CONTRACT 3553 Professional Services Agreement35 5 3 • , 7
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND
MUNIFINANCIAL
This AGREEMENT is entered into this 15`" day of January 2006, by and between the
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation and general law city ( "CITY ") and
MUNIFINANCIAL, a California Corporation ( "CONSULTANT ").
1. CONSIDERATION.
A. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the
SCOPE OF SERVICES, below;
B. As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the
terms and conditions contained in this Agreement;
C. As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a sum not to
exceed Thirty -Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($38,500.00) for
CONSULTANT's services. CITY may modify this amount as set forth below.
Unless otherwise specified by written amendment to this Agreement, CITY will
pay this sum as specified in the attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated by
reference.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
A. CONSULTANT will perform services listed in the attached Exhibit `B," which is
incorporated by reference.
B. CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical,
administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials,
equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, and all
tests, testing and analyses, calculation, and all other means whatsoever, except as
herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, necessary or proper
to perform and complete the work and provide the professional services required
of CONSULTANT by this Agreement.
3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. While performing this Agreement, CONSULTANT
will use the appropriate generally accepted professional standards of practice existing at the time
of performance utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services. CITY will
continuously monitor CONSULTANT's services. CITY will notify CONSULTANT of any
deficiencies and CONSULTANT will have fifteen (15) days after such notification to cure any
shortcomings to CITY's reasonable satisfaction. Costs associated with curing the deficiencies
will be borne by CONSULTANT.
-1-
355 3 . ,
4. PAYMENTS. For CITY to pay CONSULTANT as specified by this Agreement,
CONSULTANT must submit a detailed invoice to CITY which lists the hours worked and
hourly rates for each personnel category and reimbursable costs (all as set forth in Exhibit "A ")
the tasks performed, the percentage of the task completed during the billing period, the
cumulative percentage completed for each task, the total cost of that work during the preceding
billing month and a cumulative cash flow curve showing projected and actual expenditures
versus time to date.
5. NON - APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. Payments due and payable to CONSULTANT for
current services are within the current budget and within an available, unexhausted and
unencumbered appropriation of the CITY. In the event the CITY has not appropriated sufficient
funds for payment of CONSULTANT services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement
will cover only those costs incurred up to the conclusion of the current fiscal year.
6. ADDITIONAL WORK.
A. CITY's city manager ( "Manager ") may determine, at the Manager's sole
discretion, that CONSULTANT must perform additional work ( "Additional
Work ") to complete the Scope of Work. If Additional Work is needed, the
Manager will give written authorization to CONSULTANT to perform such
Additional Work.
B. If CONSULTANT believes Additional Work is needed to complete the Scope of
Work, CONSULTANT will provide the Manager with written notification that
contains a specific description of the proposed Additional Work, reasons for such
Additional Work, and a detailed proposal regarding cost.
C. Payments over $10,000.00 for Additional Work must be approved by CITY's city
council. All Additional Work will be subject to all other terms and provisions of
this Agreement.
7. FAMILIARITY WITH WORK.
A. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees that it has:
i. Carefully investigated and considered the scope of services to be
performed;
ii. Carefully considered how the services should be performed; and
iii. Understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending
performance of the services under this Agreement.
B. If services involve work upon any site, CONSULTANT agrees that
CONSULTANT has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted
with the conditions there existing, before commencing the services hereunder.
-2-
35 5 3
Should CONSULTANT discover any latent or unknown conditions that may
materially affect the performance of the services, CONSULTANT will
immediately inform CITY of such fact and will not proceed except at
CONSULTANT's own risk until written instructions are received from CITY.
8. TERM. The term of this Agreement will be from January 15, 2006 to January 15, 2007.
Unless otherwise determined by written amendment between the parties, this Agreement will
terminate in the following instances:
A. Completion of the work specified in Exhibit "A ";
B. Termination as stated in Section 16.
9. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE.
A. CONSULTANT will not perform any work under this Agreement until:
CONSULTANT furnishes proof of insurance as required under Section 23
of this Agreement; and
ii. CITY gives CONSULTANT a written notice to proceed.
B. Should CONSULTANT begin work on any phase in advance of receiving written
authorization to proceed, any such professional services are at CONSULTANT's
own risk.
10. TIME EXTENSIONS. Should CONSULTANT be delayed by causes beyond
CONSULTANT's control, CITY may grant a time extension for the completion of the contracted
services. If delay occurs, CONSULTANT must notify the Manager within forty -eight hours (48
hours), in writing, of the cause and the extent of the delay and how such delay interferes with the
Agreement's schedule. The Manager will extend the completion time, when appropriate, for the
completion of the contracted services.
11. CONSISTENCY. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, the main
body of this Agreement takes precedence over the attached Exhibits; this Agreement supersedes
any conflicting provisions. Any inconsistency between the Exhibits will be resolved in the order
in which the Exhibits appear below:
A. Exhibit A: Scope of Work;
B. Exhibit B: Budget; and
C. Exhibit C: Proposal for Services.
12. CHANGES. CITY may order changes in the services within the general scope of this
Agreement, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the contract sum and the
-3-
3553.
contract time will be adjusted accordingly. All such changes must be authorized in writing,
executed by CONSULTANT and CITY. The cost or credit to CITY resulting from changes in
the services will be determined in accordance with written agreement between the parties.
13. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with
Taxpayer Identification Number.
14. PERMITS AND LICENSES. CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, will obtain and
maintain during the term of this Agreement, all necessary permits, licenses, and certificates that
may be required in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.
15. WAIVER. CITY's review or acceptance of, or payment for, work product prepared by
CONSULTANT under this Agreement will not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights
CITY may have under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising from CONSULTANT's
performance. A waiver by CITY of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained in
this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement, whether of the same or different
character.
16. TERMINATION.
A. Except as otherwise provided, CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time
with or without cause.
B. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement at any time with CITY's mutual
consent. Notice will be in writing at least thirty (30) days before the effective
termination date.
C. Upon receiving a termination notice, CONSULTANT will immediately cease
performance under this Agreement unless otherwise provided in the termination
notice. Except as otherwise provided in the termination notice, any additional
work performed by CONSULTANT after receiving a termination notice will be
performed at CONSULTANT" own cost; CITY will not be obligated to
compensate CONSULTANT for such work.
D. Should termination occur, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies,
surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by CONSULTANT
will, at CITY's option, become CITY's property, and CONSULTANT will
receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed up
to the effective date of notice of termination, not to exceed the total costs under
Section 1(C).
E. Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure
on its own terms services similar to those terminated.
F. By executing this document, CONSULTANT waives any and all claims for
damages that might otherwise arise from CITY's termination under this Section.
-4-
3553 - , , k
17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models,
photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement are CITY's
property. CONSULTANT may retain copies of said documents and materials as desired, but
will deliver all original materials to CITY upon CITY's written notice. CITY agrees that use of
CONSULTANT's completed work product, for purposes other than identified in this Agreement,
or use of incomplete work product, is at CITY's own risk.
18. PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS. Except as necessary for performance of service
under this Agreement, no copies, sketches, or graphs of materials, including graphic art work,
prepared pursuant to this Agreement, will be released by CONSULTANT to any other person or
public CITY without CITY's prior written approval. All press releases, including graphic
display information to be published in newspapers or magazines, will be approved and
distributed solely by CITY, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between the parties.
19. INDEMNIFICATION.
A. CONSULTANT agrees to the following:
i. Indemnification for Professional Services. CONSULTANT will save
harmless and indemnify and at CITY's request reimburse defense
costs for CITY and all its officers, volunteers, employees and
representatives from and against any and all suits, actions, or claims,
of any character whatever, brought for, or on account of, any injuries
or damages sustained by any person or property resulting or arising
from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission by
CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT's officers, agents,
employees, or representatives, in the performance of this Agreement.
ii. Indemnification for other Damages. CONSULTANT indemnifies and
holds CITY harmless from and against any claim, action, damages,
costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or
liability, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance. Should
CITY be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it
by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising
out of this Agreement, or its performance, CONSULTANT will
defend CITY (at CITY's request and with counsel satisfactory to
CITY) and will indemnify CITY for any judgment rendered against it
or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise.
B. For purposes of this section "CITY" includes CITY's officers, officials,
employees, agents, representatives, and certified volunteers.
C. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions will survive
termination of this Agreement.
-5-
D. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be
maintained by CONSULTANT as required by Section 23, and any approval of
said insurance by CITY, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or
qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONSULTANT
pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions
concerning indemnification.
20. ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement is for CONSULTANT's professional services.
CONSULTANT's attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this Agreement without CITY's
written approval are prohibited and will be null and void.
21. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that
CONSULTANT will act as an independent contractor and will have control of all work and the
manner in which is it performed. CONSULTANT will be free to contract for similar service to
be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY. CONSULTANT is not an
agent or employee of CITY and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance,
bonus or similar benefits CITY provides for its employees. Any provision in this Agreement that
may appear to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work
or to exercise a measure of control over the work means that CONSULTANT will follow the
direction of the CITY as to end results of the work only.
22. AUDIT OF RECORDS. CONSULTANT will maintain full and accurate records with
respect to all services and matters covered under this Agreement. CITY will have free access at
all reasonable times to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make
transcript therefrom, and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings and activities.
CONSULTANT will retain such financial and program service records for at least three (3) years
after termination or final payment under this Agreement.
23. INSURANCE.
A. Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this
Agreement is effective, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following
types of insurance with coverage limits complying, at a minimum, with the limits
set forth below:
Tyne of Insurance Limits
Commercial general liability: $1,000,000
Professional Liability $1,000,000
Business automobile liability $1,000,000
Workers compensation Statutory requirement
B. Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of
0
3553. 74
ISO -CGL Form No. CG 00 01 1185 or 88. The amount of insurance set forth
above will be a combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury, and property damage for the policy coverage. Liability policies will be
endorsed to name CITY, its officials, and employees as "additional insureds"
under said insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed
"primary" such that any other insurance that may be carried by CITY will be
excess thereto. Such endorsement must be reflected on ISO Form No. CG 20 10
1185 or 88, or equivalent. Such insurance will be on an "occurrence," not a
"claims made," basis and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction except
upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY, ten (10) days notice if
cancellation is due to nonpayment of premium.
C. Professional liability coverage will be on an "occurrence basis" if such coverage
is available, or on a "claims made" basis if not available. When coverage is
provided on a "claims made basis," CONSULTANT will continue to renew the
insurance for a period of three (3) years after this Agreement expires or is
terminated. Such insurance will have the same coverage and limits as the policy
that was in effect during the term of this Agreement, and will cover
CONSULTANT for all claims made by CITY arising out of any professional
errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or agents
during the time this Agreement was in effect.
D. Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA
00 0106 92, including symbol 1 (Any Auto).
E. CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance
evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement and such
other evidence of insurance or copies of policies as may be reasonably required
by CITY from time to time. Insurance must be placed with insurers with a current
A.M. Best Company Rating equivalent to at least a Rating of "A:VII."
F. Should CONSULTANT, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance
required by this Agreement, CITY may obtain such coverage at
CONSULTANT's expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments
due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or terminate pursuant to Section 16.
24. USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS. CONSULTANT must obtain CITY's prior written
approval to use any consultants while performing any portion of this Agreement. Such approval
must approve of the proposed consultant and the terms of compensation.
25. INCIDENTAL TASKS. CONSULTANT will meet with CITY monthly to provide the
status on the project, which will include a schedule update and a short narrative description of
progress during the past month for each major task, a description of the work remaining and a
description of the work to be done before the next schedule update.
-7-
3553.�w
26. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made
when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows:
If to CONSULTANT:
MuniFinancial
1700 Broadway, Sixth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Attention: Robert D. Spencer
Principal Consultant
If to CITY:
City of El Segundo
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
Attention: Seimone Jurjis, PE
Director of Planning and Building Safety
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by
the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly
addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of
actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are
to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph.
27. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONSULTANT will comply with all conflict of interest
laws and regulations including, without limitation, CITY's conflict of interest regulations.
28. SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor
retained any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, to solicit or
secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed
to pay any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting
from the award or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this
warranty, CITY may rescind this Agreement without liability.
29. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement and every provision herein is
generally for the exclusive benefit of CONSULTANT and CITY and not for the benefit of any
other party. There will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of CONSULTANT's or
CITY's obligations under this Agreement.
30. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this
agreement will be in Los Angeles County.
31. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all federal, state,
and local laws applicable to this Agreement.
32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Attachments, sets forth the entire
understanding of the parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements
expressed or implied, oral or written. There are three (3) Attachments to this Agreement. This
Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and any subsequent
successors and assigns.
IN
3553.-7
33. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review this
Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole,
and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either Party.
34. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the
extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so
modified, such portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect.
35. AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary
action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to
engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written amendment.
CITY's executive manager, or designee, may execute any such amendment on behalf of CITY.
36. ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that this Agreement,
agreements ancillary to this Agreement, and related documents to be entered into in connection
with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by
facsimile transmission. Such facsimile signature will be treated in all respects as having the
same effect as an original signature.
37. CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience of
reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.
38. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this
Agreement.
39. FORCE MAJEURE. Should performance of this Agreement be prevented due to fire, flood,
explosion, acts of terrorism, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the
natural elements, or other similar causes beyond the Parties' reasonable control, then the
Agreement will immediately terminate without obligation of either party to the other.
40. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT
represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity
to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY. CONSULTANT represents that its
financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability,
personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private consultants, and experience in
dealing with public agencies all suggest that CONSULTANT is capable of performing the
proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to
satisfy a public CITY.
[Signatures on next page]
W
3553
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this contract the day and year
first hereinabove written.
CITY OF EL
ATTEST:
Cindy M cUiesen, `
City Clerk
APPROVED AS
MARK D. HEV
m.
.r1
H. Berger, AssXtAt City Attorney
-10-
MUNIFINANCIAL
Frank G. Tripe
President and CEO
Paul Whitelaw
Senior Vice President
Taxpayer ID No. 33- 0302345
355 3
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
We want to ensure that our scope of work is responsive to the City of El Segundo's needs
and specific local circumstances. We will work in concert with the City to adjust our scope of
services as needed during the course of the study.
Below is our proposed scope of work described in detail by task. We explain how we will
accomplish each task and identify associated meetings and deliverables. This scope of
services includes preparing the documentation necessary to update the following four impact
fees:
• Library • Police
• Parks • Fire
TASK 1 IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE POLICY ISSUES
Objective: Identify and resolve policy issues raised by the study and determine
appropriate facility and fee categories.
Deso,iption: To initiate this task, we will review documentation related to adoption of
development impact fees. We will deliver information requests as
appropriate. We will explain policy issues to City staff and seek guidance
prior to proceeding. Policy issues include:
• Existence of ordinances, policies, and plans supporting the imposition of
impact fees;
• Land use categories for imposition of fees;
• Allocation of cost burden to nonresidential land uses;
• Types of facilities to be funded by each fee;
• Method for determining facility standard;
• Adequacy of existing studies and plans to identify needed facilities;
• Potential alternative funding sources, if needed;
• Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and
• Implementation concerns and strategies.
Meetings• One (1) meeting to initiate the project, discuss data needs, and address policy
issues.
Deliverables. (1) Information requests, (2) revised project scope and schedule (if needed),
(3) brief summary of policy decisions (if needed).
1of5
3553.'
TASK 2: IDENTIFY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE
GROWTH
Objective: (1) Identify estimates of existing levels of development, and (2) identify a
projection of future growth consistent with current planning policy.
Description: Existing levels of development provide a basis for calculating existing facility
standards, the basis for most development impact fees. Future growth to a
defined planning horizon, such as 2025, provides a basis for calculating the
amount of new facilities needed. Existing estimates and projections should
be expressed in terms of dwelling units, population, employment generators,
and other criteria and measures of the service population for facility
planning.
We will work with the City Planning Department to obtain planning horizon
development numbers over which the costs will be apportioned. We will
evaluate projections from regional metropolitan planning agencies and other
available sources. We will obtain approval of the future development
quantities from the department.
We will obtain approval of estimates of existing development and
development projections from the City prior to proceeding. These estimates
and projections are essential inputs to the funding plan and fee calculation
model constructed in the tasks that follow. Consequently, changes to these
estimates or projections by the City following approval could result in a
change in this scope of services and increase in our professional fees.
Meetings. None.
Deliverables: Memorandum to City staff summarizing estimates of existing development
and projections for new development.
TASK 3: CALCULATE FACILITY STANDARDS
Note: We will conduct Tasks 3, 4 and 5 separately for each facility and fee type.
These tasks are conducted in an iterative approach because of the influence
of facility standards, facility needs and alternative funding on each other, the
funding plan, and the maximum justifiable impact fee.
Objective: Determine standards to identify facilities required to accommodate growth.
Description: Facility standards provide a critical link in documenting the nexus between
growth, the facilities required to accommodate it, and a defensible impact fee.
We will use one of three standard approaches to determining facility
standards: (1) existing inventory, (2) system (existing plus planned facilities),
or (3) planned facilities only.
We will identify the appropriate demand factor for each facility types
included in this study. Demand factors include, for example, service
population, vehicle trip generation, or utility use.
Depending on the approach being taken to calculate facility standards we
may need lists of existing and /or planned facilities. Alternately we may need
documents that indicate city policy and facility planning assumptions
regarding standards (master plans, specific plans, general plans, etc.).
2 of5
35 5 3
We will express facility standards as measures of demand by land use
category. These measures, such as "equivalent dwelling units" or "population
and employment densities ", apportion facility costs to development projects
and generate the fee schedule. A range of reasonable and technically
defensible approaches exists for this purpose. We will select the appropriate
approach for each facility standard based on:
• Available local data on facility demand by land use category;
• Approaches used by other agencies; and
• Support for other City policy objectives.
Meetings: None.
Deliverables: None.
TASK 4: DETERMINE POTENTIAL FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS
Objective: Identify the type, amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate
growth and correct deficiencies, if any.
Description: The facility standards developed in Task 3 will also be integral to estimating
facility needs. If the "system" or "planned facilities only" approach is used to
develop facility standards (see Task 3) we will need a list of specific planned
facilities from existing facility master plans or other City documents. If the
"existing inventory" approach is used then we will only need an indication of
the initial projects anticipated for the use of fee revenues.
A critical component of this task that we will complete will be to distinguish
between the following:
(1) Facilities needed to serve growth (that can be funded by impact fees); and
(2) Facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies for the existing service
population (that cannot be funded by fees).
To the extent possible we will use facility standards (Task 3) applied to
planned projects to identify existing deficiencies. This scope of work does
not include additional engineering analysis if needed to identify
deficiencies. If not already accomplished this work typically includes, for
example, modeling of vehicle trips or utility demand. We can amend our
scope and budget to provide those services if needed.
To estimate costs for new facilities, we will identify unit cost components
such as design costs, land acquisition, and construction as appropriate. We
will develop planning -level estimates for each unit cost based on actual City
experience, other local cost data such as land values, consultant team
experience from prior projects, and industry cost indices
Meetings. None.
Deliverables: None.
3 of-5
35 5 3 • �: '�'
TASK 5: IDENTIFY FUNDING AND FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
Objective: Determine the extent of alternative (non -fee) funding available for new
facilities.
Description: If impact fees are going to only partially fund a capital project, the Mitigation
Fee Act requires that the agency report on the anticipated source and timing
of the additional funding every five years. There are two types of alternative
funding sources that we will identify:
1. Funding from non - impact fee sources to correct existing deficiencies;
and
2. Funding from new development other than impact fees that must be
credited against new development's impact fee contributions,
possibly including taxes paid to finance facilities.
We will identify anticipated alternative funding based on information from
agency staff, or note that funds are still to be identified. In the case of the
latter, we will note probable funding alternatives.
We expect that facilities would be funded predominantly on a pay -as- you -go
basis. If fees will contribute to funding debt service we will apportion
financing costs to the fee program based on the appropriate share of total
costs. However, we do not expect the timing of fee revenues to affect
financing costs so a cash flow analysis is not included in this scope of work.
Meetings. None.
Deliverables: None.
TASK 6: PREPARE REPORT
Objective: Provide technically defensible fee report that comprehensively documents
project assumptions, methodologies, and results.
Description: Based on the results of prior tasks we will first prepare a package of draft
report tables for City staff to review. The tables will document each step of
the analysis. The tables will culminate in a schedule indicating the maximum
justified fee amount by land use category.
Following one round of comments from City staff on the quantitative
analysis and fee schedule, we will prepare an administrative draft report.
Following one round of comments on the administrative draft we will
prepare a public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public, and
the City Council. We will prepare a final report if necessary based on one
round of comments received on the public draft report. We will submit up to
10 bound copies of each report as requested by the City. We can also post
the report on our web site for access via the Internet.
If requested, we will provide legal counsel with copies of fee resolutions and
ordinances used by other jurisdictions.
4 of5
3 5 5 3 • 7,51
Meetings: Two (2) meetings: one (1) to review the initial project results and one (1) to
present the report at a public hearing for adoption.
Deliverables: Administrative draft report, public draft report, final report (if needed), and
slide presentation (if needed).
MEETINGS
The Project Manager will attend meetings accompanied by the Principal -in- Charge, as
needed. We will work with City staff to set up meetings to keep the project on schedule.
Phone conferences are not considered meetings for the purposes of this scope. Additional
meetings may be requested for an additional fee based on our hourly billing rates.
REQUIRED AGENCY STAFF SUPPORT
To complete our tasks on schedule, we will need the cooperation of agency staff. We suggest
that the City assign a key individual as project manager for the City.
We will expect the City's project manager to (1) help resolve policy issues, (2) coordinate
responses to requests for information, and (3) coordinate review of work products. To meet
the schedule outlined below we will expect responses to policy issues and information
requests within five business days. If there are delays on the part of the City, we will need to
adjust our project schedule accordingly.
We will keep the City's project manager informed of data or feedback we need to keep the
project on schedule. MuniFinancial will endeavor to minimize the impact on City staff in the
completion of this project.
5 of 5
3553 � 70`4
EXHIBIT B
BUDGET
MuniFinancial will complete the scope of services described in this proposal for a fixed
price fee of $38,500. This fee includes direct expenses incurred during the course of work,
including travel expenses and materials. Additional assumptions are discussed below.
The City can fund the cost of the study with revenue from development impact fees.
Our proposed fee for services assumes the following:
• This fee includes the following four facility categories: library, police, fire, and
parks. Additional analysis beyond these facility fee program categories may
require a cost adjustment.
• We will not need to provide engineering expertise to update facility cost
estimates.
• This fee includes a total of three (3) meetings or presentations. Additional
meetings may be requested for an additional fee.
We will invoice the City of El Segundo no more than monthly based on percent completion
by task. Invoices will include a description of services as well as a summary of costs to date
by task.
1 of'1
Exhibit C
MuniFinancial Proposal
to the
City of El Segundo-
WIIII -I",@ ,� 4
MuniFinancial
35 5 3
,z.
1700 Broadway, Sixth Floor, Oakland, California 94612
3553 .
ZMuniFinancial
November 30, 2005
Seimone Jurjis
Director of Planning and Building Safety
City of El Segundo
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
Re: Proposal to Update Impact Fee Program
Dear Mr. Jurjis:
MuniFinancial is pleased to submit this proposal to update the City of El Segundo's impact
fee program in accordance with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (California
Government Code sections 66000 to 66025).
MuniFinancial is one of the largest public- sector financial consulting firms in the United
States, with headquarters in Temecula and regional offices in Oakland, Lancaster, and
Sacramento. In our 17 -year history we have helped hundreds of public agencies and
nonprofit organizations successfully address a broad range of financial challenges. We have
extensive experience in a wide range of local agency financial services, including
development impact fee studies.
The project team we have assembled for the City of El Segundo includes myself as Principal -
in- Charge, Mr. Joshua Polston as Project Manager, and Mr. Jeffrey Kay providing analytical
support. This cadre of experts from MuniFinancial's Oakland office has been instrumental in
providing impact fee analyses and creating initial fee programs, as well as updates to pre-
existing fees, for public agencies throughout California. I am certain that that this team can
successfully partner with City staff to prepare a fee analysis that equips the City to provide
for the impact of new development.
We are excited about this opportunity to provide the City of El Segundo with the excellent
service for which MuniFinancial is known. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 832-
0899 (email: bobsL &munixom) if you have any questions regarding this proposal.
Sincerely,
MuniFinancial
/111`�
Robert D. Spencer
Principal Consultant
Financial Consulting Services Group
Enclosure
1700 Broadway, Sixth Floor Tel. (510) 832 -0899
Oakland, California 94612 www.muni.0m Fax (510) 832 -0898
3553 -�'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ..................................... ............................... 1
Public Facilities Financing In California
Local Situation
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH .................... ............................... 2
Project Objectives 2
Summary of Approach 2
Facility Standards 3
Other Elements of Approach 4
SCOPEOF SERVICES .............................................. ............................... 6
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ........................ ............................... 11
Introduction to MuniFinancial 11
Financial Consulting Services Group 12
Development Impact Fee Experience 13
PROJECTSCHEDULE ............................................ ............................... 17
FEEFOR SERVICES .............................................. ............................... 18
PROJECTTEAM .................................................... ............................... 19
The City of El Segundo's Team 19
Project Management 19
Robert D.Spencer 21
Joshua Polston, A.I.C.P. 23
Jeffrey Kay 25
CLIENTREFERENCES ........................................... ............................... 26
EMuniFinancial Page i
3553
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
This section provides background in public facilities financing in California. We also discuss
our understanding of the situation surrounding the City of El Segundo's need for a
development impact fee study.
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the
financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand
out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in
1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
• Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the
next generation of residents and businesses;
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance; and
• Permanent shifting by the State of local tax resources to the State General Fund
to offset deficit spending brought on by recessions.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays
its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing
rate and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished
primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees
also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of
property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the
developing property. Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding
source for facilities that benefit development jurisdiction -wide. Development fees need only
a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
LOCAL SITUATION
The City of El Segundo is located along the active Interstate 405 corridor. The City is
divided between land uses with petrochemical facilities in the southwest, residential in the
northwest and a combined commercial and industrial core in the eastern half of the City.
The residential land is nearly built -out with infill projects generating any new housing stock.
In the eastern half of the city there is significant development planned as former brownfield
industrial sites are converted to commercial and office uses. Some industrial parcels may
experience intensification of uses and additional new development as well.
Within this context, the City intends to update and revisit its existing impact fee program.
This proposal addresses the inputs, methodology, and costs in preparing such an update.
MMuniFinancial Page 1
3553 ,� 7 7.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
This section explains the project objectives, our approach to development impact fee
programs, and how that approach would be applied to the City of El Segundo.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this project are to:
• Develop fee justification based on the "reasonable relationship" and "deferential
review" standards established by the courts;
• Provide a schedule of maximum - justified fees by land use category;
• Present the results of the study in a clearly written report in compliance with the
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 to 66025); and
• Provide comprehensive backup documentation for assumptions, including
copies of spreadsheet files, to enable City staff to update fees in the future.
SUMMARY OF APPROACH
MuniFinancial's methodology for calculating public facilities fees is simple and flexible. We
calculate the maximum justifiable impact fee and provide the flexibility for the City to
impose fees up to that amount. The program incorporates local policy priorities and is
simple to explain to elected officials, interest groups and the public.
Our overall methodology is straightforward: we efficiently apply our financial and
engineering expertise to develop technically defensible fee documentation that is easily
understood by the development community and the public. We take advantage of the
flexibility that statutes and case law provides in establishing the nexus between new
development and area -wide fee programs to avoid excessive engineering costs on our part.
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to
accommodate growth. The four steps followed in an impact fee study include:
1. Prepare growth projections;
2. Identify facility standards;
3. Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new
development based on facility standards and growth projections;
4. Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit
of development.
The identification of facility standards in step #2 often involves preparing an inventory of
existing facilities and identifying specific planned facilities. This data is needed to provide a
basis for the calculation of facility standards.
Step #3 may include identification of and cost estimates for existing facility deficiencies.
Depending on the facilities standards chosen, existing development may have a responsibility
to provide additional facilities to meet the same standards being applied to new
EM= Financial Page 2
3553 • ::`
development. The cost of these deficiencies cannot be funded by impact fee revenues and
requires identification of alternative funding sources.
FACILITY STANDARDS
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility
standards. Facility standards document a reasonable relationship (1) between new
development and the total need for new facilities, and (2) between each development project
and the impact fee for that project. Standards also ensure that new development does not
fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
TYPES OF FAC ILITY STANDARDS
The types of standards that may be used in a development impact fee study include:
• Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate
growth, for example park acres per thousand residents, traffic level of service, or
gallons of water per day per dwelling unit. These standards are the most
common method for discussing policy options with regards to public facility
fees.
• Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected
demand, for example park improvement requirements, street intersection design,
and water storage needs. These standards are typically not evaluated as part of an
impact fee analysis, but they can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities.
• Cost standards determine the cost per unit of demand based on the estimated cost
of facilities, for example cost per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon
of water per day. Impact fee studies often convert the other two standards
discussed above to a cost standard to generate an impact fee schedule.
METHODS FOR OETERmiN/NG FAC /L /TY STANDARDS
The most commonly accepted approaches to determining a facility standard are described
below.
• The existing inventory method uses a facility standard based on the ratio of
existing facilities to the existing service population. Under this approach new
development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently
serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method
results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This
method is often used when a long -range plan for new facilities is not available.
Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study.
Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital
improvement plan and budget process.
• The planned facilities method calculates the standard solely based on the ratio
of planned facilities to the increase in demand associated with new development.
This method is appropriate when planned facilities only benefit new
development, such as a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped
area. This method also may be used when there is excess capacity in existing
facilities that can accommodate new development. In that case new
EMuniFinancial Page 3
3553
development can fund facilities at a standard lower than the existing inventory
standard and still provide an acceptable level of facilities.
• The system method calculates the standard based on the ratio of existing plus
planned facilities to total future demand (existing and new development). This
method is used when (1) the local agency anticipates increasing its facility
standard above the existing inventory standard discussed above, and (2) planned
facilities are part of a system that benefit both existing and new development.
Using a facility standard that is higher than the existing inventory standard
creates a deficiency for existing development. The jurisdiction must secure non -
fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the
deficiency.
Some impact fee programs require specialized engineering studies to identify facility needs,
particularly in the areas of traffic, water, sewer, and storm drain. If adequate engineering
analysis is not available, we will work with the City to develop purposefully
conservative preliminary fee calculations. The City can then adopt a fee program
pending completion of the necessary engineering studies.
OTHER ELEMENTS OF APPROACH
INTEGRAT /ON W/TH LONG-RANGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLANS
An effective impact fee program must be integrated into the City's specific plans, master
plans, and other long -range capital improvement plans (CIPs). We will review existing CIPs
and see that the fee program addresses specific funding needs. We will work with staff to
determine the need for impact of debt financing on the fee program. We can program fees
to specific capital projects if necessary. However, we recommend that the fee program not
be definitive in this regard and that the City program fees through its annual CIP process to
provide as much flexibility as possible to meet changing circumstances.
Overall, our goal is to develop an impact fee program that effectively supports a financially
feasible plan for facilities to accommodate growth.
CITY, DEVELOPER AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Gaining consensus among various groups requires a balanced discussion of both economic
development and community service objectives. If the City deems necessary, we will
facilitate meetings with representatives of the development industry to explain the program
and gain input. Our goal is to create consensus first around the need for facilities and second
around a feasible revenue strategy including the role of impact fees.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS
The development community often is concerned that fees and other exactions will become
too high for development to be financially feasible under current market conditions. We
have developed a number of strategies to address this concern, including:
• Conducting an analysis of the total burden placed on development by exactions
to see if development feasibility may be compromised by the proposed fees;
EMuniFinancial Page 4
3553 • . 011
• Gathering data on total fees imposed by neighboring or competing jurisdictions;
• Developing a plan for phasing in the fees over several years to enable the real
estate market to adjust;
• Providing options for developers to finance impact fees through assessment and
other types of financing districts; and
• Imposing less than the maximum justified fee.
If less than the maximum justified fee is imposed we will work with staff to see that that the
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is adjusted to compensate for the reduced fee revenue. The
CIP should remain financially feasible to maintain realistic expectations among developers,
policy- makers and the public.
CONEOL /OAT /NG FEE PROGRAMS
Recently we have been working with several clients to consolidate separate fee programs into
a combined development impact fee. For example, this approach may combine police, fire,
general government, and parks and recreation into a single "public facilities" fee. We also
specialize in justifying single citywide fees rather than fees for separate zones. Advantages of
these approaches include a stronger revenue stream that can be fund individual projects
sooner, less administrative and accounting complexity, and more flexibility in applying fee
revenues to facility needs.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Fee programs require a certain level of administrative support for successful implementation.
We will recommend appropriate procedures such as:
• Regularly updating development forecasts;
• Regularly updating fees for capital project cost inflation;
• Regularly updating capital facility needs based on changing demands;
• Developing procedures for developer credits and reimbursements; and
• Including an administrative charge in the fee program.
MMuniFinancial Page 5
3553•..&
SCOPE OF SERVICES
We want to ensure that our scope of work is responsive to the City of El Segundo's needs
and specific local circumstances. We will work in concert with the City to adjust our scope of
services as needed during the course of the study.
Below is our proposed scope of work described in detail by task. We explain how we will
accomplish each task and identify associated meetings and deliverables. This scope of
services includes preparing the documentation necessary to update the following four impact
fees:
• Library • Police
• Parks • Fire
TASK 1: IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE POLICY ISSUES
Objective: Identify and resolve policy issues raised by the study and determine
appropriate facility and fee categories.
Description: To initiate this task, we will review documentation related to adoption of
development impact fees. We will deliver information requests as
appropriate. We will explain policy issues to City staff and seek guidance
prior to proceeding. Policy issues include:
• Existence of ordinances, policies, and plans supporting the imposition of
impact fees;
• Land use categories for imposition of fees;
• Allocation of cost burden to nonresidential land uses;
• Types of facilities to be funded by each fee;
• Method for determining facility standard;
• Adequacy of existing studies and plans to identify needed facilities;
• Potential alternative funding sources, if needed;
• Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and
• Implementation concerns and strategies.
Meetings: One (1) meeting to initiate the project, discuss data needs, and address policy
issues.
Deliverables: (1) Information requests, (2) revised project scope and schedule (if needed),
(3) brief summary of policy decisions (if needed).
MMuniFinancial Page 6
3553
TASK 2: IDENTIFY EXISTINC3 DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE
GROWTH
Objective: (1) Identify estimates of existing levels of development, and (2) identify a
projection of future growth consistent with current planning policy.
Description: Existing levels of development provide a basis for calculating existing facility
standards, the basis for most development impact fees. Future growth to a
defined planning horizon, such as 2025, provides a basis for calculating the
amount of new facilities needed. Existing estimates and projections should
be expressed in terms of dwelling units, population, employment generators,
and other criteria and measures of the service population for facility
planning.
We will work with the City Planning Department to obtain planning horizon
development numbers over which the costs will be apportioned. We will
evaluate projections from regional metropolitan planning agencies and other
available sources. We will obtain approval of the future development
quantities from the department.
We will obtain approval of estimates of existing development and
development projections from the City prior to proceeding. These estimates
and projections are essential inputs to the funding plan and fee calculation
model constructed in the tasks that follow. Consequently, changes to these
estimates or projections by the City following approval could result in a
change in this scope of services and increase in our professional fees.
Meetings: None.
Deliverables: Memorandum to City staff summarizing estimates of existing development
and projections for new development.
TASK 3: CALCULATE FACILITY STANDARDS
Note: We will conduct Tasks 3, 4 and 5 separately for each facility and fee type.
These tasks are conducted in an iterative approach because of the influence
of facility standards, facility needs and alternative funding on each other, the
funding plan, and the maximum justifiable impact fee.
Objective: Determine standards to identify facilities required to accommodate growth.
Description: Facility standards provide a critical link in documenting the nexus between
growth, the facilities required to accommodate it, and a defensible impact fee.
We will use one of three standard approaches to determining facility
standards: (1) existing inventory, (2) system (existing plus planned facilities),
or (3) planned facilities only.
We will identify the appropriate demand factor for each facility types
included in this study. Demand factors include, for example, service
population, vehicle trip generation, or utility use.
Depending on the approach being taken to calculate facility standards we
may need lists of existing and /or planned facilities. Alternately we may need
documents that indicate city policy and facility planning assumptions
regarding standards (master plans, specific plans, general plans, etc.).
Page 7
E, MuniFinancial
. ♦ L
3 5 5 3• 0 .t,
We will express facility standards as measures of demand by land use
category. These measures, such as "equivalent dwelling units" or "population
and employment densities ", apportion facility costs to development projects
and generate the fee schedule. A range of reasonable and technically
defensible approaches exists for this purpose. We will select the appropriate
approach for each facility standard based on:
• Available local data on facility demand by land use category;
• Approaches used by other agencies; and
• Support for other City policy objectives.
Meetings: None.
Deliverables: None.
TASK 4: DETERMINE POTENTIAL FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS
Objective: Identify the type, amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate
growth and correct deficiencies, if any.
Description: The facility standards developed in Task 3 will also be integral to estimating
facility needs. If the "system" or "planned facilities only" approach is used to
develop facility standards (see Task 3) we will need a list of specific planned
facilities from existing facility master plans or other City documents. If the
"existing inventory" approach is used then we will only need an indication of
the initial projects anticipated for the use of fee revenues.
A critical component of this task that we will complete will be to distinguish
between the following:
(1) Facilities needed to serve growth (that can be funded by impact fees); and
(2) Facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies for the existing service
population (that cannot be funded by fees).
To the extent possible we will use facility standards (Task 3) applied to
planned projects to identify existing deficiencies. This scope of work does
not include additional engineering analysis if needed to identify
deficiencies. If not already accomplished this work typically includes, for
example, modeling of vehicle trips or utility demand. We can amend our
scope and budget to provide those services if needed.
To estimate costs for new facilities, we will identify unit cost components
such as design costs, land acquisition, and construction as appropriate. We
will develop planning -level estimates for each unit cost based on actual City
experience, other local cost data such as land values, consultant team
experience from prior projects, and industry cost indices
Meetings: None.
Deliverables: None.
Page 8
EMuniFinancial
355 3 • : .
TASK 5: IDENTIFY FUNDING AND FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
Objective: Determine the extent of alternative (non -fee) funding available for new
facilities.
Description: If impact fees are going to only partially fund a capital project, the Mitigation
Fee Act requires that the agency report on the anticipated source and timing
of the additional funding every five years. There are two types of alternative
funding sources that we will identify:
1. Funding from non - impact fee sources to correct existing deficiencies;
and
2. Funding from new development other than impact fees that must be
credited against new development's impact fee contributions,
possibly including taxes paid to finance facilities.
We will identify anticipated alternative funding based on information from
agency staff, or note that funds are still to be identified. In the case of the
latter, we will note probable funding alternatives.
We expect that facilities would be funded predominantly on a pay -as- you -go
basis. If fees will contribute to funding debt service we will apportion
financing costs to the fee program based on the appropriate share of total
costs. However, we do not expect the timing of fee revenues to affect
financing costs so a cash flow analysis is not included in this scope of work.
Meetings: None.
Deliverables: None.
TASK 6: PREPARE REPORT
Objective: Provide technically defensible fee report that comprehensively documents
project assumptions, methodologies, and results.
Description: Based on the results of prior tasks we will first prepare a package of draft
report tables for City staff to review. The tables will document each step of
the analysis. The tables will culminate in a schedule indicating the maximum
justified fee amount by land use category.
Following one round of comments from City staff on the quantitative
analysis and fee schedule, we will prepare an administrative draft report.
Following one round of comments on the administrative draft we will
prepare a public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public, and
the City Council. We will prepare a final report if necessary based on one
round of comments received on the public draft report. We will submit up to
10 bound copies of each report as requested by the City. We can also post
the report on our web site for access via the Internet.
If requested, we will provide legal counsel with copies of fee resolutions and
ordinances used by other jurisdictions.
Page 9
M MuniFinancial
3553•::'1
Meetings: Two (2) meetings: one (1) to review the initial project results and one (1) to
present the report at a public hearing for adoption.
Deliverables: Administrative draft report, public draft report, final report (if needed), and
slide presentation (if needed).
MEETINGS
The Project Manager will attend meetings accompanied by the Principal -in- Charge, as
needed. We will work with City staff to set up meetings to keep the project on schedule.
Phone conferences are not considered meetings for the purposes of this scope. Additional
meetings may be requested for an additional fee based on our hourly billing rates.
REQUIRED AGENCY STAFF SUPPORT
To complete our tasks on schedule, we will need the cooperation of agency staff. We suggest
that the City assign a key individual as project manager for the City.
We will expect the City's project manager to (1) help resolve policy issues, (2) coordinate
responses to requests for information, and (3) coordinate review of work products. To meet
the schedule outlined below we will expect responses to policy issues and information
requests within five business days. If there are delays on the part of the City, we will need to
adjust our project schedule accordingly.
We will keep the City's project manager informed of data or feedback we need to keep the
project on schedule. MuniFinancial will endeavor to minimize the impact on City staff in the
completion of this project.
,MuniFinancial Page 10
3553
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
INTRODUCTION TO MUNIFINANCIAL
MuniFinancial is a customer - oriented firm that delivers quality financial and economic
services to public agencies and, ultimately, to the public.
MuniFinancial is one of the largest public sector financial consulting firms in the United
States, with corporate headquarters in Temecula and regional offices in Oakland, Lancaster,
and Sacramento. Since 1988 we have helped over 600 public agencies successfully address a
broad range of financial challenges, such as financing the costs of growth and generating
revenues to fund desired services.
MuniFinancial assists local public agencies with long -term financial plans and cash flow
modeling, cost allocations, development impact fees, rate studies, and property tax audits. In
addition, we assist local public agencies with arbitrage rebate, investment consulting,
municipal disclosure, and special district administration.
MuniFinancial has the largest special district formation and administration practice in the
nation. We are known as the preeminent municipal disclosure firm as well as a major
provider of arbitrage rebate services.
The firm currently has a staff of over 80 dedicated professionals with the range of expertise
necessary to provide high -quality service to our clients. Given the breadth and depth of
expertise among our staff, MuniFinancial is able to offer clients a full range of financial
services:
• Financial planning and revenue enhancement, including financial
projections and policy analysis, plus rate, user fee, and cost allocation studies;
• Capital improvement planning and financing, including infrastructure
financing plans and impact or connection fee studies;
• Economic and fiscal policy analysis of proposed projects and plans,
including government reorganizations studies;
• Special district implementation and administration, including district
formation and voter campaigns, plus administrative services such as levies
and delinquency management and
• Federal compliance services for bond issues such as continuing disclosure
and arbitrage rebate analysis.
Many of our projects have an engineering component as well, highlighting the benefits of
MuniFinancial as one of The Willdan Group of Companies. Our affiliate firm, Willdan, is a
leading engineering consulting firm consisting of over 440 personnel in the Western United
States. Willdan provides contract staff for building, planning and engineering departments
plus a range of civil engineering services.
With the combined expertise of our firms we can provide a comprehensive approach to our
clients' financial, economic and public facility engineering challenges.
EMuniFinancial Page 11
35 5 3 . 0
FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES GROUP
MuniFinancial has been built on deep, continuing relationships with local government
department staff. With hundreds of ongoing client relationships in finance, engineering and
other services, we have been consistently called upon to assist staff with a range of special
projects. In response to this need, the Financial Consulting Services Group was created with
experienced staff in offices in both northern and southern California.
Our work incorporates excellent public communication strategies and skills. As voter
approval becomes the norm for revenue measures, we offer expertise in communicating
persuasive information to the targeted group, whether developers, land owners or the
general electorate. We provide clearly written report summaries, on -point public
presentations and strong meeting facilitation skills.
The table below provides an overview of Financial Consulting Services Group services.
MMuniFinancial Page 12
3 5 5 3 - -7 7,01
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE EXPERIENCE
MuniFinancial is one of California's leading firms for development impact fee programs.
The firm has broad experience reviewing and structuring impact fee programs for cities,
counties, special districts, and school districts. For these clients, our firm has provided nexus
documentation to support fees funding a full range of public facilities, including utilities
(water, wastewater and storm drainage), roadways and transit, parks, fire, police, health
clinics, and other government facilities such as civic center and corporation yards.
Our depth of experience in this arena has led us to develop a range of creative, defensible
programs for our clients. To increase the flexibility of impact fee programs we have justified
a single fee that funds a wide range of facilities, from parks to fire stations (City of Gilroy,
City of Roseville). We also specialize in development of fee programs that span multiple
jurisdictions to fund regional facilities (counties of El Dorado, Fresno, San Luis Obispo, and
Solano). Our staff have served as expert witnesses for local agencies defending their fee
programs, while no fee program developed by MuniFinancial has been challenged in court.
Finally, clients have engaged our firm to examine critical policy issues often raised by impact
fee programs, and to communicate these issues to elected officials, the development
community, and the public. To address the effect of fees on economic growth we have
performed development feasibility and real estate market studies, conducted fee comparison
surveys, and compared public facility funding methods among local agencies.
A partial listing of the jurisdictions for which MuniFinancial has conducted development
impact fee studies includes:
City and County of San Francisco
City of Bellflower
City of Carpinteria
City of Chula Vista
City of Dublin
City of El Monte
City of Fresno
City of Gilroy
City of Goodyear, AZ
City of Hercules
City of Hollister
City of Huntington Beach
City of Indian Wells
City of Kingsburg
City of La Mesa
City of Livermore
City of Novato
City of Oakley
City of Palmdale
City of Phoenix, AZ
EMuniFinancial
City of Shasta Lake
City of Soledad
City of South San Francisco
City of Stockton
City of Tracy
City of Yucca Valley
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Contra Costa Fire Protection District
County of El Dorado
County of Fresno
County of Kings
County of Placer
County of Solano
County of Stanislaus
Dixon Library District
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Mt. Diablo Fire Protection District
Novato Fire Protection District
Rincon Valley Fire Protection District
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
Page 13
3553
City of Pittsburg
Salida Fire Protection District
City of Redding
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
City of Reedley
San Ramon Fire Protection District
City of Rialto
Stanislaus Consolidated Fire District
City of Rocklin
Tehachapi Valley Rec. & Park District
City of Roseville
Town of Eagar, AZ
City of San Jose
Town of Windsor
City of San Leandro
Windsor Fire Protection District
Citv of San Luis Obispo
Woodland Fire Protection District
MuniFinancial has specific expertise preparing development impact fee documentation as
part of a comprehensive public facility financing plan. Our approach includes:
• Close coordination with public agencies, developers and public interest groups to
devise a consensus approach.
• Sensitivity to equity concerns between new and existing development, as well as
between different land uses and phases of development.
• Developing strategies to maintain project financial feasibility.
• Providing the technical analysis necessary for project participants to resolve
policy issues.
Public facility financing continues to change dramatically due to state constitutional
amendments and the public's reluctance to pay for growth. In response, we have been at the
forefront in developing new approaches, such as smart growth strategies, area -wide fee
programs and special use fees for affordable housing. Our staff remains up -to -date on the
latest legislative actions and court decisions affecting this rapidly changing field, and is
sought out by attorneys for expert witness services.
PROWL-CT SUMMARIES
MuniFinancial staff have been key participants in providing impact fee analyses for over
SO public agencies across California. Summaries of selected project experience are
presented below.
City of Covina, Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: In 2005
MuniFinancial prepared an impact fee study to assist the City with updating its development
fee program. The study addressed: police facilities; parks; library; storm drain; streets; and
general public facilities.
City of Hawthorne, Development Impact Fee Program Update: We are engaged by
the City to update its development fee program for facilities categories including: police;
fire; parks; general government; and traffic. The City of Hawthorne had not revised its
impact fee program since 1991. Certain components of the program were no longer
applicable while facility needs in other program areas had changed and required updating.
Page 14
MMuniFinancial
3553 .
The study will update the City's fee program so that it can address current estimates of the
City's facility needs required to accommodate growth.
City of Sierra Madre, Development Impact Fee Program Update: We are in the
beginning stages of this engagement to update the City's fee program. In 1988 the City of
Sierra Madre adopted a single impact fee for public facilities. The fee has not been revised
since that time. The City is a full- service city and therefore is pursuing a fee program to fund
the impacts of growth across a broad range of facility types, including: fire, police, streets,
parks, sewer, water, storm drain, and general public facilities.
County of Fresno, Public Facilities Fee and Fiscal Impact Analysis: MuniFinancial
provided the County of Fresno's first public facilities fee program, and prepared a fiscal
impact analysis of growth. The fee program is projected to provide $321 million in revenue
for public facilities over the next 15 years. The fiscal impact analysis indicated that each
single family home generates a negative fiscal impact of $400 to $700 per home. The County
is considering implementation of a special tax to fund public services to new development.
County of Yolo, Impact Fee Program Update: MuniFinancial is currently engaged by
Yolo County to prepare a 5 -year update of the County's impact fee program. Our study will
examine currently authorized elements (Probation; Social Services; Health Services; Libraries
(including the City of Davis); Sheriff; District Attorney and Public Defender; General
Administration; and Planning). We will also address facility needs for elements not currently
authorized including Roads; Rural Parks; Open Space; Information Technology; City of
Davis Branch Library.
County of Solano Public Facilities Fee: MuniFinancial prepared a 2004 Public Facilities
Fee Update for Solano County in April 2004. The study was an inflation update of the
previous complete update to public facilities fee program. It documented the cost in 2004
dollars of expanding public facilities to serve new development while maintaining the
existing standard per capita. New development's fair share contribution of these costs was
calculated in the form of a public facilities fee. We also prepared a 2005 inflation update for
all fee categories, including: Countywide Public Protection; Health and Social Services;
Library; General Government; Sheriffs Patrol and Investigation; and Courts
County of Kings, Public Facilities Impact Fee Study: As part of a public facilities
impact fee study in 2004, MuniFinancial assisted the County of Kings by preparing
documentation to enable the County impose a public facilities fee to fund library facilities to
accommodate new development. The Kings County provides countywide library services.
The report presented an analysis of the need for facilities to accommodate development
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County of Kings. It also supported the County's
request that incorporated cities within the County implement County impact fees on the
County's behalf.
City of Stockton, Public Facilities Fee Update: The City of Stockton adopted its
original fee program in 1988. The fees were not increased until 2003 when MuniFinancial
assisted the City with an inflation increase of the fee program. In 2004 we completed a full
update of the fee program identifying facilities and improvements needed to serve future
development and the relevant unit cost estimates. Fee areas included: Transportation
Facilities; Park Facilities, Fire Facilities; Police Facilities; City Hall Facilities; Community
Center Facilities; and Library Facilities.
Page 15
E MuniFinancial
..
City of Gilroy, Public Facilities and Infrastructure Financing Program: The City of
Gilroy was faced with the challenge of funding facilities to accommodate growth through
nine different impact fee revenue streams. The restrictions on each fee limited the City's
flexibility to meet the needs of a community estimated to double in size over the next 40
years. MuniFinancial developed a creative approach to the fee program that combined five
of the nine fees into a single public facilities fee to fund and fire, general government,
libraries, parks, and police, facilities. The statutory findings required for the fee were based
on an extensive and detailed analysis of the City's land, building, and equipment inventory
and projects included in its long -range capital improvement budget. The fee totaled $16,200
per dwelling unit and will provide $305 million in funding.
City of Fresno, Urban Growth Management (UGM) Program Re- Engineering:
Fresno's UGM program was a state -of -the -art funding program for public facilities at the
time of its adoption in 1975. When the City engaged MuniFinancial the program was in
jeopardy, suffering under the weight of its own complex facility funding system that included
120 active fee accounts. The program was not adequately funding developer credits,
excluded large areas of the City, and lacked statutory findings. MuniFinancial conducted a
policy analysis and provided technical expertise to enable the City to re- engineer its program,
integrating the best aspects of "next generation" development impact fee programs.
City of Kingsburg, Development Impact Fee Update: Working through City staff,
MuniFinancial prepared a study identifying facilities and improvements needed to serve
future development. Fee areas included: Transportation Facilities; Fire Facilities; Police
Facilities; City Hall Facilities; and Specialized Recreation Facilities; Corporation Yard
Facilities; Library Facilities; and Water Facilities.
Countywide Traffic Mitigation Fee, Los Angeles County: MuniFinancial is
participating in an ambitious project to develop a countywide transportation mitigation fee
for Los Angeles County and all 88 cities in the County. The fee is being developed to fund
critical funding gaps in the County's transportation program. The project included an
extensive outreach effort through multiple channels (COGS, City Councils, individual
meetings with key officials).
City and County of San Francisco, Transit Development Impact Fee: The City and
County of San Francisco pioneered the use of impact fees to fund transit facilities and
services in the 1980s. The City contracted with MuniFinancial as part of a team led by
Nelson \Nygaard to update and expand the fee that had been limited to office development
in the downtown only. We developed the nexus analysis to expand the fee citywide and
impose it on all nonresidential land uses. MuniFinancial developed a simple but defensible
approach to the statutory reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that resulted
in a tripling of revenue to the City.
Page 16
EMuniFinancial
3553.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
We will deliver the draft report tables described at the beginning of Task 6 within four
months after receiving authorization to proceed. We will deliver the administrative draft
report within one month following review and approval by City staff of the report tables. We
will develop specific project timelines following consultation with and in concert with City
staff. We can work with the City to shorten this schedule if necessary.
M MuniFinancial Page 17
3553.
FEE FOR SERVICES
MuniFinancial will complete the scope of services described in this proposal for a fixed
price fee of $38,500. This fee includes direct expenses incurred during the course of work,
including travel expenses and materials. Additional assumptions are discussed below.
The City can fund the cost of the study with revenue from development impact fees.
Our proposed fee for services assumes the following:
• This fee includes the following four facility categories: library, police, fire, and
parks. Additional analysis beyond these facility fee program categories may
require a cost adjustment.
• We will not need to provide engineering expertise to update facility cost
estimates.
• This fee includes a total of three (3) meetings or presentations. Additional
meetings may be requested for an additional fee.
We will invoice the City of El Segundo no more than monthly based on percent completion
by task. Invoices will include a description of services as well as a summary of costs to date
by task.
MMun!Financial Page 18
3 5 5 3 - K` Al
PROJECT TEAM
THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO'S TEAM
Mr. Robert Spencer, a Principal Consultant in the Oakland Office of MuniFinancial's
Financial Consulting Services Group, will be the Principal -in- Charge of the study. He will
oversee the quality of work products and assure timely completion of the project. He will
also provide technical oversight to the project. Mr. Spencer has more than 19 years of
infrastructure financing and impact fee experience consulting to local agencies throughout
California.
We propose Mr. Joshua Polston, AICP, as Project Manager. Mr. Polston is a Senior
Project Manager in Financial Consulting Services at MuniFinancial. He will organize and
direct consultant tasks, provide quality control for work products and ensure that the
deliverables are completed on time and within budget. He will be the City's day -to -day
contact and will be present at key meetings.
Additional analytical support will be provided by Mr. Jeffrey Kay, assisted by staff analysts
in our Oakland office, as needed.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
As a successful consulting firm, we understand the importance of project management and
team support. MuniFinancial has successfully guided diverse consultant teams through many
projects for the benefit of our clients.
The goal of project management is to achieve the client's objectives on schedule and within
budget. To accomplish this, we employ a variety of tools to monitor project status and to
establish effective communication with the client and between project team members.
Project Monitoring. The project manager monitors budget status through our online
accounting system. The system captures project labor costs, overhead and direct expenses on
a weekly basis. Project managers continually monitor the budget and compare costs to work
performed to date. In our experience, the system is an invaluable tool for reducing cost
overruns and budget amendments, a tool often not found in other consulting firms.
Financial Consulting Services principals and project managers meet weekly to assess the
status of each project and to direct staff. These weekly meetings allow staffing constraints to
be identified early and resources reallocated to keep projects on budget and on schedule.
These meetings also provide a forum for applying the group's collective expertise to solving
difficult analytical issues that arise in complex projects.
Client Communication. To remain informed about project status, clients can choose
among several communication options based on their preferences. We can provide regular
updates by e -mail, phone call, meetings, or project status memos. The status memo is
particularly effective because it documents work completed to date, status of remaining
tasks, and identification of outstanding issues that require input from the client.
EMuniFinancial Page 19
0
z�53• 0.
Quality Control. The principal in charge and project manager assigned to the project
provide quality control and quality assurance. The project manager reviews interim and final
work products before transmittal to the client to ensure that they meet MuniFinancial's
quality standards. The principal in charge reviews the final work product, including reports
and quantitative models, to provide a second level of quality control and assurance.
We are confident that our experienced team will provide the levels of attention and work
performance that the City of El Segundo desires. We encourage you to contact our client
references regarding our commitment to personal service and performance.
Team member resumes follow for your review.
Page 20
EMuniFinancial
3553 • . :.
19 Years Experience
ROBERT D.SPENCER
Areas of Expertise
CONSULTANT
Robert Spencer is a Principal Consultant in the Financial Consulting
Services Group at MuniFinancial. He is an economist with extensive
experience assisting public agencies with the development of sound
financial and economic policies. Much of his work is related to
infrastructure financing and public services funding to serve a
community's growth or revitalization. Based on this expertise, Mr.
Spencer has assisted agencies with land use policy, growth
Project Highlights
management, economic development, and business regulation.
Related Experience
�.
Development Impact Fees
.
Mr. Spencer is one of California's leading experts on development
impact fee programs. He has broad experience reviewing and
structuring impact fee programs for cities, counties, special districts,
Education
and school districts. For these clients he has provided nexus
documentation to support fees funding a full range of public facilities,
including utilities (water, wastewater and storm drainage), roadways
and transit, parks, fire, police, and administrative offices. He has also
developed innovative analyses for fees that fund habitat conservation
and affordable housing. His expertise has led clients to engage him as
an expert witness in defending their fee programs. Most of the impact
fee studies that Mr. Spencer has managed have included participation
by developers and presentations to elected officials.
Mr. Spencer has also assisted clients with some of the most
challenging impact fee programs — implementation of a single fee
across multiple jurisdictions to fund regional facilities. Mr. Spencer
has managed multi- jurisdictional fee studies for the Counties of El
Dorado, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Solano, and for the
Alameda and Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agencies.
The largest of these studies (Los Angeles) required Mr. Spencer to
Professional
develop a strategy for and manage the participation of all 88 cities and
Affiliations
the County of Los Angeles through the client, the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Clients have also engaged Mr. Spencer to examine critical policy issues
often raised by impact fee programs. A common concern is the effect
of fees on economic development objectives. In this regard, Mr.
„
Spencer has performed market studies that evaluated the effect of
impact fees on specific development projects, and on the overall
ability of a city to attract new development. He has conducted
detailed fee surveys to provide clients with a comparison of impact
fee programs and public facility funding methods used by their
competitors for economic development. Clients have included the
cities of Fremont and Roseville, and the County of Placer.
Page 21
E W WFinancial
Teaching and Speaking
Experience
i;
E MuniFinancial
3553•..1
Capital Facility and Infrastructure Financing
Mr. Spencer is an expert in capital facility and infrastructure financing,
fiscal impact analysis, special district formation, and economic
development programs. He speaks regularly on topics such as
defensible impact fee programs and successful strategies for
Proposition 218 mail ballot elections.
A sample of Mr. Spencer's recent experience includes:
• Specific Plan Financing Review, County of Tehama:
Developer of a 3,700 -unit project provided the County with a
public facilities financing plan and fiscal impact study. Conducted
a peer review of these documents, provided direction to the
developer's consultant to revise assumptions and approach, and
assisted with negotiations related to service delivery, tax sharing,
and governance structures. Developed an approach for public
service funding accepted by the developer that should result in
significant positive fiscal impacts to the General Fund.
• Wastewater Financing Plans, City of Stockton: Principal in
charge and project manager on several financing plans for
wastewater infrastructure to serve developing areas. The plans
included long -range developed projections, cash flow modeling,
and justification of a connection fee to fund debt service on
wastewater revenue bonds.
• South Sutter County Financing Plan, Sutter County:
Managed project to develop a $300 million financing plan for
3,500 acres planned for commercial and industrial development.
Included absorption and financial feasibility analyses.
• Development Impact Fee Program, City of Redding:
Managed project to develop comprehensive impact fee program
for the City of Redding that includes storm drain, water, sewer,
parks, fire, and transportation facilities. Special attention was paid
to the development of a financing plan for the storm drain and
other utilities because of the lack of updated plans and the need
for immediate funding.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Mr. Spencer has managed over 40 fiscal impact studies for a broad
range of public agency clients. He focuses on helping clients
understand the economic implications of land use policy decisions.
Mr. Spencer has also managed the development of proprietary fiscal
impact analysis software to provide clients with a user - friendly
program designed to help them conduct their own fiscal impact
studies. Much of Mr. Spencer's fiscal impact analysis work has been as
an "honest broker," providing objective analysis to both sides (city
and county) in property tax sharing negotiations for annexations and
incorporations.
Page 22
10 Years Experience
Areas of expertise
Project Highlights
Education
Professional
Affiliations /Licenses
�cjnu)If�l?�riir�u. r _ u��l
E WWFinancial
3553. �
JOSHUA POLSTON, A.I.C.P.
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER
Joshua Polston is a Senior Project Manager in the Financial Consulting
Services Group at MuniFinancial. His background is in urban planning,
public finance and consulting for local government and special districts.
He specializes in fiscal analysis and financial services to local agencies.
Based on this expertise, Mr. Polston has assisted agencies with land use
policy, strategic planning, and financial consulting services.
Prior to joining MuniFinancial, Mr. Polston gained over nine years of
experience working for federal and local government and private
industry, including staff positions within the County of San Mateo, U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco Airport Commission, and Booz Allen
Hamilton. He consulted on aviation finance issues for clients in
Michigan, Texas, and California, focused on strategic planning issues for
the EPA and served as a land use planner with San Mateo County.
Related Experience
Impact Fee and Fiscal Analysis Studies
A sample of Mr. Polston's recent fiscal studies include
• City of South San Francisco: Project manager on a traffic impact
fee to accommodate new development in the East of 101 Area in
the City of South San Francisco.
• City of Stockton: Project manager on a traffic impact fee update
to accommodate new development in the Eight Mile Road Area in
the City of Stockton.
• County of El Dorado: Served as project manager for a complex
program update to the countywide traffic impact fee program.
Tasks included resolution of policy decisions on allocation of share
and burden, population and land use forecasts under two different
growth scenarios, and programming of available funds to meet
countywide needs.
• City of Hercules: Mr. Polston was project manager for a growth
limit initiative fiscal analysis study for the City of Hercules. The
study examined the fiscal, capital and job /housing impacts under a
variety of development scenarios.
• Contra Costa Fire District: Project manager for the study to
establish development impact fees for a large and diverse fire district
in Contra Costa County.
• City of Manteca: Project manager on a study of the net fiscal
impacts of new development on City government services.
Page 23
Teaching and Speaking
Experience
WMuniFinancial
3 5 5 3 . "_'7
• City of Hawthorne: Project manager for the study to update
development impact fees for a large and built -out city in Los
Angeles County.
Financial and Policy Analysis /Modeling
Mr. Polston has a range of experience assisting clients with financial
analysis and modeling.
• City of Monterey, Mr. Polston served as project manager on a
comprehensive assessment of the City's affordable housing
ordinance looking at various scenarios for the production of
affordable housing units.
• Airport Financial Model, Detroit Metro Airport (DTW): Mr.
Polston was consultant in charge of a project to build a financial
model to compare various development scenarios at DTW. The
model was an integral tool in ongoing complex negotiations
between the Airport and signatory airlines.
• Federal Aviation Administration: Mr. Polston led an award
process for the annual selection of $300M in discretionary funds
under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).
• Detroit Metro Airport (DTW): Mr. Polston created a cash
position model for the DTW airport. This model was integral in
keeping the Airport current in evaluating its fiscal position after the
9/11 terrorist attacks, which placed significant financial burdens on
the organization.
Special District Services
• County Service Area Formation; County of Sacramento,
CA: Developed and implemented the strategy for forming a County
Service Area to fund the ongoing operating costs of police services
for a Specific Plan Area in Sacramento County.
Public Involvement
Member, Berkeley Citizen's Budget Review Commission, Appointed by
Councilwoman Mim Hawley 2002
Member, Peninsula Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) Citizen's Advisory
Committee, Appointed by the Mayor of San Francisco, 1992
Page 24
Areas of expertise
Project Highlights
Education
r
Professional
Affiliations
i rr
3553•,:x'
JEFFREY KAY
ANALYST II
Jeffrey Kay is an Analyst II in Financial Consulting Services at
MuniFinancial, and works from the firm's Oakland office. His
responsibilities include supporting Project Managers on development
impact fee studies and preparing fiscal impact analyses.
Prior to joining MuniFinancial, Mr. Kay worked as a research analyst for
the Urban Strategies Council in Oakland, CA, where he specialized in
issues related to capacity building in low- income neighborhoods. His
responsibilities included collecting and analyzing statistical data from a
variety of sources pertaining to economic opportunity, housing, crime,
and real estate development in the Bay Area.
Mr. Kay also worked with the Orange County (North Carolina)
Economic Development Commission and conducted extensive GIS
analysis of developable land and use buffers in three economic
development districts in the county.
Mr. Kay has considerable information technology experience and is
skilled in GIS analysis and presentation using the ArcGIS software suite
as well as economic modeling using IMPLAN. His experience with web
site design includes large -scale web site development projects
encompassing product development, interface design, and template
development, along with project management and execution tasks.
Related Experience
Development Impact Fees
• City of Hawthorne: Supporting analyst for a study updating five
development impact fees for a large and built -out city in Los
Angeles County.
• City of Oxnard: Supporting analyst for a study of a development
impact fee for traffic facilities.
EMuniFinancial Page 25
3553.
CLIENT REFERENCES
Client relationships are extremely important to us. We encourage you to contact any or all of
the clients listed below regarding our commitment to personalized service and performance.
MMuniFinancial Page 26
3553
MuniFinancial
1700 Broadway, Sixth Floor, Oakland, California 94612