Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-356-E Planning - Tischler Bise Fiscal Economic Model consulting DocuSign Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E [Departmental Use Only] TITLE Fiscal Impact Model FY 18/19 NORTH CAROLINA SERVICES AGREEMENT UNDER $90,000.00 NO RFP/RFQ ORANGE COUNTY This Services Agreement (hereinafter"Agreement"), made and entered into this 28th day of June, 2019, ("Effective Date") by and between Orange County, North Carolina a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina (hereinafter, the "County") and TISCHLERBISE, (hereinafter, the "Provider"). WITNESSETH: That the County and Provider, for the consideration herein named, do hereby agree as follows: 1. Services a. Scope of Work. i) This Agreement is for services to be rendered by Provider to County with respect to (insert type of project): DEVELOPMENT-RELATED FISCAL/ECONOMIC MODEL ii) By executing this Agreement, the Provider represents and agrees that Provider 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. iii) Time is of the essence with respect to this Agreement. iv) The services to be performed under this Agreement consist of Basic Services, as described and designated in Section 3 hereof. Compensation to the Provider for Basic Services under this Agreement shall be as set forth herein. 2. Responsibilities of the Provider a. Services to be provided. The Provider shall provide the County with all services required in Section 3 to satisfactorily complete the Project within the time limitations set forth herein and in accordance with the highest professional standards. b. Standard of Care. i) The Provider shall exercise reasonable care and diligence in performing services under this Agreement in accordance with the highest generally accepted standards of this type of Provider practice throughout the United States and in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the performance of these services. Provider is solely responsible for the professional Revised 12/18 1 DocuSign Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E quality, accuracy and timely completion and/or submission of all work related to the Basic Services. ii) Provider shall be responsible for all errors or omissions of its agents, contractors, employees, or assigns in the performance of the Agreement. Provider shall correct any and all errors, omissions, discrepancies, ambiguities, mistakes or conflicts at no additional cost to the County. iii) The Provider 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. iv) Provider is an independent contractor of County. Any and all employees of the Provider engaged by the Provider in the performance of any work or services required of the Provider under this Agreement, shall be considered employees or agents of the Provider 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 Provider. v) If activities related to the performance of this Agreement require specific licenses, certifications, or related credentials Provider 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. vi) In determining the basic services to be provided, should any documents be referenced in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall have priority in any conflict between the terms of referenced documents and the terms of this Agreement. Should a request for proposals and a proposal be referenced the terms of the request for proposals shall have priority over the terms of any proposal. 3. Basic Services a. Basic Services. The Services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement are as follows (fully describe services to be provided): SEE SECTION 4 IN ATTACHED PROPOSAL (PAGES 20-25) 4. Duration of Services a. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from JUNE 28, 2019 to DECEMBER 31, 2019. b. Scheduling of Services. i) The Provider shall schedule and perform its activities in a timely manner. Revised 12/18 2 DocuSign Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E ii) Should the County determine that the Provider is behind schedule, it may require the Provider to expedite and accelerate its efforts, including providing additional resources and working overtime, as necessary, to perform its services in accordance with the approved project schedule at no additional cost to the County. iii) The Commencement Date for the Provider's Basic Services shall be JUNE 28, 2019. 5. Compensation a. Compensation for Basic Services. Compensation for Basic Services shall include all compensation due the Provider from the County for all services under this Agreement. The maximum amount payable for Basic Services shall not exceed Fifty thousand four hundred eighty Dollars ($50,480). Payment for Basic Services shall become due and payable within thirty(30) days of Provider properly invoicing County. Payment shall be subject to provisions of Section 5(b). b. Disputes. In the event the amount stated on an invoice is disputed by the County, the County may withhold payment of all or a portion of the amount stated on an invoice until the parties resolve the dispute. Should Provider fail to perform its duties under the terms of this Agreement, County may, without fault or penalty, withhold any payment associated with the work to be performed until such time as said work is completed. c. Additional Services. County shall not be responsible for costs related to any services in addition to the Basic Services performed by Provider unless County requests such additional services in writing and such additional services are evidenced by a written amendment to this Agreement. 6. Responsibilities of the County a. Cooperation and Coordination. The County has designated (Craig N. Benedict, Planning Director) 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/or 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. 7. Insurance a. General Requirements. Provider shall obtain, at its sole expense, Commercial General Liability Insurance, Automobile Insurance, Workers' Compensation Insurance, and any additional insurance as may be required by County'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 County's Risk Manager determines additional insurance coverage is required such additional insurance shall consist of (if no additional insurance required mark Revised 12/18 3 DocuSign Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E N/A as being not applicable). Provider shall not commence work until such insurance is in effect and certification thereof has been received by the County's Risk Manager. 8. Indemnity a. Indemnity. The Provider agrees, without limitation, to defend, 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 Provider 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 Provider to indemnify the County to the fullest extent permitted under North Carolina law. 9. Amendments to the Agreement a. Changes in Basic Services. 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 Provider. The Provider shall proceed to perform the Services required by the Amendment only after receiving a fully executed Amendment from the County. 10. Termination a. Termination for Convenience of the County. This Agreement may be terminated without cause by the County and for its convenience upon seven (7) days' prior written notice to the Provider. b. Other Termination. The Provider 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 Provider shall give the County seven (7) days' prior written notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement for cause. c. Compensation After Termination. i) In the event of termination, the Provider 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 Provider. ii) Should this Agreement be terminated, the Provider 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. d. Waiver. The payment of any sums by the County under this Agreement or the failure of the County to require compliance by the Provider 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 for damages by the County for any breach of this Agreement or a waiver of any other required compliance with this Agreement. Revised 12/18 4 DocuSign Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E e. Suspension. County may suspend the Basic Services and this Agreement at any time for County's convenience and without penalty to County upon three (3) days' notice to Provider. Upon any suspension by County, Provider shall discontinue work on the Basic Services and shall not resume the Basic Services until notified to proceed by County. 11. Additional Provisions a. Limitation and Assigm-nent. The County and the Provider each bind themselves, their successors, assigns and legal representatives to the terms of this Agreement. Neither the County nor the Provider shall assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. b. Governing Law. 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. By executing this Agreement Provider affirms that Provider and any subcontractors of Provider are and shall remain in compliance with Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the North Carolina General Statutes. By executing this Agreement Provider certifies that Provider has not been identified, and has not utilized the services of any agent or subcontractor identified, on the list created by the State Treasurer pursuant to G.S. 147-86.58. By executing this Agreement Provider certifies that Provider has not been identified, and has not utilized the services of any agent or subcontractor identified, on the list created by the State Treasurer pursuant to G.S. 147-86.81. c. Non-Discrimination. Provider 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 non-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.oran e�ync. og v/departments/purchasing division/contracts.php.) Any violation of the Orange County Non-Discrimination Policy 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 and does not limit the definition of breach to discrimination. d. Dispute Resolution. 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. It is agreed by the parties that no other court shall have jurisdiction or venue with respect to such suits or actions. Binding arbitration may not be initiated by either Party, however, the Parties may agree to nonbinding mediation of any dispute prior to the bringing of such suit or action. e. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the County and the Provider and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both parties. Modifications may be evidenced by facsimile signatures. Revised 12/18 5 DocuSign Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E f. Severability. 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. g. Ownership of Work Product. Should Provider's performance of this Agreement generate documents, items or things that are specific to this Project such documents, items or things shall become the property of the County and may be used on any other project without additional compensation to the Provider. The use of the documents, items or things 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. h. Non-Appropriation. Provider 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 Provider 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 authority to continue its obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate without penalty to County upon written notice to Provider of such limitation or change in County's legal authority. i. Signatures. 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 I IA and Article 40 of North Carolina General Statute Chapter 66. j. Notices. 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 Provider's Name Attention:Craig N. Benedict L. Carson Bise P.O. Box 8181 4701 Sandamore Road S240. Hillsborough,NC 27278 Bethesda, MD 20816 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] Revised 12/18 6 DocuSign Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E 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. ORANGE COUNTY: PROVIDER: DocuSigned by: DocuSigned by: Bjpt7994Bt755E477.. 6/24/2019 B 6/21/2019 9" A277AEE758F74AO-- Cvuii�y iviuiius�i L. Carson Bise, President Printed Name and Title Revised 12/18 7 i S Ak yet � � y Proposal for Development-Related Fiscal/Economic Model Orange County, North Carolina Submitted by: TischlerBise, Inc. 4701 Sangamore Road S240 Bethesda, MD 20816 June13. 2019 Docu& n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Table of Contents Section 1 : Letter of Transmittal 1 Section 2: Expertise and Work Experience 3 Section 3: Personnel Qualifications 13 Section 4: Project Approach and Scope 20 Section 5: Project Schedule and Cost 26 Tischlerglse FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING "DocuSi, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Section 1 : Letter of Transmittal June 13, 2019 Craig Benedict, Planning and Inspection Director Orange County 131 W. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE:Proposal for Development-Related Fiscal/Economic Model Dear Craig, TischlerBise is pleased to submit the enclosed proposal to prepare a fiscal/economic model for Orange County. In summary,we feel that our firm brings several distinct advantages to the process of handling this important fiscal and economic planning analysis: ■ No other firm has the depth of experience that TischlerBise brings to this assignment. TischlerBise is the nation's leading fiscal/economic impact, impact fee, and infrastructure financing consulting firm. We have completed over 900 fiscal impact studies across the country—more than any other firm. ■ TischlerBise has successfully prepared and assisted with the implementation of multiple fiscal impact models over the past several years. The TischlerBise project team has conducted several analyses similar in complexity and scale to this assignment. TischlerBise's selection to develop models for recent or current clients such as the Cape Cod Commission,Victor, ID; Louisville, CO; Chesapeake, VA; Frederick County, VA; Cary, NC; Lee's Summit, MO; Montgomery County, PA; Windsor, CT; Horry County, SC: and Georgetown, TX was made after an extensive RFP process. ■ TischlerBise's project team for this assignment is comprised of two nationally recognized experts in the area of fiscal impact analysis. Carson Bise,who will serve as Project Manager for this assignment, has developed and implemented more fiscal impact models than any planner in the country and is widely regarded as the leading national practitioner in the field. This level of national experience allows us to facilitate meaningful conversations with Orange County service providers and identify cost drivers for specific services that can vary due to the unique characteristics of a jurisdiction. In addition, Mr. Bise has authored several publications related to fiscal impact analysis and lectured extensively on the subject. Julie Herlands has substantial fiscal impact analysis experience as is demonstrated in this proposal and is recognized as a national expert. ■ As a small firm,we have the flexibility and responsiveness to meet all deadlines of your project. We offer you the level of service and commitment that the larger firms save for their largest clients. TischlerBiserBise FISCAL 3 ECONOMIC I PLANNING qbocu& velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E As the President of TischlerBise, I have the authority to negotiate and contractually bind the firm. We look forward to the possibility of working again with Orange County and are committed to providing cost-effective, high-quality support for this assignment. Sincerely, 4 E�_ L. Carson Bise 11, AICP, President TischlerBise 4701 Sangamore Road S240 301.320.6900 x12 carson@tischlerbise.com 2 Tischl rBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 'DocuSi n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Section 2: Expertise and Work Experience Firm Experience TischlerBise, Inc., was founded in 1977 as Tischler, Montasser&Associates. The firm became Tischler& Associates, Inc., in 1980 and TischlerBise, Inc., in 2005. The firm is a Subchapter (S) corporation, is incorporated in Washington, D.C., and maintains offices in Bethesda, Maryland and Sandpoint, Idaho. TischlerBise is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in fiscal/economic impact analysis, impact fees, market feasibility, infrastructure financing studies and related revenue strategies. Our firm has been providing consulting services to public agencies for over thirty years. In this time, we have prepared over 900 fiscal/economic impact evaluations and over 1,000 impact fee/infrastructure financing studies — more than any other firm. Through our detailed approach, proven methodology, and comprehensive product, we have established TischlerBise as the leading national expert on revenue enhancement and cost of growth strategies. The graphic depicts our vast fiscal/economic impact experience with iI . clients nationwide. 40 As our proposal demonstrates, no other firm can match the depth of our experience in the area of local government fiscal impact analysis and model development. Our Principal in Charge, Carson Bise, AICP, is �I" ..ir.•.� widely considered the leading national fiscal impact practitioner in the United States.The core services provided by TischlerBise all involve: ■ Determining existing and projected residential and nonresidential growth for 10-, 20-, and 30—year periods. ■ An examination of local government budgets to determine fixed and variable costs and revenues as well as the true costs of service. ■ Evaluations of departmental operating structures and determination of existing levels of service as well as the most appropriate method of projecting future costs (including staff)and revenues. ■ Developing meaningful and realistic capital improvement plans. ■ Developing user friendly fiscal software. An important factor to consider related to this work effort is our previous experience in the State of North Carolina, which makes us quite familiar with the local government revenue structure, as well as the planning issues facing North Carolina jurisdictions. A listing of our previous fiscal and economic impact clients in North Carolina is provided below. TischlerBise 3 :ISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLONNmG "DocuSi, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E - • a k,Fri 11 KOFMO r MI I "FORMS • - Cary Davidson Holly Springs Wilmington Chatham County Davie County New Hanover County Wilson Cornelius Greensboro UNC-Chapel Hill Currituck County Guilford County Wake County The following table illustrates our vast fiscal impact analysis. AK Anchorage AK Matanuska-Susitna Borough AR Little Rock AZ Casa Grande AZ Payson AZ Peoria AZ I Pima Count AZ Queen Creek AZ Sahuarita AZ Scottsdale AZ Surprise AZ Winslow CA Blue Lake CA Carlsbad CA Clovis CA Imperial Count CA Napa Count CA Oceanside CA Pasadena CA San Bernardino Count CA San Diego CO Aurora CO Castle Pines CO Castle Rock CO Centennial 4 Tisch ei� BISe FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING "DocuSi, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E CO Colorado Springs CO La Plata Count CO Lone Tree CO Louisville CO Mesa Count CO Steamboat Springs • CO Westminster CT Groton CT Windsor • DE New Castle Count FL Hernando Count FL Hillsborough Count FL Kissimmee FL Lake County Schools FL Miami-Dade County FI Northeast Florida Regional Commission FL Osceola County FL Plant City FL Sarasota Count FL Sebastian GA Atlanta • GA Columbus GA Garden City GA Suwanee IA Ankeny ID Haile ID Post Falls ID Southeast Idaho Council of Governments ID Twin Falls IL Champaign KS Lawrence KS Lenexa KS Olathe KY Georgetown Tischl re Bise 5 FISCAL 3 ECONOMIC I PLANNING "DocuSi, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E KY Lexington • LA Shreveport-MPC of Caddo Parish • MA Barnstable • • MA Bourne • MA Cape Cod Commission • MA Dennis • MA Mash pee • MA I Newton • MA Sandwich • MA Somerville • • MA Yarmouth • MD Anne Arundel Count • • MD Calvert Count • MD Carroll Count • • MD Charles Count • MD Frederick • • MD Howard Count • MD Prince Geor e's Count • • • MD Queen Anne's Count • MD Rockville • • MD Rouse Company/Howard Count • MD Snow Hill • MD St. Ma 's Count • MD I Washington Count • MD Worcester Count • MN Apple Valle • • MN Coon Rapids • • MN Cottage Grove • • MN Minneapolis • • MN Plymouth • MN Roseville • • MN Shakopee • • MN St. Paul • • MN State of Minnesota Dept. of Revenue • 6 Tischlergise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING "DocuSi, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E MO Lee's Summit • NC Cary • • • NC Chatham Count • NC Cornelius • NC Currituck Count • NC Davidson • NC Davie Count • NC I Guilford Count • NC Holly Springs • NC UNC-Chapel Hill • • NC Wake Count • NC I Wilmington-New Hanover Count • NC Wilson • NE Lincoln • NH Salem • NJ Edison • NJ Englewood • NJ Old Bride • NJ West Windsor • NM Albuquerque • NM Bernalillo Count • NV I Henderson • NV Lincoln Count • • NV North Las Vegas • NV Nye Count /Pahrum /N a County Schools • • NV Reno • NV I Washoe Count • NY Hampstead • PA Lancaster • PA Montgomery Count multi-jurisdictional • • OH Dublin • • OH Grandview Heights • OH I Marysville I • OH Pickerington • Tischl re Bise 7 FISCAL 3 ECONOMIC I PLANNING "DocuSi, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E OK Oklahoma City SC Beaufort County SC Horry Count SC Rock Hill TN Germantown TN Knox Count TN Nashville-Davidson Count TN Williamson Count TX Bexar TX I Co ell TX Corpus Christi TX Denton TX Georgetown TX San Antonio TX Tyler UT Bluffdale UT Draper VA Alexandria VA Amherst Count VA Augusta Count VA Charles Count • VA I Chesapeake • VA Fairfax VA Falls Church VA Frederick Count VA Henrico Count VA Isle of Wight Count VA Leesbur • VA Norfolk VA Portsmouth VA Prince William County VA Somerset Homes/King George County VA Stafford Count VA Suffolk 8 Tischlergise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING "DocuSi, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E WA King Count • WI Sun Prairie WV McDowell County&Wyoming Count Project Examples/References Below are project examples/references for previous work similar to what is being requested by Orange County. City of Fairfax, Virginia — Fiscal Impact Models Project Contact: Nicole Hange, Economic Development Director Phone: (703) 385-7851 Email: nicole.hange@fairfax.gov TischlerBise developed two fiscal impact models for the City of Fairfax. The City desired a tool capable of to conduct fiscal evaluations for specific development projects, as well as to evaluate municipal- wide scenarios. It has been our experience that it is extremely difficult to develop one model that does both types of analyses well. Therefore, we developed two distinct models for the City to be used for different purposes—a Development Project Fiscal Impact Model and a Citywide Fiscal Impact Model. The models were calibrated appropriately with the Project Model calibrated with recent development projects and the Citywide model was calibrated to long-term growth scenarios. The assignment included detailed analyses to establish current demand assumptions (e.g., student generation rates, household sizes, property valuations, and demand for public safety services), operating and capital impacts, as well as an economic impact module. City of Falls Church, Virginia— Fiscal Impact Model Project Contact: Rick Goff, Economic Development Director Phone: (703)248-5491 E-mail: rickgoff@fallschurchva.gov TischlerBise developed the Fiscal Impact Model used by the City of Falls Church to evaluate new development proposals.TischlerBise developed the first model for the City over a dozen years ago, has conducted several periodic updates in the interim,and has just recently updated and expanded the model for 2015. The model is an average cost/case study marginal hybrid fiscal model that is used by the City's Economic Development Department to test development programs particularly for mixed use projects. Most recently, TischlerBise expanded the model to include a more robust capital module as well as revised methodologies for some revenue categories based on new and better data availability.The City's fiscal model has the capability to test a wide range of residential and nonresidential land uses, which have TischlerBiserBise 9 FISCAL 3 ECONOMIC I PLANNING 'DocuSi n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E been modified and expanded in the recent update,to keep up with the ever-changing types of development being proposed in the City. City of Henderson, Nevada — Long-Term Financial Model Project Contact: Andrew Powell, Senior Planner Phone: (816) 969-1023 Email: andrew.powell@cityofhenderson.com TischlerBise is in the process of implementing a fiscal impact model for the City of Henderson for use in evaluating large scale development projects, as well as area-specific and corridor plans. As part of the development of this model, TischlerBise reported to a multi-department project management team that provided feedback on model design and the underlying model assumptions City of Georgetown, Texas — Fiscal Impact Models Project Contact: Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager Phone: (512) 819-3118 E-mail: wayne.reed@georgetown.org The City of Georgetown,Texas, retained TischlerBise to develop two Fiscal Impact Models:One to evaluate Development Proposals and the other to evaluate Citywide Growth scenarios.TischlerBise worked in close collaboration with the City to deliver flexible yet structured Fiscal Impact Models. The City is a fast-growing area outside the City of Austin and had two separate needs and desires: 1. To analyze a range of development proposals on a case-by-case basis to test alternative scenarios: Addressed with the Project Level Fiscal Impact Model. 2. To utilize for longer-term planning analyses, such as their upcoming Comprehensive Plan update: Addressed with the Citywide Fiscal Impact Model. The Citywide Fiscal Impact Model was developed using sub-geographies using a case-study marginal approach. The Project Level Fiscal Impact Model uses the marginal findings as the foundation with modifications to allocate costs to the project under study The Project Level Model provides a custom- designed user input page that uses dropdown menus and default values but also allows the user to override those values temporarily. Color coding provides visual cues for the user where default values have been overridden (blue) and where user input is still needed (red). Number of Number of units Total number Start Year Land Use Type Taxable value Type of units absorbed each Years to Build a of units [dropdown] [dropdown] per unit Out year[calculated] Single-family Detached Starter(SFDS) 100 1.0 1 Single Family 100.0 $250,000 Single-family Detached Middle(SFDM) 25 0.0 n/a Single Family 0.0 $420,000 Single-family Detached Estate(SFDE) 0 0.0 n/a Single Family 0.0 $495,000 Single-family Detached Age Restricted(SFDAR) 0 0.0 n/a Single Family 0.0 $273,000 Single-family Attached/Condos 0 0.0 n/a Single Family 0.0 $220,000 Multi-family 0 0.0 n/a Multifamily 0.0 $155,000 10 TischlerBise PISCOL ECONOMIC I P-ANKING "DocuSi. velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E City of Corpus Christi, Texas— Cost of Land Uses Fiscal Analysis; Case Study-Marginal Analysis of Growth Scenarios; Fiscal Sustainability Recommendations and Revenue Strategies Project Contacts: Annika Gunning Yankee, Senior Project Planner Phone: (361) 826-3008 E-mail: annikag@cctexas.com TischlerBise, as part of the Plan CC consultant team, was been retained to conduct a three-phase Fiscal Analysis for the City of Corpus Christi, Texas. TischlerBise is providing the following services as an integral part of the process to update the City of Corpus Christi Comprehensive Plan. ■ Phase 1 was a Cost to Serve Fiscal Analysis. This type of analysis defines various "prototype" land uses and a "snapshot" approach is used to determine the annual costs and revenues to the City from each land use prototype. Typical factors used to define these prototypes include household size, market values, employees per square foot, and vehicle trips. The study found that: o Three of the seven residential land use prototypes included in the study (of different types and values)generate sufficient revenues to cover the operating and capital costs by the respective land use. o Five of the eight nonresidential land use prototypes included in the study generate sufficient revenues to cover operating and capital impacts. Nonresidential uses with relatively lower assessed values and high demand for services generate deficits. ■ Phase 2 was the Fiscal Cumulative[20-Year]Net Fiscal Impacts by Fund Impact Analysis of a future Plan CC Future Land Use Scenario City of Corpus Christi Fiscal Impact Analysis growth scenario projection $1,0W.0°° u Revenues developed as part of the 58°0.000 'o-cfi oExpenditures W Net Fiscal Impact Plan CC effort. TischlerBise modeled the scenario projection using numerical " 5200,°00 projections of population, 5n housing units, employment, and nonresidential building I521010'00°I area through the year 2034 5°° °' OtmulesNe AllFuntls Genrel Fund spetlal Revenue Funds Street fund Capital allocated to eight areas of the City. These "fiscal analysis zones" allowed the analysis to vary land use characteristics such as property values and infrastructure requirements. ■ Phase 3 addressed Revenue Strategies and Fiscal Sustainability Recommendations to help the City fund operating and capital needs. The report included the following topics: o Approaches, Strategies, and Philosophy: Discussion of the types of responses to budget needs as well as the rationale behind different approaches. o Fiscal Sustainability Strategies TischlerBise 11 :ISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLONNmG "DacuSi, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E o Revenue Options: Description of potential available revenue sources such as: impact/capacity fees; increase existing taxes and dedicating proceeds; new and/or increased user fees; utilities: rates, fees, and districts; annexation fees; tax increment financing; special assessment/benefit districts. ■ Revenue Potential and Solving for the Shortfall: Discussion of revenue potential and what level of additional increases would be needed to address deficits identified in Phase 2. Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission — Fiscal Impact Model Project Contact: Shawn College, Environmental Planning and Research Team Leader Phone: (813) 273-3774 Ext. 367 Email: colleges@plancom.org This was a two-phase assignment that was conducted at both a macro and micro level. First, TischlerBise conducted a countywide fiscal analysis of the current growth trend over a 25-year period. This included dividing the County into 12 subareas, or fiscal analysis zones. The analysis indicated that the county is unable to maintain current levels of service for new growth without new revenue sources or increases to existing rates. The second phase involved developing a fiscal impact model that can be used to evaluate specific development proposals at a micro level, similar to the State's FIAM model. The HCCCPC wanted a Hillsborough County-specific model developed. In an interesting analysis prepared as part of our implementation, several project-level analyses were prepared using both models. Opposite results were generated by the models in three of the four analyses. COMPARISON OF FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS 20-YEAR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MODELHCCCPC STATE Project County Schools Schools Residential I:Small Lot Subdivision ($2,624,747) ($11,509,011) ($14,133,758) $3,043,480 ($806,224) $2,237,256 Residential 2:Medium Lot Subdvision $2,812,405 ($4,473,703) ($1,661,298) $5,833,412 $96,409 $5,929,821 Residential 3:Infill Apartments ($2,285,472) ($4,530,932) ($6,816,403) $594,406 ($1,114,718) ($520,312) Nonresidential 1:Sho in Center $740,892 $1,183,326 $1,924,218 $842,526 $180,194 $1,022,720 Note: In order to facilitate a true comparison of results,the per capita inflation factors in FIAM are zeroed out to reflect constant dollars,which is why the fiscal results for FIAM do not mirror the results from the County's report. 12 TischlerBise PISCOL ECONOMIC I P-ANKING 'DocuSi n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Section 3: Personnel Qualifications Project Personnel Qualifications Our TischlerBise project team has successfully implemented numerous fiscal impact models for many communities over the past several years similar in complexity and scale to this assignment. The majority of assignments included understanding local and regional context and evaluating multiple scenarios reflecting differences in absorption and phasing, geographic service areas, variations in levels of service, and density and physical development patterns, all of which affect the factors used in development of the fiscal impact model for this assignment. The organizational chart shows our project team for this assignment. Orange County Herlands,Carson Bise, AICP Julie Project . • ' Principal Colin Project Analyst To successfully navigate through any fiscal impact analysis, the consultant and their — team must possess specific, detailed, and customized knowledge not only of the technical aspects of the analysis, but also of the context of the analysis in achieving the County's relevant policy goals. Two of TischlerBise's Project Team members, Carson Bise and Julie Herlands, are national leaders in the field of fiscal impact analysis. Mr. Bise and Ms. Herlands frequently deliver presentations at national, regional, and state conferences and have served as organizers and presenters at a half-day American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Training Workshop entitled Fiscal Impact Assessment at the American Planning Association (APA) National Planning Conference in 2008 and 2009. Mr. Bise is featured in the APA/AICP education and training series workshops: The Economics of Density, From Soup to Nuts: Paying for Growth, and Fiscal Assessment. Our Project Team of Carson Bise, AICP, Julie Herlands, AICP, and Colin McAweeney will provide seamless support to this assignment. Detailed discussion of each team member's role and experience is discussed below. Tisch B15e 13 :ISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLONNmG 'DocuSi n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Carson Bise, AICP, President of TischlerBise, will serve as Project Manager for this assignment and will coordinate our Project Team's interaction with the County to ensure that all work is completed properly, on time, and within budget. Mr. Bise, who has unsurpassed fiscal/economic impact analysis and infrastructure financing credentials, will have a major role in all consulting activities. Mr. Bise's North Carolina experience includes work for Guilford County, Orange County Wake County, Cary, Holly Springs, Greensboro, Greenville, and Wilson. Julie Herlands,AICP, Vice President at TischlerBise, will provide primary analytical support as part of this assignment. Ms. Herlands has over fifteen years of relevant experience and has prepared fiscal analyses, market analysis and revenue strategies for local governments in more than fifteen states. Ms. Herlands has conducted fiscal impact evaluations of comprehensive plans and major development projects. Ms. Herlands' North Carolina experience includes work for Orange County, Davie County, Durham County, and the Town of Davidson. Colin McAweeney, Fiscal/Economic Analyst, at TischlerBise, specializes in fiscal and economic impact analyses and will be providing GIS and demographic analysis support as part of this assignment. Mr. McAweeney is the principal analyst on the =— development of our fiscal impact model for Nassau County as part of our contract with the Northeast Florida Regional Council. — �- Complete staff resumes are provided below. L. Carson Bise, 11, AICP, President Carson Bise has 28 years of fiscal, economic and planning experience and has conducted fiscal and infrastructure finance evaluations in 37 states. Mr. Bise has developed and implemented more fiscal impact models than any consultant in the country. The applications which Mr. Bise has developed have been used for evaluating multiple land use scenarios, specific development projects, annexations, urban service provision, tax-increment financing, and concurrency/adequate public facilities monitoring. Mr. Bise is also a leading national figure in the calculation of impact fees, having completed over 200 impact fees for the following categories: parks and recreation,open space, police,fire,schools,water,sewer, roads, municipal power,and general government facilities. Mr. Bise holds a M.B.A. in Economics from Shenandoah University and a B.S. in both Geography/Urban Planning and Political Science/Urban Studies from East Tennessee State University. 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, a chapter on fiscal impact analysis in the book Planning and Urban Design Standards, also published by the American Planning Association, 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 14 TischlerBise PISCOL ECONOMIC I P-ANKING 'DocuSi n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E recently Chaired the American Planning Association's Paying for Growth Task Force. He was also recently named an Affiliate of the National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education. EDUCATION M.B.A., Economics, Shenandoah University B.S., Geography/Urban Planning, East Tennessee State University B.S., Political Science/Urban Studies, East Tennessee State University SELECTED FISCAL/ECONOMIC ANALYSIS EXPERIENCE ■ Anchorage, Alaska—Fiscal Impact Analysis of General Plan Alternatives ■ Matsu Borough, Alaska—Fiscal Impact Analysis ■ Sahuarita, Arizona—Fiscal Impact Model ■ Clovis, California—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation Alternatives ■ Napa County, California—Fiscal Equity Study ■ Pasadena, California— Cost of Land Uses Fiscal and Economic Analysis ■ Aurora, Colorado—Feasibility Study of City-County Formation ■ Mesa County, Colorado—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios ■ Louisville, Colorado—Fiscal Impact Model ■ Westminster, Colorado—Fiscal Impact Model ■ Windsor, Connecticut—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Great Pond Village ■ Kissimmee, Florida—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation Areas ■ Hernando County, Florida—Fiscal Impact Analysis ■ Hillsborough County, Florida—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Current Land Use Trend ■ Manatee County, Florida—How Will We Grow?Funding Strategies ■ Miami-Dade County, Florida—Fiscal and Economic Analysis of Rural and Agricultural Areas ■ Sarasota County, Florida—Fiscal and Economic Analysis of Development Prototypes ■ Champaign, Illinois—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Two Growth Scenarios ■ Lawrence, Kansas—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios; Cost of Land Uses Study ■ Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission of Caddo Parish, Louisiana — Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios ■ Carroll County, Maryland —Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios ■ Howard County, Maryland —Fiscal Impact Analysis of General Plan ■ Prince George's County, Maryland—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios ■ Coon Rapids, Minnesota—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios (Metro Council Study) ■ Cottage Grove, Minnesota—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios (Metro Council Study) ■ Minneapolis, Minnesota—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios (Metro Council Study) ■ St. Paul, Minnesota—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios (Metro Council Study) ■ State of Minnesota—Fiscal Disparities Program Study ■ Gallatin Canyon/Big Sky, Montana—Review and Update of CIP/Infrastructure Finance Options ■ Salem, New Hampshire—Fiscal Impact Model ■ West Windsor, New Jersey—Fiscal Impact Analysis of T.O.D. Project and TIF Analysis ■ Edison, New Jersey—Fiscal Impact Analysis of T.O.D. Project and TIF Analysis ■ Wilson, North Carolina— Cost of Land Use Analysis and Revenue Strategies TischlerBise 15 :ISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLONNmG "DocuSi n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E ■ Wilmington, North Carolina—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Urban Services Provision ■ Guilford County, North Carolina—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios ■ New Hanover County, North Carolina—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Urban Services Provision ■ University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill —Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Development Project; Fiscal Model, Mu/tijurisdictional Study ■ Dublin, Ohio—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Land Use Scenarios ■ Grandview Heights, Ohio—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Grandview Yard Development ■ Oklahoma City, Oklahoma—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios;Fiscal Impact Model ■ Beaufort County, South Carolina—Fiscal Impact Analysis of North Beaufort Plan ■ Shelby County, Tennessee—Fiscal Equity Study ■ Germantown, Tennessee—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation Alternatives ■ Denton, Texas—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Land Use Plan ■ Lancaster, Texas— Strategic Economic Development Plan ■ San Antonio, Texas— Cost of Land Uses Fiscal Impact Analysis ■ Tyler, Texas— Cost of Land Uses Fiscal Impact Analysis ■ Chesapeake, Virginia—Fiscal Impact Model 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 ■ Fiscal Impact Analysis and Impact Fees, National Impact Fee Roundtable ■ Are Subsidies Worth It?, APA National Conference PUBLICATIONS ■ "Next Generation Impact Fees,"American Planning Association Planners Advisory Memo ■ "Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for Planners,"American Planning Association. ■ "Planning and Urban Design Standards,"American Planning Association, 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. 16 TischlerBise PISCOL ECONOMIC I P-ANKING "DocuSi n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E ■ "Smart Growth and Fiscal Realities," ICMA Getting Smart! Newsletter. ■ "The Economics of Density,"AICP Training Series, 2005, Training CD-ROM (APA). Julie Herlands, AICP, Vice President Julie Herlands is Vice President with TischlerBise and has fifteen years of planning, fiscal, and economic development experience. Prior to joining TischlerBise, Ms. Herlands worked in the public sector in Fairfax County, Virginia, for the Office of Community Revitalization and for the private sector for the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) in their Advisory Services and Research Department. For IEDC, she conducted a number of consulting projects including economic and market feasibility analyses and economic development assessments and plans. Her economic and fiscal impact experience includes a wide-range of assignments in over fifteen states. She is a frequent presenter at national and regional conferences including serving as co-organizer and co-presenter at a half-day AICP Training Workshop entitled Fiscal Impact Assessment at the APA National Planning Conference.A session on impact fees and cash proffers presented at the APA National Conference is available through the APA training series, Best of Contemporary Community Planning 2005. She is the immediate past Chair of the Economic Development Division of the APA and chaired the APA Task Force on Planning and Economic Development. EDUCATION Masters of Community Planning, University of Maryland B.A., Political Science, University of Buffalo SELECTED FISCAL/ECONOMIC ANALYSIS EXPERIENCE ■ Queen Creek, Arizona — Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios; Fiscal Impact Analysis of Development Project ■ Napa County, California—Fiscal Equity Study ■ Aurora, Colorado—Feasibility Study of City-County Formation ■ Windsor, Connecticut—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Great Pond Village ■ Lake County Schools, Florida— Cost of Land Use Study;Revenue Strategies ■ Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission of Caddo Parish, Louisiana — Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios ■ Anne Arundel County, Maryland — Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios; Revenue Strategies; Fiscal Model ■ Rouse Company/Howard County (Columbia), Maryland — Fiscal Impact Analysis of Development Project ■ Snow Hill, Maryland—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Development Project ■ State of Minnesota—Fiscal Disparities Program Study ■ Lincoln County, Nevada— Cost of Land Use Study, Revenue Strategies; Fiscal Model ■ North Las Vegas, Nevada— Cost of Land Use Study ■ Nye County/Town of Pahrump/Nye County Schools, Nevada— Cost of Land Use Study, Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios TischlerBise 17 FISCAL 3 ECONOMIC I PLANNING "DocuSi n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E ■ University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, North Carolina — Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Development Project, Fiscal Model; Multijurisdictional Study ■ Bexar County, Texas—Service Delivery and Fiscal Sustainability Recommendations; Fiscal Impact of Annexation and Incorporation;Policy and Legal Research ■ Corpus Christi, Texas—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios;Revenue Strategies ■ Coppell, Texas—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Development Project ■ Georgetown, Texas—Fiscal Models ■ Bluffdale, Utah—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Development Project ■ Henrico County, Virginia—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios; Fiscal Model ■ Leesburg,Virginia—Fiscal Impact Analysis of Growth Scenarios;Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation; Fiscal Model SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS ■ Local Fiscal Challenges and Planning Solutions, APA National Planning Conference ■ Fiscal and Market Assessment in Planning, APA Virginia Chapter Annual Conference; APA Maryland- Delaware Regional Conference ■ Cash Proffers and Impact Fees, APA Virginia Chapter Annual Conference ■ Fiscal Sustainability, APA Webcast ■ Fiscal Impact Assessment, AICP Training Workshop, APA National Planning Conference ■ Infrastructure Financing: Funding the Gap, APA National Planning Conference ■ Economic Development for Planning Practitioners, Training Workshop, APA National Planning Conference ■ Voluntary Mitigation Payments: An Alternative to Impact Fees, APA National Planning Conference ■ Proffers vs. Impact Fees: The Virginia Experience, National Impact Fee Roundtable ■ Impact Fee—Or Is It?, APA National Planning Conference ■ Planning and Fiscal Reality, APA National Planning Conference PUBLICATIONS ■ "Should Impact Fees Be Reduced in a Recession?" Economic Development Now, 2009, IEDC. ■ "Agreements, Fees, and CIP," The Best of Contemporary Community Planning, 2005, Training CD- ROM, APA and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Colin McAweeney, Fiscal and Economic Analyst Colin McAweeney is a Fiscal and Economic Analyst at TischlerBise with specialties in finance and economic development planning. Prior to joining TischlerBise, Mr. McAweeney completed his M.S. at Erasmus University Rotterdam where he specialized in economic development. Here, Mr. McAweeney became knowledgeable in planning that involves fiscal, social, and environmental sustainability. In Rotterdam, Mr. McAweeney conducted several field studies of local at-risk neighborhoods and presented planning solutions to city leaders. Additionally, he brought together a team of academics and consultants to plan a biking corridor in Kenya. He finished his degree with a thesis surrounding the urban aspects that attract investment. Before pursuing his M.S., Mr. McAweeney worked in the finance sector for several years.While performing at a high level, he was able to become very familiar with financial markets and business financing. 18 TischlerBise PISCOL ECONOMIC I P-ANKING "Dacu&, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E EDUCATION M.S., Urban Management and Development, Erasmus University Rotterdam B.S., Economics with an emphasis on Mathematics, University of Wisconsin - Madison RELEVANT EXPERIENCE ■ Blue Lake, California—Fiscal Impact Study ■ Bryan, Texas—Fiscal Analysis of Annexation Study ■ El Portal, Florida—Fiscal Impact Study ■ Northeast Florida Regional Council—Fiscal Impact Model ■ Falls Church, Virginia—Fiscal Impact Model ■ Frederick County, Virginia— Capital Impact Model ■ Goochland County, Virginia— Capital Impact Model ■ Harris County, Texas—Regional Governance Structure Study ■ Hanover County, Virginia—Fiscal Impact(Expenditures) Study ■ Henderson, Nevada—Fiscal Impact Study ■ Lake Tahoe, California—Fiscal Impact Study ■ La Plata County, Colorado— Cost of Land Use Study ■ Little Rock, Arkansas— Fiscal Impact Study ■ Loudoun County, Virginia — Policy Documents, Economic & Fiscal Impact Study, Cost of Land Use Study, Residential Linkage to Nonresidential Study ■ Nassau County, Florida—Fiscal Impact Model ■ New Castle County, Delaware— Cost of Land Use Study ■ North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina—Fiscal Impact Study ■ Portsmouth, Virginia—Economic&Fiscal Impact Study ■ Shreveport-Caddo Parish, Louisiana—Revenue Structure Study TiSchlerBise 19 :ISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLONNmG 'DocuSi n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Section 4: Project Approach and Scope Project Approach TischlerBise recommends that the fiscal impact model structure for the Fiscal/Economic Impact Model incorporate an average cost-hybrid methodology. As the discussion below will indicate, this approach represents an acceptable compromise between the sophistication of the case study-marginal approach and the simplicity of the average cost approach. The two most commonly used fiscal impact methodologies are the average cost and the case study- marginal approach. The average cost approach is the most popular and frequently used method for evaluating fiscal impacts. Since this approach focuses on the average cost per capita or in some cases, per capita and job, it doesn't consider the available capacities of existing capital facilities. In addition, it masks spatial relationships and the timing of additional facilities required to serve new growth. However, this approach does lend itself extremely well for evaluating specific development proposals and economic development/public incentives. This is because specific development proposals tend to be viewed in isolation, and depending on the size of the project, may not trigger required thresholds for capital facilities and/or"lumpy"operating costs under the case study-marginal approach. The case study-marginal methodology is the approach most reflective of fiscal reality. Utilizing the Fire Department as an example, the average cost approach would divide the expenditure for fire services by population and possibly employment to arrive at a figure, say $21 per person. This cost would occur regardless of any spatial distribution. The case study-marginal approach would reflect whether the Fire Department required additional space and apparatus to meet level of service times and responses. If new growth were primarily infill versus leap-frog development, the cost differential could be significant since in the former case there would be no additional cost for capital and associated personnel while in the latter case there might be a need for a new station with associated apparatus and personnel.As discussed above, depending on the size of the jurisdiction and the size of the specific project being evaluated, cost and facility thresholds may never be triggered. In response to the advantages and disadvantages of these two methodologies,TischlerBise has developed numerous fiscal impact models that utilize a hybrid of these two methodologies. In a nutshell, the average cost components of the model (particularly public safety, parks/recreation and public works elements) are developed so that there is an option to reflect whether the area being evaluated is greenfield versus infill, or whether sufficient capacity exists, and/or whether there are locational differences that should be accounted for (i.e., average response times or variations in trip lengths, etc.). This allows the model to utilize cost information but still account for spatial relationships. We also provide the ability to add "marginality"to the average cost components by allowing for an adjustment to account for fixed costs and revenues, which improves the accuracy of the analysis. In addition, TischlerBise develops these models to accept direct entry of marginal costing data for specific operating and capital costs. For example, if it is known that a development will trigger the need for a community policing officer,the user can select to enter the entire cost of the position in a specific year. 20 TischlerBise PISCOL ECONOMIC I P-ANKING ",,,.DacuSi,, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Model Design An important consideration relative to this assignment is the fact that all the fiscal and economic impact models developed by TischlerBise are developed from the ground up, with the specific needs and desires of the client considered before beginning the development of the application. This includes a thorough understanding of the types of the analyses the County believes the model will be used for, as well as the intended audience. The fiscal/economic impact model designed for this assignment will be developed in a user-friendly environment, using Microsoft Excel and Visual Basic. The result is a powerful and flexible application that allows the user to decide the level of detail, as well as sophistication, reflected in the model. Levels of service, cost data, funding terms and other similar factors, which define fiscal expenditures, can be easily modified and updated. The model structure is also transparent and will allow all users to clearly see the methodology, data, and algorithms utilized to verify the correct application of the data, thereby avoiding "black box" concerns. During the development of the fiscal impact model, likely users of the model will be surveyed for their input into the design of the model including user interface, worksheet design for individual departments, desired outputs, etc. Scope of Services The following scope of work provides detailed steps to ensure that the County's project is completed successfully.We have designed this work plan to be responsive to the County and its governmental entities needs. TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION /DATA ACQUISITION During this task, we will meet with County staff to establish lines of communication, review and discuss project goals and expectations related to the project, and review (and revise, if necessary) the project schedule. The purpose of this initial discussion is outlined below: ■ Obtain and review current bae year data and other land use information for Orange County ■ Review and refine work plan and schedule ■ Assess additional information needs and required staff support ■ Identify and collect data and documents relevant to the analysis, including budgets, and relevant planning documents ■ Identify any major relevant policy issues Discussion of Model Design.As part of the Project Initiation activities,TischlerBise will meet with relevant County staff to discuss several items. The first is agreement on the idealized structure and potential applications of the fiscal impact model. The second item for discussion relates to the five development projects that will be used to develop and calibrate the model. TischlerBise recommends evaluating recent or proposed development projects. These real-world examples will ensure that the model has full capabilities as it is designed. TISChIerBlse 21 :ISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLONNmG "DocuSi. velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Data Needed from the County.Several pieces of information will be requested from the County. However, our experience allows us to identify alternate sources of information where data is not readily available. ■ Base year County demographic data (population, employment, housing units, etc.). ■ GIS data sets (to be determined in this Task). ■ Base year County budget/fiscal information (Budget (including tax rates), Capital Improvement Plans, CAFR) ■ Any relevant studies related to fiscal/economic conditions in the County ■ Information related to the development project for use in calibrating the fiscal impact model. Meetings: One (1) on-site visit to meet with various County staff to obtain feedback on model design and project expectations. Deliverables: 1) Data request memorandum. TASK 2: DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL PARAMETERS In this task, TischlerBise will work with County staff to develop parameters that will guide the development and design of the Fiscal Impact Model. Development of Land Use Profiles (Prototypes). To ensure the optimum inputs for the Fiscal/Economic Impact Model, TischlerBise will develop specific assumptions for various land use types that may be evaluated as part of development projects. For residential land uses (e.g., single-family detached versus multifamily), these factors include person per household, student generation rates, lot size, street frontage, vehicle trip and trip adjustment factors, average trip length, construction values, income, and discretionary spending. From a nonresidential perspective this will include employment densities, vehicle trip generation rates and adjustment factors, trip lengths, street frontage, etc. These factors will serve to refine the costs and revenue factors by geographic location. For example, the amount of residential street frontage added to the County's roadway network is likely to be less per unit as density increases. Definition of Geographic Service Areas for Fiscal Impact Model. Our team will work with County staff to formulate criteria(land use character, development intensity, potential for intensification, etc.)to be used to delineate potential geographic service areas for the Fiscal/Economic Impact Model. This will allow for meaningful comparison of service and infrastructure costs relative to the geographic location of development. For example, the County will be able to distinguish between assessed values, density, development character, trip lengths and many more variables. Otherwise, land use types will have to be treated homogenously Countywide. Determination of Economic Multipliers for Secondary Impacts. TischlerBise will develop an economic impact module to the model, using utilizing the IMPLAN model. IMPLAN is an input-output model developed by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group(MIG, Inc.)that tracks the interdependence among various producing and consuming sectors of an economy. The IMPLAN model was selected by the USDA to evaluate the job 22 TischlergIse FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING -: DocuSign Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E creation effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to ensure consistency and credibility in evaluations across the agencies in the USDA. The increased economic activity generated by residents and employees associated with each development project will generate secondary economic and fiscal impacts. For example, there are construction phase employment and spending impacts, as well as spending by residents and/or business within a proposed development that goes to local businesses, services and contractors and is used to buy goods and services from other local companies; and the latter companies in turn buy goods and services from still other local businesses. In this task TischlerBise will utilize the IMPLAN model to calculate the multiplier effects of increased spending within the local economy. Meetings: One (1)onsite meeting with County project management team and relevant staff. Deliverable: 1) Technical Memorandum Discussing Land Use Profiles for the Orange County Fiscal/Economic Impact Model. 2) Technical Memorandum Discussing Geographic Service Areas for the Orange County Fiscal/Economic Impact Model. TASK 3: DEVELOPMENT OF LEVEL OF SERVICE, COST& REVENUE FACTOR ASSUMPTIONS TischlerBise will review budget documents (annual budget, capital improvement plans, CAFRs) for the County and will conduct meetings with service providers from all affected departments. The purpose of these onsite interviews is to provide us with an understanding of the departmental structure and scope of operations, discuss facility-related variable costs and other operating expenses, as well as discuss and finalize methodologies for forecasting future demand for services and facilities resulting from new development. Based on the interviews, we will determine the fixed, variable, and semi-variable operating and capital costs for all relevant services and facilities. We will also determine levels of service for each department or service and determine the service relationship to each land use type in terms of costs and revenue factors. Information obtained during this Task will be prepared in a Level of Service and Cost/Revenue Factor Document (Appendix to User's Manual). This document will show the different cost components for the various service providers, including both facility and non-facility related operating expenses, methodologies for forecasting future capital facility needs, associated operating expenses, and discussions of current versus preferred levels of service where appropriate. The document will also contain a separate chapter showing revenue sources and associated projection methodologies. All revenue will be modeled including property and sales tax. Meetings: Two (2)onsite meetings with various County department staff. Deliverables: Technical document outlining Level of Service and Cost/Revenue Projection Methodologies (Appendix to User's Manual). TischlerBise 23 :ISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLONNmG ",,,.Do�cuSi, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E TASK 4: DEVELOP ORANGE COUNTY FISCAL/ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL We will develop the Fiscal/Economic Impact Model for Orange County to reflect the existing development base, current budget data, level of service assumptions, and capital facility inventories and costs as determined from the previous tasks. The model will include all information relative to land use profiles, geographic service areas assumptions, etc. The models will also reflect cost/revenue projection methodologies as mutually agreed upon with County staff as part of the previous task. Meetings: One meeting with County staff to present draft Fiscal/Economic Impact Model. Deliverables: Draft Fiscal/Economic Impact Model. TASK 5: IMPLEMENT FISCAL/ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL Based on feedback from County staff received during Task 4, TischlerBise will finalize the Fiscal/Economic Impact Model to be conveyed to Orange County. The model will be proprietary and for use by the County, under a licensing agreement. As part of the development process, likely users of the models and department representatives will be surveyed regarding design of the user interface and specific reports that County staff would like to see generated by the model. These reports can include virtually any type of graph as well as specific tables summarizing revenues, expenditures, bonding information, among others. The model outputs will be shown annually, cumulatively, as well as on an average annual basis for various time increments (an overall time horizon of 20 years is typical). Upon approval and acceptance of the final Fiscal/Economic Impact Model, the consultant will train a group of County staff on the methodology and user inputs of the model. User Documentation. TischlerBise will provide Model User Documentation that will include a training manual that discusses the use and technical aspects of the model. This will include a discussion of the different cost components for the various County service providers, including both facility and non-facility related operating expenses, methodologies for forecasting future capital facility needs, and associated operating expenses. It is anticipated that the User Documentation will consist of the following Chapters: ■ Executive Summary ■ Description of Assumptions and Methodologies ■ Description of Various Model Cost and Revenue Modules ■ Discussion of the Design and Use of Each Module of the Fiscal/Economic Impact Model ■ Helpful Excel Hints Implementation. In this subtask, TischlerBise will conduct two onsite training sessions with appropriate County staff. In the first training session, staff will be trained on the structure of the model, data inputs, how to incorporate different methodologies/demand factors, and how to develop additional modules. A second training session will be provided at a mutually agreed upon time. The focus of these sessions will be to encourage various "hands on"applications and to answer questions. 24 TischlerBise PISCOL ECONOMIC I P-ANKING qbocu& velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C Meetings: Two(2)on-site visits to train County staff on the functionality, user features, and outputs of the fiscal impact model. Deliverables: Final Fiscal/Economic Impact Model and User's Manual. Tischl Bise 25 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING "DocuSi, velope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Section 5: Project Schedule and Cost Cost Proposal The following figure provides our fixed fee cost proposal. TischlerBise bills on a monthly basis, on a percentage complete basis for each Task. PROPOSED COST FOR ORANGE COUNTY FISCAL/ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL Project Team Member: Bise Herlands Griffin Total Hourly Rate* $210 $190 $180 Hours Cost Task 1:Project Initiation/Data Acquisition 8 8 0 16 $3,200 Task 2:Development of Model Parameters 4 8 16 28 $5,240 Task 3:Development of LOS,Cost&Revenue Factor Document 12 32 24 68 $12,920 Task4:Develop Fiscal/Economic Impact Model 16 72 24 112 $21,360 Task 5:Implement Fiscal/Economic Impact Model 0 24 0 24 $4,560 Subtotal 40 144 64 248 $47,280 Expenses: $3,200 Total Cost: 80 288 128 248 $50,480 Project Schedule The following table provides our proposed project schedule for this assignment. The schedule is inclusive of all tasks, meetings, and deliverables outlined in the Scope of Work. As indicated below, we estimate a project schedule of four months. PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR NEFRC FISCAL IMPACT MODEL Tasks Anticipated Timeframe Meetings Deliverable Task 1:Project Initiation/Data Acquisition July,2019 1 Data Request Memorandum Technical Memorandums on Land Task 2:Development of Model Parameters July-August,2019 1 Use Profilesand Geographic Service Areas Task 3:Development of LOS,Cost&Revenue Technical Document outlining Level Factor Document August-September,2019 2 of Serviceand Cost/Revenue Projection Methodologies Task4:Develop Fiscal/Economic Impact Model August-October,2019 1 Draft Fiscal/Economic Impact Model Task5:Implement Fiscal/Economic Impact October-November,2019 2 Final Fiscal/Economic Impact Model Model and User's Manual 26 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING rDo=cuSinvelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Project Management Approach Approach to Management. TischlerBise utilizes a project management process to ensure that projects are completed on time, within budget, and most importantly, that they yield results that match our clients' expectations. Our project management plan utilizes the following principles common to successful projects: ■ First,we begin by defining the project to be completed. Based on discussions that occur as part of our Project Initiation task, Carson Bise will confirm 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. As part of the Project Initiation task, Mr. Bise will work with County staff to identify milestones to meet the project schedule. Prior to beginning the project, Mr. Bise will assign roles that will ensure the project schedule is met on time and within budget. ■ Third, we will actively manage the project process. Mr. Bise has 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). Mr. Bise 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. ■ 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 the County, deliverables will go through a structured quality assurance process involving multiple levels of review and utilizing a checklist tool. The first level involves a peer- to-peer review of work products and computer models. Next, Mr. Bise will be responsible for a second set of reviews comparing the work product to the completed quality checklist tool. Approach to Managing Challenges and Contingencies. Our project team will provide seamless support for this assignment. Mr. Bise will ensure that staffing resources are well-matched to provide the highest quality of work product and high responsiveness to the County, and to keep the project on schedule. Furthermore, our staff will convene weekly to assess the status of the project. 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. We know from our extensive experience, there will be challenges and issues throughout the process. Our experience also tells us that early identification will allow us time to strategize a solution from a proactive, rather than reactive, framework. Tisch erBise 27 FISCAL 3 ECONOMIC I PLANNING TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Principal Office 4701 Sangamore Road,Suite S240 I Bethesda, MD 20816 301.320.6900 x12 (w) 1301.320.4860(f) carson@tischlerbise.com DocuSign Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E 0 DATE(MM/DD/YYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 6/21/2019 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 Mart Ramey NAME: y y Henry A Latimer and Son, Inc. PAHic NN Ext: (301)229-1500 ac No: (301)320-2958 4701 Sangamore Rd. Suite S-250 ADDRESS: INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# Bethesda MD 20816 INSURER A:Erie Insurance Company 26263 INSURED INSURER B:Erie Insurance Exchange 26271 Tischler Bise INSURER C:Travelers Indemnity Company 4701 Sangamore Rd INSURER D:Travelers Indemnity Co Suite S240 INSURER E: Bethesda MD 20816 INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:Master 19-20 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 SUBD R POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LIMITS LTR IN WVD POLICY NUMBER MM/DDIYYYY MM/DDIYYYY X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 A CLAIMS-MADE �X PREMISESS Ea occurrence $OCCUR DAMAGE (RENTED 1,000,000 PREMI Q970143648 6/1/2019 6/1/2020 MED EXP(Any one person) $ 5,000 PERSONAL &ADV INJURY $ 2,000,000 GEN'LAGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 X POLICY ❑ PRO ❑ LOC PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG $ 2,000,000 JECT X OTHER: EMPLOYEE DISHONESTY EMPLOYEE DISHONESTY $ 100,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 Ea accident ANYAUTO BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ A ALL OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS AUTOS Q970143648 6/1/2019 6/1/2020 BODILY INJURY(Per accident) $ NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE KX HIREDAUTOS N AUTOS Per accident) ccident $ X UMBRELLA LIAB X OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 B EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ 1,000,000 DED RETENTION $ Q300171541 6/1/2019 6/1/2020 $ WORKERS COMPENSATION x PER OTH- AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY Y/N STATUTE ER ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L.EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ N/A C (Mandatory in NH) UBOON202196 06/01/2019 06/01/2020 E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 If yes,describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 D Professional Liability 105783307 5/28/2019 5/28/2020 $1,000,000 claims made DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES (ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,may be attached if more space is required) Orange County Planning and Inspections Department its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents can be listed as the additional insured. 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, Ste 201 ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Hillsborough, NC 27278 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE R Latimer, Jr./MARTY �' t ©1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25(2014/01) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD INS025(201401)