of the Contractor in the course of performance of the services specified in this Agreement.
4. All Coverages.
Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to 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.
.
(e) Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of
no less than A:VII.
(f) Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish City with certificates of insurance and
with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. 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 certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City
before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, at any time.
Exhibit D
Page 2 of 4
.
).<J
(g) Subcontractors. Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insured 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.
(h) The Risk Manager of City may approve a variation in those 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.
5. CONTRACTOR NO AGENT. Except as City may specify in writing, Contractor shall have no
authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent.
Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any
obligation whatsoever.
6. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED. No party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation
pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation pursuant
to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect.
7. PERSONNEL. Contractor 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 removal of any such persons, Contractor shall, immediately upon receiving
notice from City of such desire of City, cause the removal of such person or persons.
8. ST ANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. Contractor 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 Contractor is engaged in the geographical area in which Contractor practices his
~rofession. All instruments of service of whatsoever nature
~hich Contractor delivers to City pursuant to this Agreement shall be prepared in a substantial, first
class and workmanlike manner and conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person
practicing in Contractor's profession.
9. HOLD HARMLESS AND RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTORS. Contractor shall take all
responsibility for the work, shall bear all losses and damages directly or indirectly resulting to him, to
any subcontractor, to the City, to City officers and employees, or to parties designated by the City, on
account of the performance or character of the work, unforeseen difficulties, accidents, occurrences or
other causes predicated on active or passive negligence of the Contractor or of any subcontractor.
Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, directors,
employees and agents from and against any or all loss, liability, expense, claim, costs (including costs of
defense), suits, and damages of every kind, nature and description directly or indirectly arising from the
performance of the work. This paragraph shall not be construed to exempt the City, its employees and
officers from its own fraud, willful injury or violation of law whether willful or negligent. For purposes
of Section 2782 of the Civil Code the parties hereto recognize and agree that this agreement is not a
construction contract. By execution of this agreement Contractor acknowledges and agrees that he has
read and understands the provisions hereof and that this paragraph is a material element of consideration.
Approval of the insurance contracts does not relieve the Contractor or subcontractors from liability
under this paragraph.
.Xhibit D
" age 3 of 4
).'1
10. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by
fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Contractor shall comply with all applicable rules and .
regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.
11. DOCUMENTS. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs,
memoranda or other written documents or materials prepared by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement
shall become the property of the City upon completion of the work to be performed hereunder or upon
termination of the Agreement.
.
Exhibit D
Page 4 of 4
.
-;0