HomeMy WebLinkAbout144-00 RESOLUTION0
RESOLUTION NO. 144-00 MICROFILMED
A RESOLUTION AWARDING UNDER RFP#2000-9 A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO JAMES
DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR PHASE ONE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPACT FEE STUDY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $30,020, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $4,500FOR
PROJECT COSTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby awards under RFP#2000-9 a Professional
Services Agreement to James Duncan and Associates, Inc., for Phase One Development of an Impact
Fee Study in the amount of $30,020, plus an additional $4,500 for project costs, and authorizes the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. A copy of the agreement is attached hereto
marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
SSED AND APPROVED this 17th day of October . 2000.
licy
ATAT^
By
APPROVED:
By:
Lis/ tta
Hanna, Mayor
NAME OF FILE:
CROSS REFERENCE:
1110
2- ill oc
Date
Contents of File Initials
017-00
. /ii -440
0
iitia A„ <
)
9/u-00
i3O 2g
t S,- ),
Leua/
/0 /7 00
J1.
/ '
�/�//%m.�1» ,_4i,,,,
/D3o-oo4h
, 4
...4 e , 42
,%— S Gd
/123&.
40c
di
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
proposal to provide
submitted to
submitted by
• EXHIBIT A
E//
MICROFILMED /)W
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEE REPORT
(RFP 2000-9)
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
duncan
associates
in association mth
Cooper Consulting Company
September 2000
•
•
•
•
•
41
duncan
• September 12, 2000
•
• Stephen Davis
Budget Manager
• 113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
associates
land development regulations
growth management
impact fees
Re: PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT, RFP 2000-9
Dear Mr. Davis.
On behalf of Duncan Associates and Cooper Consulting Company, I am pleased to submit
the attached professional services agreement and summary of our qualifications to assist the
City of Fayetteville in establishing a development impact fee system. I believe that you will
find from a review of the enclosed material tat we are well qualified to assist in this endeavor.
1. Our firm has extensive regional and national experience. In fact, we have prepared
more Impact fee studies for more public clients Lan any other consultant in the nation.
2. Our team has a multi -disciplinary orientation. We offer the city the combined efforts
of Impact fee specialists, attorneys, and planners.
3. Our Impact fee studies custom fit our clients needs. They recognize the uniqueness of
individual cities and counties and promote local growth management goals.
4. Our impact fee studies have a high acceptance and adoption rate. They are well
supported by stakeholders and none has ever been successfully challenged In court.
As you will note, we have designed our scope of services to Include an Initial impact fee
feasibility study (Phase I). After a review of Phase I, the City would then decide whether or not
to proceed fully or partially (selected facilities) with Phase 11.
We very much look forward to your consideration of our proposed professional services
agreement and qualifications, Please do not hesitate to contact us If you have any questions.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
ages°
James B. Duncan, FAICP
President
13276 research boulevard • suite 208 • austin, tc 78750 • tel 512 258 7347 ■ fax 512 258 9994 • email: firm@duncanplan.com
• •
CONTENTS
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
PROJECT APPROACH
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Exhibit A - Scope of Services
Exhibit B - Project Schedule
Exhibit C - Consultant Compensation
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
Infrastructure Finance Clients
Atlanta, GA—Mutti-Facility Impact Fee Study
College Station, TX—Multi-Facility Impact Fee Study
Colorado Springs, CO—Impact Fee/Excise Tax Study
Denton, TX—Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Kansas City, MO—Arterial Street Impact Fee Study
Mesa, AZ—Multi-Facility Impact Fee Study
Orange County, FL—Multi-Facility Impact Fee Study
Santa Fe, NM—Multi-Facility Impact Fee Feasibility Study
Shelby County, TN Impact Fee/Development Tax Study
Resumes
James B Duncan, FAICP
Eric Damian Kelly, FAICP
Clancy J. Mullen, AICP
COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY
Connie B. Cooper, FAICP
dunaanlassociates
• •
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
CITY
FAYETTEVILLE
OF
DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
Austin, Texas
James 8. Duncan, FAICP-'.
Eric Damian Kelly, FAICP
Clancy J. Mullen,:AICP
Project Management
Legal Analysis
Impact Fee Analysis
Ordinance Preparation
Public Presentations
COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY
Birmingham, Alabama
Connie B. Cooper, FAICP
Comparative Fee Survey
Data Collection
Meeting Facilitation
With the specific needs of this project in mind, we have assembled a
consultant team with strengths in fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure
financing and land use law. Our team consists of DUNCAN
ASSOCIATES and COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY. Duncan
Associates will be the lead firm and primary contractor with the City of
Fayetteville. Team member roles will be as follows:
+ Duncan Associateswill be responsible for legal analysis, policy
issue identification, policy recommendations, impact fee
analysis, ordinance drafting, overall project management,
quality control and document preparation.
Cooper ConsultingCompany wiII be responsible for the
comparative development fee survey and local data collection.
DUNCAN ASSOCIATES is a consulting firm specializing in public
infrastructure finance and land development codes. The firm,
headquartered in Austin, Texas, employs eight professionals and has
branch offices in Chicago, Illinois, Muncie, Indiana and Juno Beach,
Florida. The firm began operations as James Duncan and Associates, a
sole proprietorship, in 1987, was incorporated as James Duncan and
Associates, Inc. in December 1997 and at that time began doing
business as Duncan Associates.
COOPER CONSULTING COMPANY was established by Connie B.
Cooper, AICP, in Birmingham, Alabama in 1990. Ms. Cooper has 25
years of experience in planning and community development at the
state, county, and local levels. She has been a frequent associate of
Duncan Associates on other projects, including preparing a
comparative development fee survey for Kansas City, Missouri as part
of our ongoing project to develop an arterial street impact fee for that
municipality.
CITY STAFF. In addition to providing all available data about existing
and projected development, capital facility planning and financial
documents, we will rely on the City to schedule all interviews with City
staff, and schedule and advertise advisory committee meetings and
public hearings or workshops. It is estimated that City staff could
devote up to 200 hours managing the project, attending meetings,
gathering data and reviewing draft work products.
duncan
associates
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
PROJECT APPROACH
The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is seeking an consulting services to
assist in the development of a system of impact fees. The Request for
Proposals (RFP) asks the consultant to propose a fixed -fee price to
provide the following services:
❑ a legal review identifying the City's authority and the legal
requirements for impact fees established in state statutes and
state and national case law;
O an impact fee study that calculates impact fees for all types of
facilities provided by the City, including streets, bridges,
drainage, sidewalks/trails, parks, water distribution and storage
systems, sewer collection and treatment facilities, and traffic
monitoring and control devices;
❑ an analysis of the effect of new impact fees on development,
including ways to minimize the negative effects while still
providing full funding for planned capital facilities;
❑ three sample adoption documents;
O attendance at six public meetings and/or public hearings to
explain the findings of the study and present the adoption
documents;
O a process that increases the ability of the City Council to adopt
the impact fees;
O an automated, spreadsheet -based model that will enable City
staff to calculated impact fee changes in the future, training to
City staff in use of the model and program technical support for
one year following acceptance of the final model;
❑ monthly project status reports in newsletter format; and
O specific implementation assistance to City staff.
The RFP states that the draft study should be completed in five
months, and the entire project within six months of the project start
date.
dunaanlassociates
• •
The City has $ 100,000 budgeted for this project, although price is a
secondary consideration (sealed price proposals will be viewed only
after firm qualifications) and additional funding is a possibility.
The City has prepared several planning documents that would be an
integral part of this study. These include the Fayetteville General
Plan—2020 and the Five -Year Capital Improvements Program, 2000-
2004. Additionally, the City's recent budget and comprehensive
annual financial report (CAFR) will prove critical to this study.
The City's RFP asks for more in the way of consultant services than it
probably needs or can afford within its current budget. The requested
time schedule of six months also seems, in our experience with these
types of projects, to be somewhat constrained. We asked staff if the
City would be willing to consider modifications to its requested scope
of services, and were told that it would.
In an impact fee project, the cost of consultant services is strongly
related to the number and type of facilities for which impact fees are to
be calculated. It is very difficult to give a fixed -fee price to develop an
unknown number of impact fees. When a community does not
already know the facilities for which they desire to have impact fees
developed, we generally propose an initial "policy directions" phase to
the project, during which we can assist the governing body in selecting
the facilities to be included in the second, "implementation" phase of
the project during which detailed impact fee studies and implementing
ordinances are prepared.
We are not in the business of selling "canned" spreadsheet models that
calculate impact fees. There are such models on the market, but we
do not believe that they truly reflect the unique characteristics of
individual communities The problem with automated models is that
they must be either very simplistic, in which case they are too rigidly
geared to a single methodology and type of inputs, or else they are so
complex that significant training is required to operate them.
What we do provide is a clearly -drafted report that walks the reader
step-by-step through all of the data, assumptions, methodological
choices and calculations involved in the impact fee determinations.
The study is accompanied by an Excel spreadsheet that includes all of
the data and calculations. The spreadsheet is clearly organized to
guide the user toward the input cells, but at the same time provides
the flexibility to the user to modify it at will to accommodate changes in
inputs or even revisions to the methodology. There is no specialized
training required to update one of our studies The only skills required
duncan
associates
• •
are the ability to think analytically, research and acquire current data,
operate a word processing program and manipulate a spreadsheet.
We also generally do not recommend that our clients spend Targe
sums of money on economic studies that try to determine the effect of
impact fees on the pace of development or the cost of housing.
Economic theory suggests that, in competitive markets, if impact fees
are known in advance and are stable, they will be absorbed in the cost
of land and will have negligible effects on housing costs over the long
run, We do recognize, however, that local community leaders often
feel that they need to be competitive in their development fees with
comparable jurisdictions. Consequently, we propose to conduct a
comparative survey of development fees and exactions in up to 10
jurisdictions identified by the City. It is expected that the survey will
demonstrate that even in cities that do not have a formal system of
impact fees, developers are subject to a range of land dedication
requirements, traffic mitigation exactions and utility connection fees.
It is our position that one should base impact fees not on hypothetical
or desired levels of service (which may fail to be realized), but on the
existing and anticipated levels of service as represented by the City's
existing infrastructure and its adopted capital improvement plans. This
establhes the closest "nexus" possible between the level of the fee,
the community's current service levels and its future service levels as
represented by its official policy and planning documents. Fees based
on desired levels of service can present problems (particularly in states
where these issues have not been previously litigated) if fees are based
on a standard that is not achieved in a reasonable time. Accordingly,
we would rely on an assessment of the City's current capital facilities
and its adopted capital improvement plans as the basis for assessing
levels of service for its capital facilities
We strongly encourage the City to appoint a "stakeholder advisory
committee" to participate in the development of the impact fees. It is
very difficult to get the general public to get involved in an impact fee
project, but homebuilders, developers and major landowners as well
as anti -tax or growth control activists or organizations often want to be
included in reviewing the technical details and having input on the
policy recommendations. Aside from an initial orientation meeting, we
have found that meetings with advisory groups are more productive
when the members have received a copy of a draft study or ordinance
a week or more in advance of the meeting.
dunaanlossoclates
• • •
•
• PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
• BETWEEN
• CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AND DUNCAN ASSOCIATES
•
This Professional Services Agreement is made as of October /7, 2000, by and between the
• City of Fayetteville, a political subdivision of the State of Arkansas (City) and James Duncan and
• Associates, Inc., a professional corporation doing business as Duncan Associates located in
Austin, Texas (Consultant).
•
WHEREAS, City desires to engage Consultant to perform certain services relating to the
• development of impact fee reports, studies and ordinances.
• WHEREAS, the scope of services has been divided into two phases, and this contract covers
Phase One, which addresses the issue of which facilities should be included in the development
of impact fee ordinances in Phase One.
•
• NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter
provided, City and Consultant agree as follows.
•
1. Scope of Agreement. Consultant's relationship to City shall be that of independent
• contractor; at all times this relationship shall be govemed by and be in strict compliance
• with the terms of this Professional Services Agreement.
• 2. Professional Services. Consultant shall furnish services to City as set forth in Phase One
of Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
•
• 3. Deliverables and Schedule. Consultant shall begin its services promptly after receipt of
an executed copy of this Agreement and will complete the services and deliverable
• pursuant to the schedule for Phase One as set forth in Exhibit "B." Times for
performance shall be extended for periods of delay resulting from circumstances over
• which Consultant has no control.
• 4. Compensation and Hourly Rates. For Phase One services provided by Consultant as
• described in Exhibit "A," City shall compensate Consultant based upon the completion of
individual tasks and in accordance with the fee schedule for Phase One outlined in
• Exhibit "C". Payment of each such invoice shall be due to Consultant within thirty (30)
days of receipt by City.
• 5. Subcontracting. It is understood that the Consultant will use the services of Cooper
Consulting Company as a subcontractor in the performance of certain services as
• presented in Exhibit "A." Any other subcontractor relationships must first be approved
by the City.
•
• 6. Conflict of Interest. Consultant agrees that it has no interest and shall acquire no
•
•
•
interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner with the performance of the
services hereunder. Consultant further agrees that, in the performance of this Agreement,
no person having any such interest shall be employed.
7. Termination. The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement may be
terminated by either party upon written notice in the event of failure by the other party to
perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. hi
the event of any termination, Consultant will be paid for all services rendered to date of
such termination.
8. Ownership of Documents. All documents prepared in the performance of this
Agreement shall be delivered to City before final payment is made to Consultant.
9. Amendments. No amendments or modifications of this Agreement shall be valid unless
in writing and signed by each of the parties to the Agreement.
10. Venue. The laws of the State of Arkansas shall govern the construction and
interpretation of this agreement..
11. Severability Any provision in this Agreement that is prohibited or unenforceable under
state or federal law shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibitions or
unenforceability, without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof. Also, the non-
enforcement of any provision by either party to this Agreement shall not constitute a
waiver of that provision nor shall it effect the enforceability of that provision or the
remainder of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have caused this instrument to be signed by
their respective duly authorized officers, all on the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
JAMES % fl CAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Bv.°
mes B. Duncan, President
ITY O� Fj�/E
VTLLEBy:
• •
•
• Exhibit A
• SCOPE OF SERVICES
• The project will be divided into two phases. Phase One: "Policy Directions," will review the
legal framework, review local data and potential fees, and determine in conjunction with local
•
officials the type of impact fee system that should be developed In the second phase.
• Phase Two will implement the policy directions provided by the City at the conclusion of Phase
• One. It could entail the potential development of impact fees for water, wastewater, roads,
stormwater drainage, parks, trails, libraries, general government, solid waste, police and fire
• protection facilities.
• The project will be accomplished through completion of the following tasks:
•
Phase One: Policy Directions
•
• Task 1.1: Project Organization/Data Collection
Task 1.2: Legal and Policy Analysis
• Task 1.3 Policy Directions Workshop
• Phase Two: Implementation
• Task 2.1: Impact Fee Studies
• Task 2.2: Implementing Ordinances
Task 2.3: Public Participation
•
•
• PHASE ONE: POLICY DIRECTIONS
• TASK 1.1: PROJECT ORGANIZATION/DATA COLLECTION
• The first phase of the project will start with data collection and project organization.
Immediately upon contract execution, we will work with the Project Manager to schedule joint or
• back-to-back meetings with key members of City staff.
• At these initial organizational meetings, we will gather available information related to the
• project; identify major policy issues involved in formulating a City impact fee program; conduct
initial informational interviews with the City's planning, legal, finance and capital projects
• managers; coordinate staff and Consultant responsibilities; and establish the project schedule.
One issue to be addressed at this meeting is the comparison cities to be included in the
•
development fee survey to be conducted in Task 1.2.
• The City should provide the consultant team, without charge, copies of all relevant plans, studies
• and documents needed to perform the scope of work. These may include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O adopted land use and facility plans
O capital improvements programs
O data on existing development served by City (dwelling units by housing type and
nonresidential building square footage by land use type—data may need to be by
subarea for geographically -specific analysis)
❑ inventories and maps of existing facilities and pertinent descriptive data by major facility
type
❑ annual budgets and comprehensive financial reports
O land development regulations
O ordinances and policies regarding land dedication or exactions for water, wastewater, parks,
roadways, drainage and electric power facilities
❑ descnptions of existing processes for securing private participation in public infrastructure
construction, including annexation agreements
O debt payment schedules for outstanding bond issues relating to transportation, drainage,
water, wastewater, park, trails, library, fire and police protection facilities
• At the conclusion of the task, we will prepare a memorandum summarizing the organizational
framework for the project and listing additional data to be provided by the City. The DATA
• NEEDS MEMORANDUM will be delivered to the Project Manager within two weeks of the
organizational meetings.
•
• DELIVERABLES: ONE DAY OF MEETINGS
DATA NEEDS MEMORANDUM
•
• TASK 1.2: LEGAL AND POLICY EVALUATION
• Once preliminary data collection is complete, we will review applicable statutory and case law
• and outline the legal framework for impact fees in Arkansas. The initial draft of the legal
memorandum will be submitted to the City Attorney's office as a LEGAL MEMORANDUM.
• Following review by the City Attorney, all or portions of the legal analysis may be incorporated
• into the policy memorandum.
• Also as part of this task, we will also conduct a survey of development exactions, impact fees and
utility connection fees imposed by up to 10 comparative municipalities in Arkansas or
• neighboring states. The development exactions and fees assessed by the surveyed communities
will be compared to Fayetteville's existing and potential fees in a COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT
FEE SURVEY memorandum.
• Finally, we will analyze Fayetteville's current development exaction policies, existing capital
• facilities and levels of service, growth projections, capital improvements programs, and existing
debt load as additional background data for the policy recommendations. The policy issues to be
• addressed in the development of a impact fee system include levels of service, service area or
• benefit district boundaries, effect of impact fees on affordable housing, infill and redevelopment,
economic development, downtown development and other relevant issues.
•
•
•
• • •
•
• The most critical of these issues is the types of Impact fees that should be developed for the City
• in Phase Two. The evaluation will be based on selected criteria, including legal authority,
general plan implementation, net revenue potential over current exactions, faimess between
• existing and future residents, equity between developers, regional competitiveness, and ease of
• administration.
• Another issue to be addressed, especially for roads, is how impact fees would affect existing
development exaction practices (e.g., standard right-of-way dedication and improvements to
• adjacent arterials) and developer/annexation agreements. This analysis will involve a number of
policy issues, such as what kinds of costs are included in the road impact fee (e.g., are
• interchange cost included? right-of-way costs? collectors?) and what kind of developer
• improvements are eligible for impact fee credits.
• The likely magnitude of potential fees in relation to existing exaction practices is an obvious
consideration in the selection of the facilities to be addressed in Phase Two. However, we do not
• propose in this phase to perform preliminary calculations of potential fees or attempt to
• determine the average value of exactions. Instead, we will present already available information
on average impact fees around the country and development fees charged in comparison cities, as
• well as qualitative information on cost recovery through road and other types of exactions.
• Based on the analysis of these issues, the consultant team will make preliminary
• recommendations on whether the City should proceed with impact fees, which facilities to
address first and how each of those fee systems should be structured. We will summarize the
• analysis in a POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM identifying key legal and policy issues involved
in establishing a City impact fee program The POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM will present
• and evaluate alternatives and options available to the City and conclude with a recommended
• course of action.
• DELIVERABLES: LEGAL MEMORANDUM
COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY
• POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM
•
• TASK 1.3: POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP
• Following delivery of the POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM, a workshop will be scheduled
with the City Council. The work session will be designed to address the issues raised in the
• memorandum and to provide policy direction for the remainder of the project. The findings and
• recommendations of the policy analysis and any proposed modifications to the scope of services
for Phase Two will be presented to the City Council at the workshop. The consultant team shall
• prepare exhibits and handouts suitable for such public meetings that illustrate and summarize the
results and recommendations of the Phase One analysis.
1
• DELIVERABLE: POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP
1
1
•
•
•
• PHASE TWO: IMPLEMENTATION
•
• •
Task 2.1: Impact Fee Studies
•
• Following the POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP, we will prepare impact fee studies for those
facility types selected by the City Council. The impact fee studies will include all of the
• elements mandated by statutory and constitutional requirements. These elements include an
inventory of existing capital facilities; the cost of improvements required to remedy any existing
• service deficiencies; and the cost of improvements required to accommodate increased service
• demands.
•
•
•
•
The impact fee studies will calculate the cost per service unit to provide new development with
the existing or adopted level of service, as well as appropriate revenue credits to ensure that new
development is not charged more than its proportionate share of the cost of new facilities. Each
study will include a table that establishes the number of service units and amount of facility
demand associated with different land use types. Finally, the studies will include, for each of the
facility types, a net unit cost schedule that represents the maximum impact fees that could be
charged.
•
We will prepare two drafts of the impact fee studies. The final draft will reflect staff and
• advisory committee comments on the initial draft. We will deliver an initial draft of the impact
• fee studies within twelve weeks following the POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP. If staff and
stakeholder advisory committee reviews could be completed in two weeks, we could deliver the
• final drafts 20 weeks after the POLICY DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP.
• The final draft of the study will be delivered in both original and digital format. It will be
• accompanied by a spreadsheet in Excel 97 or other format specified by the City that contains all
of the impact fee calculations and can be used by staff to easily update the study.
•
DELIVERABLES: DRAFT IMPACT FEE STUDIES
• FINAL IMPACT FEE STUDIES
•
• Task 2.2: Implementing Ordinances
• We will prepare initial and final drafts of the City impact fee ordinances and deliver them
• concurrently with the impact fee study drafts. The drafts will be prepared in the standard formats
used by the City. The ordinances will include provisions relating to impact fee assessment,
• collection, credits, refunds, appeals, study updates and other provisions necessary to ensure due
process and conformance with relevant impact fee case law. The ordinance will also amend the
• City's existing code to modify dedication, exaction or development fee provisions to be
consistent with the proposed impact fees and applicable law. If desired by the City, we can
• provide up to three alternative ordinances adopting the fees at varying percentages of the
• maximum fees calculated in the study. Final drafts of the ordinances will be prepared and
delivered to the City following a local review meeting included in Task 2.3. The final draft will
•
•
•
•
•
• be provided in both onginal and digital format. We will also provide staff with samples of
• administrative forms used by other jurisdictions in implementing an impact fee system.
•
• DELIVERABLES: DRAFT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES
FINAL IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES
•
SAMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE FORMS
•
• Task 2.3: Public Participation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• DELIVERABLE' FIVE DAYS OF MEETINGS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Throughout Phase Two of the project, key members of our team will be available to attend and
participate in up to five meetings with City staff, a stakeholders advisory committee, Planning
Commission, City Council, or the general public as desired by the City. Joint meetings or
multiple meetings held on the same day will count as one meeting. It is anticipated that several
days of meetings will be held following delivery of draft studies and ordinances The consultant
team will prepare exhibits and handouts suitable for public meetings that illustrate and
summarize the results and recommendations of the Phase Two: Implementation portion of the
project. The meetings should be scheduled approximately two weeks after delivery of the draft
documents to provide time for local review prior to the meetings. Although work on all of the
facility types will occur concurrently and may be combined into a comprehensive impact fee
study and ordinance, the meetings could be combined or staggered depending on local desires for
review and/or public input. This task is limited to a maximum of eight person -days of out-of-
town consultant time. Team members will also be available for additional meetings on a time
plus expense basis.
•
•
• PROJECT SCHEDULE
• The City's RFP suggests that the draft studies should be completed in five months and the entire
•
Exhibit B
• project within six months. In our experience this may be somewhat constrained. Our proposed
schedule includes a two-month initial phase that is required to determine what types of fees
• should be developed during the second phase. While initial drafts of the studies and ordinances
could be completed within the first five months as desired by the City, the entire process,
• including public participation and revisions to the initial drafts, is likely to take somewhat longer
than the additional month allowed in the City's contemplated schedule. The schedule for all tasks
• in Phase One begins with the project organization meeting in Task 1.1.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Months from Protect Start
Tasks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PHASE ONE:
POLICY DIRECTIONS
1.1: Project Org./Data Collection
1.2: Legal and Policy Evaluation
1.3: Policy Directions Workshop
PHASE TWO:
IMPLEMENTATION
2.1: Impact Fee Studies
2.2: Implementing Ordinances
2.3: Public Participation
*
*
*
+1
1 0
+1
1 0
+1
* *
*
0 = draft deliverable • = fmal deliverable * = meeting/presentation
• • •
•
• Exhibit C
• CONSULTANT COMPENSATION
• The total cost of the professional services described in the accompanying proposal for Phase One
is $30,020. This lump -sum budget includes all direct and indirect expenses incurred by the
•
consultant team in performing the services. The breakdown of project cost by task is presented
• below.
• The proposed scope of services and budget for Phase Two may be modified following the
completion of Phase One. Additional services beyond those specified in the accompanying Work
• Plan may be negotiated or billed on a time and expense basis at the hourly rates provided on the
• Schedule of Professional Fees and Expenses.
•
• All Selected
Task Facilities Facilities
•
Task 1.1: Project Organization/Data $5,760 $5,760
•
Task 1.2: Policy Directions Memorandum $18,500 $18,500
• Task 1.3: Policy Directions Workshop $5,760 $5,760
• Subtotal, Phase One $30,020 $30,020
• Task 2.1a: Major Roads (e.g., Arterials) $12,800 $12,800
• Task 2.1b: Water $12,040 $12,040
Task 2.1c: Wastewater $12,040 $12,040
• Task 2.1d: Parks and Trails $11,280 $11,280
• Task 2.1e: Libraries $5,550
Task 2.1f: General Government $6,150
• Task 2.1g: Solid Waste $4,600
• Task 2.1h: Fire Protection $5,360
Task 2.1i: Police Protection $5,360
• Task 2.1 Subtotal* $75,180 $48,160
• Task 2.2: Implementing Ordinances $9,000 $9,000
• Task 2.3: Public Participation $11,250 $11,250
Subtotal, Phase Two $95,430 $68,410
•
• Total Project $125,450 $98,430
•
The City will be billed monthly based on percent completion of individual tasks. The City's
• Project Manager will be provided with a written progress report accompanying each monthly
•
•
•
• •
invoice.
* Storm drainage not included because most communities lack sufficient data to support
development of drainage impact fees.
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES
Quoted
Rates
Principal
Land Use Attorney
Senior Associates
Associates
Other (specify):
$125
$150
$95
$75
Connie Cooper, Cooper Consulting $100
Per meeting cost to add or delete a meeting $2,250
•
•
Atlanta, Georgia
Multi -Facility Impact Fee Study
For the City of Atlanta, Duncan Associates prepared a
multi -facility impact fee study that uniquely promoted
local growth management objectives relating to
affordable housing, economic development and multi-
modal transportation. The study specifically calculated
impact fees for road, park, drainage, fire and police
facilities and connection fees for water and wastewater
facilities. While connection fees are similar to impact
fees, they are much easier to design and apply under
the Georgia Impact Fee Act.
Throughout the study, every attempt was made to design fees that reflected the local characteristics and
concerns of Atlantans. For example, new uses in the downtown area or near MARTA stations were given a
significant reduction in road impact fees because of their greater
use of rapid transit and lesser reliance on roads. Through the
concept of recoupment (being paid back for prior facility
investments which will serve new growth), excess park and
public safety facility capacities allowed the waiver of impact fees
for certain projects. An important advantage of the recoupment
concept is that required fees can be waived for qualifying
projects without reimbursing the impact fee account or they can
be spent in areas not meeting benefit principles. Most Atlanta fee
waivers were restricted to development in established enterprise
zones. A single service area and a city-wide service level was
recommended for roads and only arterial roads were
incorporated in the fee . Water and wastewater connection fees
were designed to recapture system capital costs and be collected
outside the city. Three service areas were identified for park fees
and the service level was based on a 'functional population"
methodology that allocated impacts between residential and
nonresidential uses. Fire/EMS and police impact fees were
applied citywide and also based on a functional population
methodology. Both park and public safety fees were recoupment fees, which could be waived for
development projects which met certain prescribed criteria.
MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM
The study also analyzed various issues involved in
complying with the Georgia Impact Fee Act,
outlined important policy directions to guide the
preparation of impact fee studies, compared
recommended impact fee levels with
"competitive" communities, analyzed fee
relationships to the City's Comprehensive Plan and
Capital Improvements Program, and summarized
national and state judicial trends in the treatment of
developer exactions and impact fees.
Period:
Budget:
Team:
January 1992 - December 1993
$340,000
Duncan Associates (Lead)
Rimrock Consulting
Dr. Arthur C. Nelson
LRE Engineering
Webb & Webb, Attorneys
The Sales Law Group, P.C.
W illiams-Russell & Johnson
Contact: Femando Costa, former Planning Director
City of Atlanta
817.871.8042
d
uncan associates