Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-278-E Planning - TischlerBise for Payment In Lieu report DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 [Departmental Use Only] TITLE FY NORTH CAROLINA CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT UNDER $90,000 ORANGE COUNTY This Agreement, made and entered into this 30th day of June, 2017, ("Effective Date") by and between Orange County, North Carolina a body politic and corporate of the State of North Carolina (hereinafter, the "County") and TischlerBise, (hereinafter, the "Consultant"). WITNESSETH: That the County and Consultant, for the consideration herein named, do hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 SCOPE OF WORK 1.1 Scope of Work 1.1.1 This Services Agreement ("Agreement") is for professional consulting services to be rendered by Consultant to County with respect to (insert type of project)A fee in lieu of park land methodology update 1.1.2 By executing this Agreement, the Consultant represents and agrees that Consultant is qualified to perform and fully capable of performing and providing the services required or necessary under this Agreement in a fully competent, professional and timely manner. 1.1.3 Time is of the essence with respect to this Agreement. 1.1.4 The services to be performed under this Agreement consist of Basic Services, as described and designated in Article 3 hereof. Compensation to the Consultant for Basic Services under this Agreement shall be as set forth herein. ARTICLE 2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANT 2.1 Services to be Provided. The Consultant shall provide the County with all services required in Article 3 to satisfactorily complete the Project within the time limitations set forth herein and in accordance with the highest professional standards. 2.2. Standard of Care 2.2.1 The Consultant shall exercise reasonable care and diligence in performing services under this Agreement in accordance with the highest generally accepted standards of this type of Consultant practice throughout the United States and in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the performance of these services. Consultant is solely responsible for the professional quality, accuracy and timely completion and submission Revised 2/17 1 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 of all reports, drawings, specifications, plans, documents and services (hereinafter "Deliverables") related to the Basic Services. 2.2.2 The Consultant shall be responsible for all errors or omissions, in the deliverables prepared by the Consultant. 2.2.3 The Consultant shall correct at no additional cost to the County any and all errors, omissions, discrepancies, ambiguities, mistakes or conflicts in any Deliverables prepared by the Consultant. 2.2.4 The Consultant shall assure that all Deliverables prepared by it hereunder are in accordance with applicable laws, statutes, and that any necessary or appropriate applications for approvals are submitted to federal, state and local governments or agencies in a timely manner so as not to delay the Project. 2.2.5 The Consultant shall not, except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, subcontract the performance of any work under this Agreement without prior written permission of the County. No permission for subcontracting shall create, between the County and the subcontractor, any contract or any other relationship. 2.2.6 Any and all employees of the Consultant engaged by the Consultant in the performance of any work or services required of the Consultant under this Agreement, shall be considered employees or agents of the Consultant only and not of the County, and any and all claims that may or might arise under any workers compensation or other law or contract on behalf of said employees while so engaged shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant. 2.2.7 If activities related to the performance of this agreement require specific licenses, certifications, or related credentials Consultant represents that it and/or its employees, agents and subcontractors engaged in such activities possess such licenses, certifications, or credentials and that such licenses certifications, or credentials are current, active, and not in a state of suspension or revocation. ARTICLE 3 BASIC SERVICES 3.1 Basic Services 3.1.1 The Consultant shall perform as Basic Services the work and services described herein and as described in Exhibit A (see attached). ARTICLE 4 DURATION OF SERVICES 4.1 Scheduling of Services 4.1.1 The Consultant shall schedule and perform its activities in a timely manner. 4.1.2 Should the County determine that the Consultant is behind the agreed upon schedule, it may require the Consultant to expedite and accelerate his efforts, including providing Revised 2/17 2 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 additional resources and working overtime, as necessary, to perform his services in accordance with the approved project schedule at no additional cost to the County. 4.1.3 The Commencement Date for the Consultant's Basic Services shall be upon execution. ARTICLE 5 COMPENSATION 5.1 Compensation for Basic Services 5.1.1 Compensation for Basic Services shall include all compensation due the Consultant from the County for all services under this Agreement except for any authorized Reimbursable Expenses which are defined herein. The maximum amount payable for Basic Services is Fourthy One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($41,500.00). Payment for Basic Services shall become due and payable in direct proportion to satisfactory services performed and work accomplished. ARTICLE 6 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COUNTY 6.1 Cooperation and Coordination 6.1.1 The County has designated Craig Benedict to act as the County's representative with respect to the Project and shall have the authority to render decisions within guidelines established by the County Manager and the County Board of Commissioners and shall be available during working hours as often as may be reasonably required to render decisions and to furnish information. 6.1.2 The County shall be solely responsible for determining whether Consultant as satisfactorily completed Tasks. It is agreed that County shall not unreasonably withhold its determination of satisfactory completion of any Task. In the event the amount of an invoice is disputed County may withhold payment until the dispute is resolved by the parties. County may also withhold payment on an invoice until the satisfactory completion of a Task by Consultant. ARTICLE 7 INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY 7.1 General Requirements 7.1.1 Consultant shall obtain, at its sole expense, Commercial General Liability Insurance, Automobile Insurance, Workers' Compensation Insurance, Professional Liability Insurance, and any additional insurance as may be required by Owner's Risk Manager as such insurance requirements are described in the Orange County Risk Transfer Policy and Orange County Minimum Insurance Coverage Requirements (each document is incorporated herein by reference and may be viewed at http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/purchasing division/contracts.php). If Owner's Risk Manager determines additional insurance coverage is required such additional insurance shall be designated here (if no additional insurance required mark N/A as being not applicable). Consultant shall not commence work until such insurance is in effect and certification thereof has been received by the Owner's Risk Manager. Revised 2/17 3 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 7.2 Indemnity 7.2.1 The Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County from all loss, liability, claims or expense, including attorney's fees, arising out of or related to the Project and arising from property damage or bodily injury including death to any person or persons caused in whole or in part by the negligence or misconduct of the Consultant except to the extent same are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the County. It is the intent of this provision to require the Consultant to indemnify the County to the fullest extent permitted under North Carolina law. ARTICLE 8 AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT 8.1 Changes in Basic Services 8.1.1 Changes in the Basic Services and entitlement to additional compensation or a change in duration of this Agreement shall be made by a written Amendment to this Agreement executed by the County and the Consultant. The Consultant shall proceed to perform the Services required by the Amendment only after receiving a fully executed Amendment from the County. ARTICLE 9 TERMINATION 9.1 Termination for Convenience of the County 9.1.1 This Agreement may be terminated without cause by the County and for its convenience upon seven (7) days prior written notice to the Consultant. 9.2 Other Termination 9.2.1 The Consultant may terminate this Agreement based upon the County's material breach of this Agreement; provided the County has not taken all reasonable actions to remedy the breach. The Consultant shall give the County seven (7) days' prior written notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement for cause. 9.3 Compensation After Termination 9.3.1 In the event of termination, the Consultant shall be paid that portion of the fees and expenses that it has earned to the date of termination, less any costs or expenses incurred or anticipated to be incurred by the County due to errors or omissions of the Consultant. 9.3.2 Should this Agreement be terminated, the Consultant shall deliver to the County within seven (7) days, at no additional cost, all Deliverables including any electronic data or files relating to the Project. 9.4 Waiver 9.4.1 The payment of any sums by the County under this Agreement or the failure of the County to require compliance by the Consultant with any provisions of this Agreement or the waiver by the County of any breach of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any claim Revised 2/17 4 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 for damages by the County for any breach of this Agreement or a waiver of any other required compliance with this Agreement. 9.5 Suspension 9.5.1 County may suspend the work at any time for County's convenience and without penalty to County upon three (3) days' notice to Consultant. Upon any suspension by County, Consultant shall discontinue the work and shall not resume the work until notified to proceed by County. ARTICLE 10 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 10.1 Relationship of Parties 10.1.1 Consultant is an independent contractor of the County. Neither Consultant nor any employee of the Consultant shall be deemed an officer, employee or agent of the County. Consultant's personnel shall not be employees of, or have any contractual relationship with, the County. 10.2 Limitation and Assignment 10.2.1 The County and the Consultant each bind themselves, their successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the terms of this Agreement. Neither the County nor the Consultant shall assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. 10.3 Governing Law 10.3.1 This Agreement and the duties, responsibilities, obligations and rights of respective parties hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Consultant shall at all times remain in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations including but not limited to all state and federal anti-discrimination laws, policies, rules, and regulations and the Orange County Non-Discrimination Policy and Orange County Living Wage Policy (each policy is incorporated herein by reference and may be viewed at http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/purchasing division/contracts.php). Any violation of this requirement is a breach of this Agreement and County may immediately terminate this Agreement without further obligation on the part of the County. This paragraph is not intended to limit the definition of breach to discrimination. By executing this Agreement Consultant affirms that Consultant and any subcontractors of Consultant are and shall remain in compliance with Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Where applicable, failure to maintain compliance with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the General Statutes constitutes Consultant's breach of this Agreement. By executing this Agreement Consultant affirms Consultant is in compliance with Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the North Carolina General Statutes. By executing this Agreement, Consultant certifies that Consultant has not been identified, and has not utilized the services of any agent or subcontractor, on the Iran divestment list created by the State Treasurer pursuant to G.S. 147- 86.58. 10.4 Dispute Resolution Revised 2/17 5 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 10.4.1 Any and all suits or actions to enforce, interpret or seek damages with respect to any provision of, or the performance or non-performance of, this Agreement shall be brought in the General Court of Justice of North Carolina sitting in Orange County, North Carolina and it is agreed by the parties that no other court shall have jurisdiction or venue with respect to such suits or actions. The Parties may agree to nonbinding mediation of any dispute prior to the bringing of such suit or action. Under no circumstances shall any dispute be addressed through binding arbitration. 10.5 Extent of Agreement 10.5.1 This Agreement, together with the Request for Proposals together with attachments distributed by the County and the Consultant's submitted Proposal, all of which constitute the Contract Documents, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the County and the Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. In the event of a conflict among the terms of the Contract Documents, the priority of documents shall be This Agreement, the County's Request for Proposals, attachments to the County's Request for Proposals, the Consultant's Proposal. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both parties. Modifications may be evidenced by facsimile signatures. 10.6 Severability 10.6.1 If any provision of this Agreement is held as a matter of law to be unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be valid and binding upon the Parties. 10.7 Ownership of Deliverables 10.7.1 All Deliverables, together with all supporting materials, source documentation, data collected, field notes, and working drafts, developed in the performance of this Agreement shall become the property of the County and may be used on any other project without additional compensation to the Consultant. The use of the Deliverables by the County or by any person or entity for any purpose other than the Project as set forth in this Agreement shall be at the full risk of the County. 10.8 Non-Appropriation 10.8.1 Consultant acknowledges that County is a governmental entity, and the validity of this Agreement is based upon the availability of public funding under the authority of its statutory mandate. In the event that public funds are unavailable and not appropriated for the performance of County's obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement shall automatically expire without penalty to County immediately upon written notice to Consultant of the unavailability and non-appropriation of public funds. It is expressly agreed that County shall not activate this non-appropriation provision for its convenience or to circumvent the requirements of this Agreement, but only as an emergency fiscal measure during a substantial fiscal crisis. In the event of a change in the County's statutory authority, mandate and/or mandated functions, by state and/or federal legislative or regulatory action, which adversely affects County's Revised 2/17 6 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 authority to continue its obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate without penalty to County upon written notice to Consultant of such limitation or change in County's legal authority. 10.9 Notices and Signatures 10.9.1 This Agreement together with any amendments or modifications may be executed electronically. All electronic signatures affixed hereto evidence the consent of the Parties to utilize electronic signatures and the intent of the Parties to comply with Article 11A and Article 40 of North Carolina General Statute Chapter 66. 10.9.2 Any notice required by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered by certified or registered mail,return receipt requested to the following: Orange County Consultant's Name &Address Attention: Craig Benedict TischlerBise-Carson Bise P.O. Box 8181 4701 Sangamore Road, S240 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Bethesda, MD 20816 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] Revised 2/17 7 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, by and through their authorized agents, have hereunder set their hands and seal, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY: Orange County CONSULTANT: TischlerBise DocuSigned by: DocuSigned by: '61/1.1/6G C1G1.Y19MGY'S A County Manager ( VSblt, f5tSt. 7/5/2017 dff 'Mthager .€7dfskiirBi§e, President Printed Name and Title Revised 2/17 8 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 PROPOSAL FOR A FEE IN LIEU OF PARK LAND METHODOLOGY UPDATE Prepared for Orange County, North Carolina June 23, 2017 : ftthlerB14 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 4701 Sangamore Road, S240 Bethesda, MD 20816 (800) 424-4318 www.tischlerbise.com DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina TABLE OF CONTENTS EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS 1 National Experience with Park-Related Fees and Exactions 1 PROJECT STAFFING, MANAGEMENT,AND APPROACH 4 Key Staff 4 Résumés 4 Project Management and Quality Control Process 8 Scope of Work 9 Project Schedule 12 Cost Schedule 13 ii DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS TischlerBise, Inc. is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in impact fees/exactions, fiscal/economic impact analyses, infrastructure funding strategies, and market/financial feasibility. Our firm has been providing consulting services to public agencies for over thirty-seven years. In this time, we have prepared over 900 impact fee/exaction evaluations—more than any other firm. We have also prepared numerous infrastructure financing strategies. Through our detailed approach, proven methodologies, and comprehensive work products, we have established TischlerBise as the leading national firm on revenue enhancement and cost of growth strategies. TischlerBise, Inc. was established in 1977 as Tischler, Marcou & Associates. The firm became Tischler & Associates in 1980 and TischlerBise in 2005. The firm, a Subchapter (S) Corporation, was incorporated in Washington, D.C., and maintains offices in Bethesda, Maryland, and Bradenton, Florida. The firm's legal addresses are: NATIONAL I I TH PARK-RELATED FEES AND EXACTIONS TischlerBise is the national leader in impact fee and exaction calculations, having prepared over 900 such evaluations nationwide. Our widespread national experience has enabled us to stay ahead of the latest approaches. TischlerBise staff members are frequently called upon to speak on impact fees for various national groups and organizations including the American Planning Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Impact Fee Roundtable, the Urban Land Institute and the Government Finance Officers Association. While every community is unique, this national experience provides invaluable perspective for our clients. The table below illustrates our vast national park-related fee and exaction experience. STATE CLIENT STATE CLIENT AL Baldwin County FL Parkland AL Daphne FL Polk County AL Fairhope FL Port St.Lucie AL Foley FL Punta Gorda AL Gulf Shores FL Stuart AL Orange Beach FL Sunny Isles Beach AR Bentonville FL West Miami AR Siloam Springs GA Atlanta AZ Apache County GA Douglas County AZ Apache Junction GA Douglasville AZ Avondale GA Effingham County AZ Buckeye GA Gordon County AZ Bullhead City GA Roswell AZ Camp Verde IA West Des Moines AZ Carefree ID Halley AZ Casa Grande ID Hayden AZ Cave Creek ID Kellogg 1 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina STATE CLIENT STATE CLIENT AZ Cochise County ID Nampa AZ Coolidge ID Post Falls AZ Dewey-Humboldt ID Sandpoint AZ El Mirage ID Victor AZ Eloy IL Evanston AZ Flagstaff MD Brunswick AZ Gilbert MD Carroll County AZ Glendale MD Charles County AZ Goodyear MD Easton AZ Holbrook MD Frederick County AZ Lake Havasu City MD Hagerstown AZ Maricopa MD Hampstead AZ Navajo County MD Queen Anne's County AZ Peoria MD Salisbury AZ Phoenix MD Snow Hill AZ Pinal County MD Talbot AZ Pinetop-Lakeside MD Westminster AZ Prescott MD Worcester AZ Queen Creek MO Nixa AZ Safford MS Madison AZ San Luis MT Belgrade AZ Scottsdale MT Missoula AZ Sedona MT Missoula County AZ Show Low MT Poison AZ Sierra Vista NC Greenville AZ Somerton NC Nags Head AZ Surprise NE Lincoln AZ Taylor NM Albuquerque AZ Wellton NV Nye County AZ Yuma OH Delaware CA Avenal OH Lebanon CA Banning OH Pickerington CA Chino Hills RI East Greenwich CA Corcoran RI Middletown CA El Centro SC Aiken CA Grass Valley SC Horry County CA Half Moon Bay SC Summerville CA Hemet UT American Fork CA Lemoore UT Clearfield CA National City UT Clinton City CA Rancho Cucamonga UT Draper CA Suisun City UT Farmington CA Temecula UT Hyde Park CA Tulare UT Kaysville 2 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina STATE CLIENT STATE CLIENT CA Visalia UT Logan CO Boulder UT Mapleton CO Castle Rock UT North Logan CO Eaton UT Pleasant Grove CO Erie UT Salt Lake County CO Greeley UT Sandy CO Johnstown UT Spanish Fork CO Lone Tree UT Springville CO Mead UT Wellsville CO Louisville UT West Jordan CO Steamboat Springs UT Woods Cross CO Thornton VA Chesterfield County DE New Castle County VA Henrico County FL Coral Gables VA Isle of Wight County FL DeSoto County VA Prince George County FL Lake Wales WI Eau Claire FL Manatee County WV Jefferson County FL Miami WY Casper FL North Miami WY Pinedale 3 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina PROJECT STAFFING, MANAGEMENT, AND APPROACH KEY STAFF To successfully navigate through the City's park in lieu methodology update, the successful consultant must possess specific, detailed, and customized knowledge, not only of the technical analysis, but also of the context of the fee in lieu structure in achieving City land use, recreation and budgetary policy goals. Our Project Team for this assignment includes our most senior and experienced impact fee/exaction professionals. We have unsurpassed experience performing projects requiring the same expertise as that needed to serve Orange County. The role of each team member and their qualifications are briefly discussed below. Carson Bise, AICP, President of TischlerBise, will serve as Project Manager and coordinate our Project Team's interaction with the County to ensure that all work is completed properly, on time, and within budget. He will work closely with Ben Griffin, developing and reviewing all aspects of the project and providing overall quality assurance for the project. Benjamin Griffin, Senior Fiscal / Economic Analyst at TischlerBise, will assist with this assignment due to his experience preparing impact fees and other exactions. Mr. Griffin, in conjunction with Mr. Bise, will ensure constant collaboration and communication between County staff and our team through frequent progress memorandums, conference calls, and in-person meetings. Mr. Griffin has prepared impact fees, market analyses, and revenue strategies for local governments in 13 states. RESUMES CARSON BISE,AICP, PRESIDENT EXPERIENCE Carson Bise has twenty-seven years of fiscal, economic and planning experience and has conducted fiscal and infrastructure finance evaluations in thirty-six states. Mr. Bise is also a leading national figure in the calculation of impact fees, having completed over 250 impact fees/exactions for the following categories: parks and recreation, open space, police,fire, schools, water, sewer, roads, municipal power, and general government facilities. Mr. Bise has also written and lectured extensively on fiscal impact analysis and infrastructure financing. His most recent publications are Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for Planners, published by the American Planning Association (APA); a chapter on fiscal impact analysis in the book Planning and Urban Design Standards, also published by the APA; and the ICMA IQ Report, Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today's Decisions Affect Tomorrow's Budgets. Mr. Bise was also the principal author of the fiscal impact analysis component for the Atlanta Regional Commission's Smart Growth Toolkit and is featured in the recently released AICP CD-ROM Training Package entitled The Economics of Density. Mr. Bise is currently on the Board of Directors of the Growth and Infrastructure Finance Consortium and recently Chaired the APA's Paying for Growth Task Force. He was also recently named an Affiliate of the National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education. SELECTED IMPACT FEE AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING STRATEGY EXPERIENCE • City of Daphne,Alabama—Impact Fee Study 4 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina • City of Foley,Alabama—Impact Fee Study • City of Gulf Shores,Alabama—Impact Fee Study • City of Orange Beach,Alabama—Impact Fee Study • City of Apache Junction,Arizona—Impact Fee Study • Town of Camp Verde,Arizona—Impact Fee Study • City of Eloy, Arizona—Impact Fee Study • City of Siloam Springs,Arkansas—Impact Fee Study • City of Avenal, California—Impact Fee Study • City of Banning, California—Impact Fee Study • City of National City, California—Impact Fee Study • City of Temecula, California—Impact Fee Study • City of Tulare, California—Impact Fee Study • City of Boulder, Colorado—Impact Fee/Excise Tax Study • Town of Castle Rock, Colorado—Impact Fee Study • City of Coral Gables, Colorado—Impact Fee Study • City of Greeley, Colorado—Impact Fee Study • City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado—Impact Fee Study • Town of Vail, Colorado—Impact Fee Study • DeSoto County, Florida—Impact Fee Study • Manatee County, Florida—Impact Fee Study • City of Miami, Florida—Impact Fee Study • City of North Miami, Florida—Impact Fee Study • City of South Miami, Florida—Impact Fee Study • Pasco County, Florida—School Impact Fee Study • Polk County, Florida—Impact Fee Study • City of Parkland, Florida—Impact Fee Study • City of Punta Gorda, Florida—Impact Fee Study • Anne Arundel County, Maryland—Revenue Strategies • Calvert County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • Caroline County, Maryland—Schools Excise Tax Study • Carroll County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • Charles County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • Dorchester County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • Town of Easton, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • City of Hagerstown, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • Town of Hampstead, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • City of Salisbury, Maryland —Impact Fee Study • Talbot County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • Washington County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • Wicomico County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • Worcester County, Maryland—Impact Fee Study • Broadwater County, Montana—Impact Fee Feasibility Study • Flathead County, Montana—Impact Fee Feasibility Study and Impact Fee Study 5 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina • Gallatin Canyon/Big Sky, Montana—Capital Improvement and Funding Plan • City of Great Falls, Montana—Impact Fee Feasibility Study • City of Laurel, Montana—Impact Fee Feasibility Study • City of Missoula/Missoula County, Montana—Impact Fee Study and Capital Facility Plan • City of Las Cruces, New Mexico— Water and Sewer Impact Fee Study • Cabarrus County, North Carolina— Voluntary Mitigation Payment Studies(Two School Districts) • City of Greenville, North Carolina—Impact Fee Study • Abbeville County, South Carolina—Infrastructure Funding Strategy • Beaufort County, South Carolina—Infrastructure Funding Strategy • Clinton City, Utah—Impact Fee Study • Draper City, Utah—Impact Fee Study • Farmington City, Utah—Impact Fee Study • Logan City, Utah—Impact Fee Study • Mapleton City, Utah—Impact Fee Study • City of Spanish Fork, Utah—Impact Fee Study • City of West Jordan, Utah—Impact Fee Study • Goochland County, Virginia—Cash Proffer Study • Henrico County, Virginia—Impact Fee Study; Cash Proffer Study • Prince George County,Virginia—Cash Proffer Study • Prince William County, Virginia—Impact Fee Study • Spotsylvania County,Virginia—Impact Fee Study • Stafford County,Virginia—Impact Fee Study • Sussex County,Virginia—Cash Proffer Study EDUCATION M.B.A., Economics, Shenandoah University Bachelor of Science, Geography/Urban Planning, East Tennessee State University Bachelor of Science, Political Science/Urban Studies, East Tennessee State University SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS • Fiscal Impact Assessment,AICP Training Workshop, APA National Planning Conference • Dealing with the Cost of Growth: From Soup to Nuts, ICMA National Conference • Demand Numbers for Impact Analysis, National Impact Fee Roundtable • Calculating Infrastructure Needs with Fiscal Impact Models, Florida Chapter of the APA Conference • Economic Impact of Home Building, National Impact Fee Roundtable • Annexation and Economic Development,APA National Conference • Economics of Density,APA National Conference • The Cost/Benefit of Compact Development Patterns,APA National Conference • Fiscal Impact Modeling:A Tool for Local Government Decision Making, ICMA National Conference • Fiscal Assessments, APA National Conference • From Soup to Nuts:Paying for Growth,APA National Conference • Growing Pains, ICMA National Conference • Mitigating the Impacts of Development in Urban Areas, Florida Chapter of the APA • Impact Fee Basics, National Impact Fee Roundtable 6 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina • Fiscal Impact Analysis and Impact Fees, National Impact Fee Roundtable • Are Subsidies Worth It?,APA National Conference PUBLICATIONS • "Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for Planners",APA. • "Planning and Urban Design Standards", APA, Contributing Author on Fiscal Impact Analysis. • "Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today's Decisions Affect Tomorrow's Budgets", ICMA Press. • "The Cost/Contribution of Residential Development", Mid-Atlantic Builder. • "Are Subsidies Worth It?", Economic Development News&Views. • "Smart Growth and Fiscal Realities", ICMA Getting Smart! Newsletter. • "The Economics of Density",AICP Training Series, 2005,Training CD-ROM (APA). BENJAMIN GRIFFIN,SENIOR FISCAL/ECONOMIC ANALYST EXPERIENCE Benjamin Griffin is a Fiscal and Economic Analyst at TischlerBise with specialties in finance and economic development planning. Prior to joining TischlerBise, Mr. Griffin worked for the New Orleans Business Alliance (NOLABA) — the non-profit agency tasked with leading economic development initiatives for the City of New Orleans. During his time with NOLABA, he conducted field surveys to determine the economic health of key retail corridors and researched economic development initiatives. Prior to working for NOLABA, Mr. Griffin worked for the Jefferson Parish Planning Department where he gained experience in the short-range planning division. This provided practical experience in planning and zoning while also providing insight into the daily operations of a public sector planning department. Mr. Griffin also worked for the Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans where he helped guide the historic preservation staff through their own subdivision process. This involved working with the City's planning and real estate departments, conducting public outreach, and representing the non-profit at council meetings. Finally, Mr. Griffin served as a facilitator during community meetings for the Livable Claiborne Communities study and worked with the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority to identify alternative sources of funding and redevelopment strategies to support the agency's mission of reducing blight and revitalizing the City of New Orleans. EDUCATION M.A., Urban and Regional Planning, University of New Orleans B.B.A., Finance, University of Mississippi SELECTED IMPACT FEE AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING STRATEGY EXPERIENCE • City of Buckeye, Arizona–Development Impact Fee Study • City of Casa Grande,Arizona–Development Impact Fee Study • Final County,Arizona–Development Impact Fee Study • City of Sierra Vista,Arizona–Development Impact Fee Study • City of Tempe, Arizona–Development Impact Fee Study • City of Yuma,Arizona–Development Impact Fee Study • City of Lemoore, California–Development Impact Fee Study • Town of Mammoth Lakes, California–Development Impact Fee Study • City of Suisun City, California–Development Impact Fee Study 7 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina • City of Tulare, California—Development Impact Fee Study • City of Durango, Colorado—Affordable Housing and Transit Linkage Fees • City of Louisville, Colorado—Impact Fee Study • Town of Mead, Colorado—Impact Fee Study • Prince George's County, Maryland—Parks Exaction Study • Manatee County, Florida—Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study • City of Las Cruces, New Mexico—Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study • City of West Jordan, Utah—Impact Fee Study PROJECT LITY CONTROL PROCESS For our projects, we utilize a project management process that ensures projects are completed on time, within budget, and most importantly, yield results that match our clients' expectations. TischlerBise will provide seamless support to the County's project by convening weekly to assess the status of the project. Mr. Bise will ensure that staffing resources are well-matched to provide the highest quality work product, high responsiveness to the County, and to keep the project on schedule. Our approach to resolving issues that may be encountered during the project is simple: identify the possible challenges early on and notify all project members in a timely manner. Early identification will allow TischlerBise time to strategize a solution from a proactive, rather than reactive, framework. Our project management plan utilizes the following principles common to successful projects: • First, we will review the project goals and objectives. As part of our Project Initiation activities, Carson Bise, assisted by Ben Griffin, will revisit the final project goals and objectives in collaboration with County staff, list potential challenges to the process, and develop a plan to ensure successful outcomes and effective communication. • Second, we will plan the project schedule. Mr. Bise and Mr. Griffin will work with County staff to create an agreed upon timetable to meet the project schedule. Prior to beginning the project, Mr. Bise will assign roles that will ensure the project is completed on time and within budget. • Third, we will actively manage the project process. Mr. Bise and Mr. Griffin have a long history of strong project management skills that are supported by past project successes (we encourage you to contact our references in this regard). They will manage the work in progress, provide guidance and oversight to staff, and will be accountable to the County for meeting the schedule, budget, and technical requirements of the project. Mr. Bise and Mr. Griffin will collaborate and frequently communicate with County staff by utilizing regularly-scheduled progress memorandums, e-mail status updates, conference calls, and meetings at County offices. • Finally, we will review all project deliverables and communication through a formal quality assurance process that requires review at the peer level, project manager level, and executive officer level. Prior to the delivery of work product to you and staff, deliverables will go through a structured quality assurance process involving up to three levels of review and utilizing a formal checklist tool. 8 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of work provides detailed steps to ensure this project is completed successfully and meets the legal requirements for park exactions. Task 1: Project Initiation/Data Collection Description: This task will serve as an opportunity for TischlerBise to make contact with County staff and conduct project "kick-off" activities. During this task, we will meet with County staff to establish lines of communication, review and discuss project goals and County policies related to the project, review the project schedule (and revise if necessary), and request additional data and documentation related to the project. The specifics of this initial discussion are outlined below: • Review and refine work plan and schedule, if appropriate. • Assess information needs and required staff support. • Discuss the City's current parks exaction program. • Discuss the City's current infrastructure needs. • Discuss overall capital facility financing issues. • Identify and collect data and documents relevant to the analysis. • Identify any relevant policy issues. Review of Current Fee in Lieu Program. The TischlerBise team will review the City's current fee in lieu program for parks. We will also identify key aspects of the current fee in lieu program and/or processes that may be problematic. This will be presented in a Technical Memorandum that also discusses "best practices." Meetings: One (1) meeting with County staff. Deliverables: 1) Data request memorandum. 2) Technical Memorandum on Review of Current Fee In Lieu Program. Task 2: Determine Appropriate Park Land Inventory Description: As an essential part of the nexus analysis, TischlerBise will evaluate and identify park facilities eligible for dedication/fee in lieu calculation. As part of calculating the fee in lieu, the TischlerBise will evaluate different approaches/procedures for determining the fair market value of unimproved (or improved land) for inclusion in the fee in lieu calculation. Meetings: One (1) meeting with County staff to discuss park inventories and fair market values. Deliverables: See Task 5. 9 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina Task 3: Determine Park Land Service Levels Description: Based on the findings from Task 2, TischlerBise will determine the appropriate level-of- service standards for dedication/fee in lieu calculations. Activities related to this task include: • Defining appropriate persons per housing unit factors for the methodology, based on Orange County-specific data. • Identify actual existing service levels for park facilities included in the methodology. This is typically expressed in the number of demand units served (e.g., acres per person). • Define service standards (actual versus adopted) to be used in the calculation methodology. Meetings: One (1) meeting with County staff to discuss levels of service. Deliverables: See Task 5. Task 4: Determine Methodology for Credits to Park Improvements Description: A consideration of "credits" is integral to the development of a legally valid park dedication fee in lieu methodology. There are three types of"credits" each with specific, distinct characteristics, but all must be addressed in the calculation of fee in lieu methodologies. The first is when a subdivider dedicates land for park facilities that may not meet the standard for dedication. Therefore, procedures must be developed for determining the credit (usually based on the fair market value concept). The second is, depending on the scope of the dedication requirements, the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements to the dedicated land or the value of the improvements together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land. Finally, in some cases, jurisdictions grant credits for private park land and amenities. This is strictly a policy decision for the County, the pros and cons of which will be discussed as part of this engagement. Meetings: None. Deliverables: See Task 5. Task 5: Prepare Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication Methodology Report, Public Presentations Description: TischlerBise will prepare a draft report for the County's review. The report will summarize the methodology used for determining the fee in lieu of park land dedication calculation, as well as document all assumptions and cost factors. The report will include at a minimum the following information: • Executive Summary 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina • A detailed description of the methodology used during the study • A detailed description of all level of service standards and cost factors used and accompanying rationale • Description of recommended credit methodologies • A detailed schedule of all proposed fees listed by land use type Following the County's review of the draft report, we will make mutually agreed upon changes. TischlerBise's report will have flow diagrams clearly indicating the methodology and approach, a series of tables for each component showing all the data assumptions and figures, and a narrative explaining all the data assumptions, sources and the methodologies. The report will be a stand-alone document clearly understood by interested parties. Meetings: Two (2) meetings/presentations to present results. Deliverables: Draft and final reports and presentation materials for meetings. Task 6: Make Recommendations for Amendments to County Land Development Code Description: Based upon the findings and deliverables developed in the above Tasks, we will make recommendations for amendments to the County's Land Development Code. These will be coordinated in draft form, first with staff and, as directed, with County legal counsel, before finalizing for consideration of adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. Deliverables: Technical Memorandum outlining Recommended Changes to the County's Land Development Code. 11 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina PROJECT SCHEDULE The following table presents our anticipated project schedule for this assignment. Project Schedule for Orange County, North Carolina Tasks Tlmeframe Meetings Meetings/Deliverables Task 1:Project Initiation/Data Collection October,2017 1 Data request memorandum Task 2:Determine Appropriate Park Land Inventory October-November,2017 1 See Task 5 Task 3:Determine Park Land Service Levels October-November,2017 1 See Task 5 Task 4:Determine Methodology for Credits to Park December,2017 0 See Task 5 Improvements Task 5:Prepare Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication Draft and Final Reports and Presentation Methodology Report,Public Presentations December,2017 2 Materials as Appropriate Task 6:Make Recommendations for Amendments to Technical Memorandum Outlining January,2018 0 Recommended Changes to the County's Land County Land Development Code Development Code 12 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 Proposal for a Fee in Lieu of Park Land Methdology Update Orange County,North Carolina COST SCHEDULE The following table presents our proposed project cost schedule for this assignment and encompasses the tasks, meetings, and deliverables identified in our Scope of Work. Please note that this is a fixed fee proposal and includes direct expenses related to the project with no overhead mark-up.TischlerBise bills monthly, based on percentage complete. Payment terms are net 30 days. Orange County, NC—Fee in Lieu of Park Land Study Project Team Member: Bise Griffin Total Hourly Rate* $200 $175 Hours Cost Work Scope: Task 1: Project Initiation/Data Collection 8 0 8 $1,600 Task 2: Determine Appropriate Park Land Inventory 8 24 32 $5,800 Task 3: Determine Park Land Service Levels 16 28 44 $8,100 Task 4: Determine Methodology for Credits to Park Improvements 8 16 24 $4,400 Task 5: Prepare Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication Methodology Report, Public Presentations 24 40 64 $11,800 Task 6: Make Recommendations for Amendments to County Land Development Code 24 4 28 $5,500 Project Expenses $4,300 Estimated Total Hours* 88 112 200 $41,500 13 DocuSign Envelope ID:463F9D68-DFE3-4C3B-91 B7-2C2231A6F350 DATE(MM/DD/YYYY) A�T IJ CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 6/30/2017 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CONTACT Marty Ramey y y Henry A Latimer and Son, Inc. (A/C No E, (301)229-1500 FAX Nq): (301)320-2458 4701 Sangamore Rd. Suite 5-250 ADDRESS: INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# Bethesda MD 20816 _INSURERA:Erie Insurance Company 26263 INSURED INSURER B Erie Insurance Exchange 26271 TischlerBise INSURERC:Erie Insurance Property Casual 4701 Sangamore Rd INSURER D:Travelers Indemnity Co Suite S240 INSURERE: Bethesda MD 20816 INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:2017-2018 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUER POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LIMITS LTR INSD WVD POLICY NUMBER (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 DAMAGE TO RENTED , , A CLAIMS-MADE X OCCUR 1 000 000 PREMISES(Ea occurrence) $ Q970143648 6/1/2017 6/1/2018 MED EXP(Any one person) $ 5,000 PERSONAL&ADVINJURY $ 2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 X POLICY PRO- LOC PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG $ 2,000,000 JECT OTHER: $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 (Ea accident) ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ A ALL OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS AUTOS Q970143648 6/1/2017 6/1/2018 BODILY INJURY(Per accident) $ NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE X HIRED AUTOS X AUTOS (Per accident) $ $ x UMBRELLA LIAB X OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 B EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ 1,000,000 DED RETENTION$ Q300171541 6/1/2017 6/1/2018 $ WORKERS COMPENSATION x 1 PEATUTE 1 ...1 EOTH AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY Y/N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E L EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? N/A C (Mandatory in NH) Q905100916 6/1/2017 6/1/2018 E L D I S E A S E E A E M P L O Y E E $ 1,000,000 If yes,describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E .DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 D Professional Liability 105783307 5/28/2017 5/28/2018 $1,000,000 claims made DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,may be attached if more space is required) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE Orange County Planning and Inspections De THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201 ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Hillsborough, NC 27278 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE / R Latimer, Jr./MARTY --- --- - ©1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25(2014/01) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD INS025(201401)