City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council authorize staff to enter into a professional
services agreement, for an amount not to exceed $37,900, with Public Resource
Management Group (PRM) to conduct a Comprehensive Citywide User Fees and
Charges Rate Study.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the Comprehensive Financial Plan development and implementation, staff
was directed by Council to pursue a consultant to conduct a comprehensive fees
and charges rate study to determine the full cost to provide each service provided by
the City’s General Fund departments.
The City assesses a user fee to recoup the cost of providing certain services. These
services span across a number of departments and cover a wide array of services;
including plan check and inspection fees for new construction projects, registration
fees for swim lessons, pet licensing fees, room rental fees, etc. The purpose of
these fees is to either fully or partially recover the cost of providing the service. In
cases that costs are not fully recovered, the City is ‘subsidizing’ the activity. In some
instances, the City may be charging more than it reasonably costs to provide the
service, in which case the fee must be reduced.
In order to identify the actual amount that the City could charge, it is necessary to
calculate the fully burdened cost to provide a particular service. To achieve this, a
comprehensive cost study of the City’s fees and charges must be conducted.
Meeting Date: 09/25/06 Item Number: A-5
AGENDA ITEM: Professional Services Contract with Public Resource
Management Group (PRM) to Provide a Comprehensive Citywide User Fees and
Charges Rate Study.
Contact Person/Dept.: Nick Kimball,
Budget & Finance
Phone Number: (310) 253-6013
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification:
Master Notification List (09/20/06); Pacific Municipal Consultants; MuniFinancial; NBS;
Public Resource Management; Maximus; Jefferson Wells; Public Financial
Management; Macias Consulting Group;
Department Approval:
Marlee Chang (09/19/06)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/20/2006)
City Controller Approval:
Marlee Chang (09/19/06)City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A comprehensive citywide study of fees and charges by an outside consultant has
not been conducted in more than 15 years. As a matter of best management
practices, many southern California cities have engaged in comprehensive fee
studies over the past few years. The expertise and resources required to perform
such a comprehensive, in-depth study in a reasonable time period necessitate the
skills of an outside firm that specializes in this type of analysis.
During preparation of the 2006-07 proposed budget, a cooperative effort between
Budget & Finance and the City Attorney’s Office was initiated to review fees and
charges for the entire City. This resulted in the adoption of a resolution
consolidating all fees previously set forth by various resolutions into one resolution.
DISCUSSION:
On July 24
th
, Council approved the release of a Request for Proposal for a
professional services firm to provide a Comprehensive Citywide Fees and Charges
Study. Proposals were received from eight (8) qualified firms.
All firms were evaluated based on the following criteria:
1. Thoroughness of response and understanding of the task to be completed;
2. Responsiveness to requirements of the project;
3. Software capability;
4. Firm’s experience in financial studies;
5. Overall experience of staff assigned to the project;
6. Time required to accomplish the requested services;
7. Client references; and
8. Cost of service.
The evaluation criteria matrix is included as Attachment 1. Each firm was assigned
a score based on responses included in their proposal. Attachment 2 provides a
definition for each score. Since each criteria is not an equal determinant, the scores
for each criteria were weighted based on their relative importance in determining a
firm’s ability to provide high quality services in a timely fashion. Input from the
Community Development and Public Works Directors was solicited and incorporated
into the final evaluation criteria matrix.
Using the scores derived from the evaluation matrix, the top three (3) firms were
selected to give a brief presentation to a panel comprised of staff from various
operating departments, including the City Manager’s Office, Budget and Finance,
Transportation, and Parks, Recreation and Community Services.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Based on the evaluation scores, presentation to staff, and client references, staff
recommends that Public Resource Management Group (PRM) is selected to
conduct the Comprehensive Citywide User Fees and Charges study.
Public Resource Management Group
PRM is a highly qualified firm with extensive experience in providing user fees and
charges studies to cities similar in size and scope to Culver City. The selection
panel unanimously agreed to recommend PRM based on their credentials and
presentation.
In a field of highly qualified firms, PRM stood out as a firm that could provide the City
with a product of superior quality and a robust excel software package that the City
can use for future updates. PRM takes a very hands-on approach to user fee
studies. They work closely with departmental staff to account for the amount of time
staff spends to provide the service related to each user fee. This hands-on
approach to precisely account for staff time will result in a highly accurate cost
analysis.
PRM will assign a highly experienced and specialized staff to Culver City’s project.
There will be one specialist assigned to Recreation fees, one assigned to
Engineering fees, and one assigned to Planning and Building fees. The staff
assigned to this project has extensive experience conducting user fees studies for
both large and small cities; further strengthening their ability to provide insight and
suggestions into additional fees that the City may consider adopting.
PRM will provide the following services as part of the user fees and charges study:
Identify the total cost of providing each City service/program and comparing
service costs with existing recovery levels;
Recommend appropriate fees and charges based on analysis and any
appropriate subsidy level where full cost recovery may be unrealistic;
Prepare a final report that identifies each program/service, its full cost,
recommended and current cost recovery levels, revenue impact, and fee
comparisons with other LA County cities or other California cities comparable
to Culver City;
Identify additional fees that the City may explore implementing, based on
practices of comparable cities providing a similar type of service;
A detailed excel based computer model for adjusting fees and charges for the
City’s current and future needs, including related schedules and cost
documentation in a format that can be edited and updated by City staff to
accommodate changes in the organization or changes in costs; and
Attendance at community and City Council meetings.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
The study will address General Fund fees only (i.e. General Government, Public
Works, Community Development, Fire, Police, and PR&CS fees). Transportation,
Sewer, and Refuse fees will not be part of this study. It is expected that the study
will be completed by January 2007.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The cost of the user fees and charges study to be conducted by PRM is $37,900.
Sufficient funds for the comprehensive user fees and charges study are included in
the fiscal year 2006-07 Adopted Budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Evaluation Criteria Matrix and Scoring Definitions.
2. Public Resource Management (PRM) proposal
3. Pacific Municipal Consultants’ (PMC) proposal
4. Maximus’ Proposal
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Authorize staff to enter into a professional services agreement with Public
Resource Management Group (PRM) to conduct a Comprehensive Citywide
User Fees and Charges study;
2. Authorize the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.
MEETING DATE: 9/25/06
AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration to Enter into a Professional Services Contract with Public
Resource Management Group (PRM) to Provide a Comprehensive
Citywide User Fees and Charges Rate Study.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Evaluation Criteria Matrix and Scoring Definitions
1 - 2
2. Public Resource Management Group's Proposal
3 - 30
3. Pacific Municipal Consultant's Proposal
31 - 65
4. Maximus' Proposal
66- 105Rank 3 6 8
Responding Firms
Criteria
1) Thoroughness of response and
understanding of the Task to be
completed.
2) Responsiveness to requirements
of the project.
3) Software Capability
4) Firm's experience in financial
studies.
5) Overall experience of staff
assigned to the project.
6) Time required to accomplish the
requested services.
TOTAL SCORE
I Rating
Weight
Scale
Raw Wght Raw -Wght Raw Wr g -ht Raw Wght Raw -Wght Raw Wght Raw Wght •
Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score
Score Score Score Score Score
Pacific
Municipal
Consultants Muni-
(PMC) Financial
Public Public
Resource Financial Macias
Management Jefferson Management Consulting
NBS Group (PRM) Maximus Wells Group (PFM) Group
Raw
Score
Wght
Score
2 2.4
2 2.36
1 1.18
3 3.36
4 4.8
1 1.12
13 15.22 100.0% 22 25.62
3.36
4.8
5.6
4 4.48 2 2.24
2 2.4 3 3.6
4 4.48 1 1.12
20 23.22 16 18.82|109| 3.54 3 3.54
4.72 4 4.72
4 best
1 worst
3 best
1 worst
5 best
1 worst
5 best
1 worst
5 best
1 worst
5 best
1 worst
20.0%
18.0%
18.0%
12.0%
20.0%
12.0%
3 3.54 3 3.54 2 2.36
5 5.9 3 3.54 3 3.54
1 1.12 5 5.6 3 3.36
4 4.8 3 3.6 5 6
5 5.6 4 4.48 5 5.6
22 25.76 22 2556 20 23.26
1.18
5.6
3.6
20 23.12
Comprehensive User Fees Charges Study
Evaluation Criteria Matrix
17) Proposed Cost of Service $35,275 $26,500 $33,000
$31,500-
$37,900
$45,500 $98,825 $70,000 $99,700Comprehensive User Fee and Charges Study
Evaluation Criteria and Rating Scale Definitions
Criteria Scale Definitions
1) Thoroughness of response and
understanding of the task to be
completed.
4— Extremely thorough. Response addressed all
request tasks and demonstrated an excellent
understanding of the project.
3 — Very thorough. Response addressed all
requested tasks and demonstrated a good
understanding of the project.
2 — Adequate. Response addressed all requested
tasks and demonstrated a limited understanding of
the project.
1 — Not thorough. Response did not adequately
address all requested tasks and did not demonstrate
an adequate understanding of the project.
2) Responsiveness to requirements
of the project.
3 — Exceeds requested tasks in the RFP (offers
additional options and tasks not specifically
requested)
2 — Meets requested tasks
1 — Does not meet request tasks
3) Software Capability 5 — Very Robust. Many data input options. Easy
to use. Good compatibility and easily maintained
by staff.
4— Limited input options. Easy to use. Good
compatibility and easily maintained by staff.
3 — Complex software. Not easily maintained by
staff.
2— Complex software. Limited input options. Not
easily maintained by staff. Licensing agreement
required.
1 — No software
4) Firm's experience in financial
studies.
5 — more than 20 years
4— 16 to 20 years
3-11 to 15 years
2 — 6 to 10 years
1 — Less than 6 years
5) Overall experience of staff
assigned to the project.
5 — Average of more than 20 years
4 — Average of 16 to 20 years
3 — Average of 11 to 15 years
2 — Average of 6 to 10 years
1 — Average of less than 6 years
6) Time required to accomplish the
requested service.
5 — 12 weeks or less
4 — 13 weeks
3— 14 weeks
2 — 15 weeks
1 — 16 weeks or moreAugust 24, 2006
Ms. Ela Valladares
Deputy City Clerk
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
Subject: Response to RFP: Proposal to provide a Comprehensive Citywide User Fee
Study
Dear Ms. Valladares and Proposal Review Committee:
T
hank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide Comprehensive User Fee Services
for the City of Culver City. Public Resource Management Group, LLC (PRM) is confident that our
firm offers the City of Culver City the best turnkey approach, the most experienced consulting
team, and a level of dedication to ensure all requirements are not only met, but exceeded.
Introduction
PRM was started with the belief that, to be successful, a company must focus its attention on a limited number
of services, hire only the most qualified people, and provide them with cutting edge tools. I believe that PRM
is accomplishing these three objectives.
Our long experience in providing these specific consulting services to California city governments has shown
that, while there are many factors that lead to a successful project conclusion, two are key — experience of the
project team and the project approach. PRM is fortunate to have been able to attract the very best and most
experienced professionals to our firm. A firm is only as good as the people that are in it. From this
foundation of experienced professionals, PRM has met or exceeded client expectations project by project,
building a bank of positive references that include every project that we have completed. Our conviction is to
remain with a project until the client is pleased regardless of profit motives.
Technical Background/Experience:
The best indicator of the qualifications of a consulting firm is the testimony of the clients they serve. PRM is
proud of the growth of our firm. We believe that no other firm is as technically qualified as is PRM. From the
inception of our firm, we committed to excellence at a few things — rather than mediocrity at many things.
This strategy has served us very well. PRM has 15 staff members, most of whom have over 15 years of
experience with cost allocation plan development, indirect cost rate calculation, the principles in federal circular
OMB A-87, and with the calculation of the full cost of providing user fee services. Our proposed project team
has completed cost plans and user fee studies in more than 16 states, including many for local governments in
the state of California.PRM currently provides cost allocation and user fee calculation services to more local government agencies in
California than do all other consulting firms combined. In just a short 36 month period, PRM has become the
leading cost accounting firm in the West.
Currently PRM counts thirteen of the largest California cities as clients.
Thirteen of the Top Twenty Largest Cities
• San Diego • Riverside
• San Jose • Stockton
• San Francisco • Bakersfield
• Long Beach • Glendale
• Sacramento • Huntington Beach
• Oakland • Oxnard
• Anaheim
In addition to the projects above, PRM has been selected to provide cost plan/user fee services to
cities across the country including Denver, Colorado: Miami, Florida: Salem, Oregon: Spokane
Washington, and Portsmouth, Virginia. Currently we provide consulting services to governmental
agencies in 16 states. PRA4 believes that no firm could be recently selected by so many large,
complex city governments if that firm did not have the highest technical and customer service
qualifications possible.
We cannot think of any better testament to highlight our work than that of our success in attracting
the most experienced professionals to our firm, which has led to becoming the consulting firm of
choice for so many of the largest agencies in the West. Many of our clients have requested our cost
plan and user fee preparation services on an annual basis. We are pleased that we have not lost one
cost plan client to a competitor. We believe that our clients are our best advertising. Please contact
them for a third party confirmation of our attention to detail, our ability to meet schedules, our
professionalism in all areas of our work, and our determination to respect all of our clients equally.
Approach:
PRM has found that most of our clients are more interested in the full cost analysis process than most
firms understand. Our approach is designed with a focus on communication, workshops, a prepared and
experience project team and an unrelenting drive to have every project a success.
Historically, cost accounting firms treated these projects as very narrow accounting exercise. Typically
the analysis would be completed, delivered and used to obtain one or two numbers then put on a shelf.
With this as the prevailing mind set for most cost plan/user fee projects, the consultant approached the
project in a similar manner. PRM's approach is much different. Our approach has the following broad
framework:
• Communication Plan: complete with workshops, interviews and written material using charts
and graphs.|1010| Public Resource Management Group, LLC
City of Culver City Proposal 2MI11011111 City of Culver City Proposal 3 Public Resource Management Group, LLC
• Software Design: software that is designed with "full disclosure" reporting, that produces
management reports, reconciliation schedules and trend analysis. The PRM user fee models
are Excel based. As such, the formats, formulas, and navigation are familiar to all city staff—
making the PRM models very easy to understand, follow and use. This makes it more likely
the city will actually use and therefore benefit from the project in future years as city staff
updates the project structure as expenditures and processes change.
• Technically Accurate: on-site time is required to ensure the user fee study is accurate. PRM
commits to a substantial amount of time on-site gathering data, interviewing departments,
reviewing draft reports, etc. to ensure that there will be a strong foundation to support a
successful conclusion for this proposed project.
• Real Team Approach: PRM rejects the traditional consulting approach of having the most
experienced team member be labeled "Project Director." All PRM officers are "working
owners." We have found the best way to control quality is to be on-site working side-by-
side with our excellent staff members.
• Project Team: The references and project examples we use in our proposal are the projects
the Culver City proposed team has completed. We feel it is important to provide PRM
references — that have had actual experience with our proposed team members.
• Experience with Cities of Similar Size: Within the past 24 months our teams have completed
many projects for cities with population under 60,000. For example our clients, Redondo
Beach, Whittier, Los Alamitos, Dublin, Agoura Hills and La Habra are all cities with
populations between 5,000 and 60,000.
We appreciate this opportunity to submit this proposal. We are confident that the combination of our
solid staff of professionals and our unique approach will produce an excellent project for the city of Culver
City. We look forward to reviewing our proposal in more detail if we fortunate enough to be selected
for an interview. Per the request in the RFP, this proposal shall remain valid for a period of not less than
90 calendar days for the date of submittal.
Sincerely,
J Bradley Wilkes
Managing Principal-.-
111 n1111 lilt Public Resource Management Group, LLC City of Culver City Proposal 4
II) Executive Summary
P
ublic Resource Management Group (PRM) is a firm focused on the analysis of the full cost of
governmental services. This includes the development of OMB A-87 and full cost allocation plans,
indirect cost rates, the full cost of providing user fee services and SB 90 claiming services and other
related cost and revenue enhancement consulting services. As a focused, California-based company, PRM's
business model facilitates providing excellent service and quick response at professional fees which reflect a
low overhead structure.
PRM's managing principal has a long history of providing professional consulting services to local government
in California. Mr. Brad Wilkes began working with local governments in California in 1982 as a front-line
consultant with DMG. Since that time, he has prepared hundreds of cost allocation plans, user fee calculations
and indirect cost rate studies. When he left DMG-Maximus, he was the company's Director for all consulting
projects, staff members and offices in the Western States. One of the reasons Mr. Wilkes and many of the
current PRM staff members left their previous employer was in order to create a company, where we are free
to work with each client — to meet project schedules and to meet expectations for technical quality —
regardless of the profit motives many larger companies are required to consider.
This project presents a complex opportunity. The services requested are challenging and require not only
technically sound consultants, but ones who have the stature required to make presentations to a diverse
group of City staff and managers.
The PRM team of local government consultants represents the most experienced individuals available in the
Western United States. Amongst our proposed project team members, we have completed hundreds of cost
of service studies for city governments. PRM will conduct a thorough analysis of the full cost of the
programs/services within the city's general fund. Our strengths are:
A. Experience With the Culver City Governmental Structure:
PRM currently prepares the city's cost allocation plan. This document is vital to the development of
the full cost of user fee related services. Ms. Payton and Mr. Wilkes have been involved in cost and
revenue enhancement projects for the city many times over the past 20 years. Our project team
has extensive experience with the city's departments, financial reports, and city structure. This
knowledge will be very beneficial as we approach a citywide general fund user fee study. Our
project team will be able to "hit the ground running" and because of our experience, will be able to:
• Reduce the demand on city staff time
• Seamlessly integrate the PRM cost allocation data into the PRM user fee worksheets
• Build off our already established relationships with city departments
B. Experience With Agencies of Similar Size to Culver City — Neighboring Clients to
Culver City:
The firm selected to provide this review should have a long and extensive history with the analysis of
the full cost of user fee services. Hopefully, the firm will have staff members with more experienceCity of Santa Barbara
Jill Taura
Budget Director
805-564-5528
City of Encinitas
Jay Lembach
Finance Manager
760-633-2640
Justin Hess
Finance Department
818-238-5500
MI11111111 City of Culver City Proposal 5 Public Resource Management Group, LLC
than that of the city who have already developed a good understanding themselves. Otherwise, the
information gained from the study will be of little worth.
PRM staff have been providing similar consulting services to California city governments since 1982.
Projects such as the one outlined in this RFP, have numerous factors that, if handled correctly, will
lead to a successful result. PRM is confident in our ability to anticipate and address any issue that
may arise in this project. Our confidence is shared by numerous governments of similar size that
have recently selected PRM in the competitive bidding process.
In just the past 36 months, PRM has been selected to provide user fee related cost analysis services
for many of Culver City's southern California city neighbors. Many of these clients have populations
of 20,000 to 60,000 and have a very complex array of both traditional and non-traditional user fee
related programs and services. PRM was selected for a variety of reasons, two of which are: I) the
vast experience of our team leaders, and 2) the large staff we are able to assemble and assign to
projects. PRM is not limited to one or two experienced staff members, who are then teamed with
younger, inexperienced staff members. Given PRM's focus on user fee related studies and our large
staff, we are able to assign experienced staff members to all of our projects — regardless of size. The
results are: timely project completions, accurate calculations, and overall project acceptance.
Three projects which exemplify PRM's strengths are those completed in Burbank, Encinitas and
Santa Barbara. In all three cases, PRM completed the projects successfully. The proposed project
for the City of Culver City is also challenging in scope. Both the complex and vast number of
services/programs offered, the various layers of cost (indirect and direct), the interaction between
peer departments such as building and planning, recreation services and park/field maintenance, etc.
all combine to present a challenging project. PRM has the experience, resources, and experience to
tackle this challenge. Please contact the following southern California cities as references:
City of BurbankPublic Resource Management Group, LLC
City of Culver City Proposal 6
C. User Fee Calculation Methodology:
User fee calculation methodology must address various factors. These factors are I) cost- related
factors and, just as importantly, 2) transaction-related factors. Cost-related factors include:
• Personnel costs (staff members providing the service)
• Fringe benefit costs
• Service and supply costs
• Overhead or indirect cost
Transaction factors include:
• Hours spent providing user fee services (both per unit and for a program in total)
• Number of units of service provided
PRM will review the city's methodology and ensure all factors are considered in the calculation of user
fees. However, there are several areas of risk that are often given only cursory attention when
developing full cost user fee rates. One particular area is the analysis of indirect costs. This area is
often overlooked because of the inexact science of calculation of the various layers of administration
and support provided to user fee services. To accurately calculate citywide indirect costs, an analysis
of indirect costs must be made. PRM will ensure that the city's current methodology accurately
considers all layers of indirect costs.
In a full user fee study, this would typically require that a cost allocation plan be prepared. Since the
City of Culver City already has a PRM developed cost plan, this step will fold into the user fee study
very well. PRM consultants have prepared more cost allocation plans than has any other group of
individuals in the State. Our cost plan report was designed with input from clients, the State
Controller's Office and our some 70 years' worth of experience represented by our consulting team
members. The resulting cost plan software and printed report is the most complete and easy-to-read
cost plan report available. When combined with our "Cost Plan 101" workshops, our cost allocation
plan process has been well received by our clients.
PRM develops cost allocation plans, using the generally accepted guidelines that meet all the goals of
the study which are set forth by the State Controller's Office. Our team s second to none in has vast
experience understanding how citywide indirect costs should flow into a user fee calculation.
Additionally, the cost plan will:
a. Ensure enterprise (if any) funds are being allocated full cost
b. Ensure citywide allocations are eing allocated to user fee departments in enough detail
c. Allocate all layers of overhead f r accurate "fully burdened hourly rates"
d. Link the cost plan with the PRN Excel-based user fee system
e. Provide OMB A-87 related allo ations for State and Federal claiming opportunities
PRM currently prepares both an OMB -87 cost plan and a full cost allocation plan for Culver City;
therefore, a detailed description of our 4ost plan process is not included in this proposal.D. User Fee Analysis — Fully Burdened Hourly Rates — Focus on Development Related User
Fees:
PRM has recently completed full cost calculations for a number of city development departments. For
example, PRM completed a user fee study for the development departments in Long Beach,
Sacramento and San Francisco. These studies included the analysis of "per unit fees", valuation based
fees, and fees charged using hourly rates. For user fee services that are charged on an hourly basis or
on an "actual cost" basis, PRM is expert at developing indirect cost rates which address all layers of
overhead — citywide indirect costs, departmental indirect costs as well as program related indirect
costs. We have prepared fully burdened hourly rates for staff positions in all of our user fee studies.
In the past year we have prepared these rates for over 40 agencies in California. PRM's background
with the development of full cost hourly rates will provide our staff with the expertise necessary to
complete this project.
E. User Fee Software Module:
User fee calculations should be updated on a periodic basis. The calculations are often updated using
a Consumer Price Index factor, or a general percentage increase based on the city's budget growth
or salary increases. The city could maintain the detailed user fee calculations using an Excel based
spreadsheet. PRM will assist the city in understanding the benefits of these alternatives. PRM will
include, as part of this study, the fully tested software completely based in Microsoft Excel. The
software allows for the actual update of each cost component such as: staff salaries, benefits, supply
and services and all layers of overhead. The software also allows for the updating of the various
transaction counts such as: number of permits completed, number of inspections, number of
participants, and number of hours rented, etc. These transactions can affect the "per unit" of a
service as much or more than the various cost components. Any analysis only considering cost
factors may be inaccurate.
The PRM software also allows for generalized updating, as well. CPI and budget increase
percentage factors can be entered department—by-department, and all cost factors used in the
calculations will change accordingly.
F. Communication Plan:
PRM believes the success of this project will hinge on the consultant's ability to communicate results.
To address the importance of this factor, PRM recommends the development of a communication
plan. While this plan is typically provided for our full study clients, it would also be very useful if this
study only included steps 1 through 3, as well. This plan can be fine tuned for the unique nature of
Culver City, but, in general, our plan includes the following broad steps:
Step One: Do not wait to introduce the study until the project's completion. There is too much
information to digest if communication waits until the end of the project. PRM has been successful
in laying the groundwork for the underpinnings of the project by conducting a "Full Cost of
Governmental Service — Workshop 101". This presentation reviews the principles of direct and
indirect costs. We review. what a cost allocation is, how it was developed by the federal
government, and its historic role in calculating the support costs of government. We walk the
audience through the process of reading an indirect cost analysis, calculating "overhead" allocations
to user fee related programs and following how its numbers flow into a user fee study It is
Public Resource Management Group, LLC
City of Culver City Proposal 7J0
Public Resource Management Group, LLC City of Culver City Proposal 8 II iiiii 111111
imperative that a solid understanding of the process be developed up front, before the results are
presented. The PRM software is linked; so that the flow of data between indirect and direct costs in
the user fee study is seamless and easier to understand than is that of most other professionally
prepared cost plan and user fee documents.
Step Two: With the groundwork laid in step one, our staff fans out across the departments and
meets individually with city staff. Departments that are indirect or administrative in nature are met
with to continue more detailed discussions of how their services support and interact with those
direct services offered in user fee related departments. Department staff that provide direct
support are analyzed, data is collected and the analysis is developed.
Step Three: Presentation of interim results. When preliminary results are obtained, PRM has found
it helpful to provide a presentation to interested parties. This is part of the "no-surprises" approach
to consulting to which PRM adheres. This allows decision makers the opportunity to prepare
themselves for the final results, reducing the chances of having staff, managers and elected officials
being caught off guard.
Step Four Presentation of final results. It is our experience that this step may require two
presentations. The first would be a presentation of the results, and a second follow-up meeting may
be required to answer questions and re-present the project, given questions and concerns brought
up in the first meeting.
PRM believes that this communication plan will be vital to the success of this project. However, our
long career has taught us that one can not plan for everything. Even the best plans sometimes go
awry. Our long history in providing these services to local governments gives us the confidence that
will be able to address any surprises that will inevitably arise.
In addition to our standard references, the following are clients who selected PRM over other firms
because of the value they placed on our ability to communicate and present project results. Please
feel free to call any of these clients to ask specifically about our presentations and workshops. In
addition, two excellent references are:
Santa Barbara
County of Riverside
Ms. Jill Taura
Mr. Mike Alexander
Finance Department
Chief of Audits
jtaura(@,ci.santa-barbara.ca.us
malexander@co.riverside.ca.us
805-564-5528
95 I -955-3866
In summary, the project proposed is a wide ranging study of all the user fee related programs
and services. The PRM project team has the varied background and experience to address all
the areas of concern expressed by the City. PRM looks forward to this opportunity to work
with the City of Culver City. It also offers a chance to tackle a challenging project and build a
solid foundation of full cost analyses that will benefit the City for years to come.11111111111
11
City of Culver City Proposal 9 Public Resource Management Group, LLC
III) Qualifications of the Company & Project
Team
T
he project will be conducted by a combination of. Mr. Brad Wilkes, Ms. Erin Payton, Mr. Jeff Wakefield
and Mr. Mike Adams. Mr. Wilkes, Mr. Wakefield and Ms. Payton have over 20 years of experience -
specifically, in cost allocation and user fee cost analysis and calculation. Mr. Adams has been a part of the
PRM project team that completed our successful projects in: Encinitas, Huntington Beach and Long Beach,
and has six years of experience. PRM's ability to provide a team of with this experience is unique among
consulting firms. No other firm can offer such an experienced staff.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
PRM is extremely well qualified to complete this study. Together our project team has completed hundreds
of cost plan and user fee projects in the state of California. In just the past year we have worked with many
other southern California cities such as Burbank, Redondo Beach, Huntington Beach, Santa Barbara, Long
Beach, Los Alamitos, Irvine, Encinitas, La Mesa, Chino Hills, Whittier, Burbank, La Habra, Culver City, and
Upland are all cost plan/user fee clients. Our growth rate has been excellent and is an independent testament
to the quality of our work We have grown from a one person company to a team of 15 within 36 months.
Our client list has grown from one client in October of 2002 to over 100 current clients. While other
consulting firms have lost clients and staff, PRM has grown. Our enthusiasm and dedication to meeting or
exceeding our client's expectations has made PRM an attractive place to work. We believe our clients benefit
from our success of attracting only the very best professionals that enjoy providing these professional services.
A. Project Management
The consultants offered on our project team are all senior level consultants. Together, our team will serve
both as management and as on-site consultants. We will have no junior level consultant working on the
Culver City project. The proposed PRM team managers include: Mr. Brad Wilkes, Ms. Erin Payton and Mr.
Jeff Wakefield.
Together, we will be responsible for project schedules, on-site interviews, data management, document
preparation and presentations. Mr. Wilkes has served as a project consultant, manager, senior manager, vice
president and regional director for David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (DMG) and DMG-Maximus. He has
participated, managed, and led hundreds of consulting engagements — many similar to the project requested by
the City of Culver City.City/County of San Francisco
City of Campbell, California
City of Sacramento, California
City of Burbank, California
City of Culver City, California
City of Concord, California
City of Watsonville, California
City of Stockton, California
City San Diego, California
City of Los Angeles, California
County of Sacramento, California
Counties of Glenn, Inyo, Lassen, Mono
and Mann California
City of Gresham, Oregon
City of Portland, Oregon
County of Clackamas, Oregon
County of Pierce, Washington
City of Provo, Utah
County of Salt Lake, Utah
City of Tacoma, Washington
City of Miami, Florida
MIll I I I iii•i Public Resource Management Group, LLC City of Culver City Proposal 10
B. Experience:
There is no better measure of experience than actual project experience. A sample of the agencies Mr.
Wilkes has personally prepared cost full cost studies for includes:
Additional clients serviced by our proposed project team during their careers include:
Alameda Fresno Morro Bay San Luis Obispo
Brentwood Grover Beach Ontario San Mateo
Burbank Hercules Orange Santa Clara
Calistoga Hermosa Beach Oroville Santa Monica
Camarillo Lathrop Palo Alto Santa Paula
Campbell Lompoc Pasadena South San Francisco
Colfax Long Beach Pinole St. Helena
Compton Los Gatos Placer County Stockton
Concord Manhattan Beach Rancho Cucamonga Suisun City
Culver City Menlo Park Redondo Beach Sunnyvale
Danville Milpitas Los Alamitos Temecula
Dixon Mission Viejo Richmond Torrance
El Centro Modesto Sacramento Watsonville
El Segundo Moorpark San Fernando Wheatland
Emeryville Moreno Valley San Francisco Whittier
Fairfield Morgan Hill San Jose Woodland-
U11111111111 Public Resource Management Group, LLC City of Culver City Proposal 11
C. Staffing Plan for Culver City Project
After reading the Culver City RFP carefully, our firm has assembled what we consider to be the best, most
qualified project team for your City's engagement. PRM has successfully implemented the "team approach" to
most of our larger studies. This approach was pioneered by PRM and is possible because of the large number
of experienced consultants we have. The benefit of this approach is by placing our functional experts in the
areas of their expertise, we produce more accurate results and since all phases of the project are completed in
a parallel fashion, project timelines and schedules are more easily met. The project team and approach is
illustrated below.
Project Role Name Title Scope of Services
Project Director: J. Bradley Wilkes Managing Principal Presentations/User Fee Interviews
Senior Manager: Erin Payton Senior Manager User Fee Study - Overall
Senior Manager Jeff Wakefield Senior Manager User Fee Analysis — Development
Staff: Mike Adams Manager User Fee Analysis — Public Safety
Mr. Wilkes will be responsible for the entire projects. He is a "working owner" and will participate in
presentations and in on-site work. Mr. Wakefield is one of the state's most experienced development related
(planning, building, engineering) user fee project managers. He just completed our project in the city of San
Francisco where he focused on development-related fee services. Mr. Adams has extensive experience with
all user fee services, and his recent experience with the public safety-related fees in the cities of Redondo
Beach, Los Alamitos, Huntington Beach, and Long Beach make him an excellent user fee expert. Ms. Payton
will be responsible for the project overall, and will focus on recreation related services.
Each PRM consultant has extensive experience with the programs and services provided by the particular
department they are assigned to. This eliminates the need for the department to "train" the consultant in the
services and programs they offer. In addition, with specifically trained consultants, new fees are more easily
identified department by department, examples of services/fees charged in neighboring PRM client cities are
used as examples (Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Santa Barbara, Redondo Beach, Los Alamitos, La Mesa, etc.)
making the interview process smoother and more productive and department staff are more confident that
the consultant is knowledgeable — which helps the process more professional and productive.
In addition the PRM team approach allows special consideration to be given to the unique issues which are
found in each department, i.e.:
How do the new state laws related to the recovery of long range
planning costs fit into current planning fees? What cities in the state
charge a "technology" fee surcharge?
What does the state law require in terms of fees based on valuation
vs. a "Nexus" approach which ties fees to a "time and materials"
approach? How do neighboring cities charge building inspection
fees? How did these cities approach changing from the traditional
valuation based method to the Nexus approach?
Planning Fees:
Building Inspection Fees:Public Safety
Services
User Fee
Team
Recreation UF
Services FULL COST
OF SERVICES
User Fee
Team
Recreation Fees:
Public Safety Fees:
How do peer departments support the various services? Park
maintenance supporting recreation activities, etc. How are these
support costs calculated to reflect full costs? Once full costs are
calculated, how does the "elasticity of demand" for each service
affect the decision to raise fees? How are the full costs of contract
classes calculated to include instructor fees, insurance, management,
building space costs, etc.?
How are the costs of code enforcement services calculated? Can
all police fees be charged at full costs? What are fees verses fines?
How are fire plan check costs factored into building inspection fees?
PRM has found the experience of the consultant sitting across the desk from the department representative is
directly related to the final success of the project. Therefore, PRM strongly believes in placing our experts
within the departments where they are most experienced.
Our coordinated project team approach is illustrated below.
General User
Fee Services
General User
Fee Team
Development
Related UF
Services
User Fee Team|1010| Public Resource Management Group, LLC
City of Culver City Proposal 121 5"
Public Resource Management Group, LLC II IIII41111
City of Culver City Proposal 13
Working Project Director
J. Bradley Wilkes, Managing Principal, PRM
Introduction 8c Experience:
Mr. Wilkes specializes in governmental cost of service studies. He has a 20 year background in local
government consulting focusing on cost allocation development, user fee rate calculations, indirect cost rate
calculations, information technology, operations reviews, and cost of services for state and local governments.
He is the former Regional Director for all DMG-Maximus consulting offices in the Western United States. His
areas of expertise include state and local OMB A-87 cost allocation plans and user fee analyses, information
technology requirement and cost-benefit studies, project management, and rate and service cost analyses.
During his consulting career, Mr. Wilkes served as a consultant, manager, senior manager, vice president,
regional director and board member of DMG and DMG-Maximus, both national management consulting firms.
Mr. Wilkes received his B.A. from Brigham Young University, and his M.B.A. from California State University.
Representative Experience
1982-1985: As a consulting staff member, Mr. Wilkes was responsible for approximately 20 annual cost
allocation plans, user fee and indirect cost rate calculations for city and county governments in California,
Oregon and Washington. As a team member, Mr. Wilkes participated in data gathering efforts,
departmental interviews, and document preparation.
1985-1987: As a consulting manager and senior manager, Mr. Wilkes was responsible for all phases of a
consulting project. Responsibility for client management and project scheduling were added to the day-to-
day responsibilities of project work.
1987-1992: As a vice president, Mr. Wilkes became responsible for project staff, project scheduling, and
project management. During this time, Mr. Wilkes was responsible for over 100 annual cost allocation
plan and indirect cost rate projects.
1992-2002: DMG-Maximus Regional Director for all consulting offices in the Western States. Duties included
the direction of 90 employees, five consulting offices, and over 400 annual individual consulting
engagements.
1982-2002: Each year during this 20 year period, Mr. Wilkes continued to participate in all phases of
consulting projects. In addition to his management responsibilities, he consistently maintained a list of
local government clients for whom he completed cost allocation plan and indirect cost rate projects. By
maintaining a continuous exposure to on-site client work, Mr. Wilkes maintained all the consulting skills
needed to complete any cost analysis related consulting project.
2002- Present Owner of Public Resource Management Group (PRM) currently completing cost of service
projects for several California public agencies.-
1111111111111 City of Culver City Proposal 14 Public Resource Management Group, LLC
Senior Project Manager
Erin Payton, Senior Manager
Introduction & Experience:
Ms. Payton has been performing governmental cost of service studies since 1986. She has a background in
local government consulting focusing on cost allocation development, and user fee rate calculations. She was
formerly a Director at Maximus Inc. Ms. Payton received her degree from UC Santa Barbara.
Representative Experience
• 1995-2002: As a senior manager and director with DMG-Maximus and Maximus Ms. Payton was
responsible for the management of all complex cost allocation and user fee related projects She
participated in all levels of service — project design, on-site interviewing and data gathering, computer
modeling, and all levels of presentations.
• 1990-2002: As a senior member of DMG, DMG-Maximus and Maximus, Ms. Payton continued to service
her cost allocation clients while taking on the additional responsibilities of training new consultants,
product development and other managerial duties.
• 2003 - Present As the first person to join the PRM team, Ms. Payton has completed many cost allocation
plans and user fee studies. She is the most experienced cost analyst in the Western United States - having
completed hundreds of cost plan and user fee studies for local governments
The following is a sample of representative governmental entities for which Ms. Payton has provided
professional services:
Alameda
Brentwood
Burbank
Calistoga
Camarillo
Campbell
Colfax
Compton
Concord
Culver City
Danville
Dixon
El Centro
El Segundo
Emeryville
Fairfield
Fresno
Grover Beach
Hercules
Hermosa Beach
Lathrop
Lompoc Richmond
Long Beach Sacramento
Los Gatos San Fernando
Manhattan Beach San Francisco
Menlo Park San Jose
Milpitas San Luis Obispo
Mission Viejo San Mateo
Modesto Santa Clara
Moorpark Santa Monica
Morgan Hill Santa Paula
Morro Bay South San Francisco
Ontario St Helena
Orange Stockton
Oroville Suisun City
Palo Alto Sunnyvale
Pasadena Temecula
Pinole Torrance
Placer County Watsonville
Rancho Wheatland
Cucamonga Whittier
Redondo BeachPublic Resource Management Group, LLC City of Culver City Proposal 15
( 1
Alf
MIMI WI
Senior Manager
Jeff Wakefield, Senior Manager, PRM
Introduction 8c Experience:
Mr. Jeff Wakefield has been performing governmental cost of service studies since 1986. He has a
background in local government consulting focusing on cost allocation development, and user fee rate
calculations. He was formerly a Director at Maximus Inc. Mr. Wakefield received his degree from
the University of Redlands.
Representative Experience
• 1995-2002: As a senior manager and director with DMG-Maximus and Maximus he was
responsible for the management of all complex cost allocation and user fee related projects He
participated in all levels of service — project design, on-site interviewing and data gathering,
computer modeling, and all levels of presentations.
• 1990-2002: As a senior member of DMG, DMG-Maximus and Maximus, Mr. Wakefield
continued to service his cost allocation clients while taking on the additional responsibilities of
training new consultants, product development and other managerial duties.
• 2002-2004: Senior member of the user fee analysis team at Muni-Finanical. While at Muni, Mr.
Wakefield directed the firms cost allocation plan and user fee analysis projects.
• 2004 — Present: As one of the first persons to join the PRM team, Mr. Wakefield has completed
several cost allocation plans and user fee studies. He is one of the most experienced cost analysts
in the Western United States - having completed hundreds of cost plan and user fee studies for
local governments.I .1111111111.1 Public Resource Management Group, LLC
City of Culver City Proposal 16
Manager
Mike Adams, Manager, PRM
Introduction 8( Experience:
Mr. Adams joined the PRM Group after nearly three years with DMG-Maximus. While at DMG, he
focused primarily on cost of service studies and cost allocation plans.
He has conducted numerous cost of service studies for cities and counties throughout California,
including the cities of Pittsburg, Redlands, La Habra, Whittier, Encinitas, Fresno, Temecula, El Centro,
Orange, Malibu, Covina and Banning, and the counties of Napa, Butte and Orange. In addition, Mr.
Adams completed cost allocation plans for Anaheim, California; Henderson, Nevada and the Long
Beach Energy Department
Mr. Adams graduated from Arizona State University in 2001 with a Bachelor of Science degree in
Economics.
Mr. Adams has done extensive analysis of all City departments and assisted with the development of a
new building fee methodology, which has been implemented for many municipalities. While
contracted by the counties of Butte and Napa, Mr. Adams was involved with all aspects of the county-
wide cost analysis and primarily focused on the environmental management, animal control and •
agriculture departments. Working with these departments required distinct knowledge of many state
assessed rules and regulations.
Representative Experience
• October 2003- present PRM Group: Mr. Adams has been a lead consultant and the
following user fee studies since joining PRM: Pittsburg, Huntington Beach, Santa Barbara, La Mesa,
Emeryville and Placer County. He is currently working on the PRM user fee projects in Long
Beach, Los Alamitos, Orange County Fire Authority and Irvine.
• July 200I-April 2003: DMG/Maximus, Inc: Mr. Adams was made a senior consultant after his
first year with DMG/Maximus. During his time with DMG/Maximus he participated in numerous
user fee and cost allocation plan projects. His experience included projects with: Fresno, El
Centro, Temecula, Orange, Covina and Banning. He also completed projects for the counties of:
Butte, Orange and Napa.IV) Scope of Work
T
he City's RFP listed the analysis to include the development of a comprehensive user fee
analysis. To assist the city in understanding the methodology PRM uses when conducting full
cost analysis user fee studies, the following information is provided.
As PRM approaches a full service user fee study, we are guided by three overriding goals, I) produce
the most technically sound project possible, 2) manage the project in a professional manner to
ensure as much "buy-in" as possible by city departments and, 3) produce management reports that
are professionally presented, informative and useful. Our project approach supports these objectives.
A. Project Approach:
The city has requested information related to the full cost of providing city services, specifically:
> Development of the full cost of general fund user fee related services
> Compare selected fees to fees charged in neighboring cities
> Option: Install PRM user fee software (Excel Worksheets)
The steps required to calculate the full cost of services involve the calculation of I) indirect cost and
2) direct cost. The chart below provides an overview of the calculation process. Each example of
indirect and direct cost is illustrated. Indirect costs are broken into three levels.
The first level illustrates costs to support the entire city government structure or "citywide" indirect
costs. In the example below, a citywide cost such as payroll service to a recreation department staff
member is labeled a citywide indirect service (top level of squares). This layer of cost is identified
and calculated in the city's full cost allocation plan.
Department-wide support services, or the second level of indirect costs, are those that support staff
in only one department (second level of squares). Finally, the third level of indirect costs are those
accounted for within the program itself (third level of squares). This level includes costs such as: clerical
support, certain supply and services, etc. Finally, the direct cost is solely the cost of the service
provided by the sports leader (in the example below) who directly interacts with the
customers/citizens (final square).
The chart below illustrates the various levels of indirect versus direct cost
Public Resource Management Group, LLC
City of Culver City Proposal 17Gtywide
Indirect Costs
Departrrentvvide
Incittect Costs
1111111131111 City of Culver City Proposal 18 Public Resource Management Group, LLC
PRM uses federally approved guidelines and generally accepted indirect costing methods to identify and
calculate these levels of costs. The cost allocation process is used to allocate citywide indirect costs
throughout the city government structure. The development of the city's cost allocation plan is the
first step in calculating the full cost of city services. This document will be key to all othel- cost
calculations made in the study. Departmental and program indirect cost rates are also calculated to
determine the level of departmental indirect costs used to support a direct city service. Once the
indirect costs are calculated, the data is integrated into the PRM user fee software and combined with
the direct cost analysis to form a full cost calculation.
The steps involved in a full cost of services study include:
I. Including the allocations from the city's currently developed PRM cost allocation plan
a. Costs allocated — ensure all indirect costs are being allocated for use in a user fee
study
2. Development of a User Fee Study
a. Identification/Inventory of all user fee related services
b. Review fee structures in various departments (fixed fee vs. hourly rates vs. Nexus
approach in building inspection)
c. Calculation of the direct cost of each user fee service
i. Salary cost of direct staff supplying service
ii. Fringe benefits
iii. Direct services and supplies
d. Full Cost Identification
i. Integrate indirect cost data from the cost allocation plan
ii. Integrate direct cost dataAlk
Public Resource Management Group, LLC City of Culver City Proposal 19
e. Subsidy Analysis
f. Develop a comparison of fee levels among other selected cities.
g. Install PRM user fee software (Excel Worksheets)
i. Allows the city to update information on an annual basis
B. Work Plan:
Step I: Project Introductory Meeting
To ensure a successful start, PRM recommends holding an introductory meeting with key staff
members that include both general fund departments and non-general fund departments. Of course,
PRM will look to city staff for guidance for the purpose and content of the meeting and for a list of
invitees. PRM considers an initial meeting designed to review the project's overall goals and objectives
vital to a successful outcome. Agenda items for the introductory meeting could include:
> An explanation of the cost plan and user fee analysis process
> The purpose of a full cost study
> How other cities use full costing
> Example summary reports produced by the project
> Questions and answers
> Etc.
Step 2: Data Review
As soon as possible, lists of basic data requirements will be developed. They include: lists of selected
staff salary levels, benefit cost detail, operational budgets, transaction statistics, etc. PRM will work
with the city to develop and gather needed data in the most efficient way. Once this basic data is
acquired, the cost plan and rate structures will be developed.
Step 3: Cost Allocation Plan Review.
PRM will review the allocations from the most recent cost allocation plan and ensure that those
citywide overhead costs are included accurately into the PRM user fee worksheets. Since the city
currently has a PRM cost plan, the format and methodology fits naturally into the corresponding PRM
user fee module.
Step 4: User Fee Direct Cost Analysis:
a) User Fee Inventory: Working with city staff, an inventory of all current user fee charges
will be developed. This list will include all general fund services provided to the public for which fees
are charged. The objectives of the inventory are to identify all general fund user fee charges matched
to the departments which supply the services. In some cases, more than one department will
participate on a particular service. Information such as the following will be reviewed:
fee history
rate increase history
revenue history1U1 iiiii 7111 City of Culver City Proposal 20 Public Resource Management Group, LLC
fee purpose
# of units completed each year
departments providing service
b) Departmental Interviews: With information from the fee inventory, each department
supplying user fee services will be interviewed. Using the PRM interview forms, the following data will
be gathered:
• Staff members providing service
• Amount of time:
Required to complete one unit of the service
Per year spent supplying the service
• Activity statistics such as:
# completed per year
# completed last fiscal year
Estimated # of units completed in the coming fiscal year
The key statistics needed from a departmental interview are: individual staff estimates of time spent
providing each service, and the number of units completed on an annual basis. In each department
interview, 100% of each staff member's time is identified to ensure that no service, user fee related or
not, is excluded from the full cost analysis.
(Optional — Building Department Nexus Study):
Traditionally, city building departments have depended on the Uniform Building Code (UBC) rate
tables to establish building inspection and plan check fees. A fee study can review the revenue
generation of these tables and recommend general increases and/or adjustments to the UBC rate
factors depending on the total cost of the building department. Several PRM clients have requested
that PRM conduct a more thorough "Nexus" study that develops a new method and basis for
charging fees.
This nexus method makes a firm connection between hours and cost of service that some feel is
lacking in the traditional UBC table method. We are currently conducting this analysis for the cities of
Roseville and Whittier. The city may want to explore moving to an actual cost basis for inspection
services. Because this process is more detailed and time consuming, we offer it on optional basis. If
the City desires this approach, PRM will be pleased to develop a process for it.
c) Financial Analysis: Once the basic time and workload transaction data is gathered from
the departmental interviews, salary data, departmental service and supply cost data is entered into the
PRM user fee software. This departmental data is integrated with the indirect cost data developed
within the PRM cost allocation plan module. The direct costs and indirect cost of each fee is
calculated and displayed for review.
d) User Fee Management Reports: All the financial, transaction and comparison data is
reported in the final management reports. Each department is provided an opportunity to review the
cost/revenue data at least two separate times. This ensures that the raw data is as accurate as
possible, resulting in a more reliable final report.SUMMARY:
Once the data analysis is completed PRM assists the city with presentations to management, elected
officials and to the public as needed. PRM looks forward to assisting the city in the full study analysis if
that option is selected.
C. Tentative Schedule:
Our project schedule is designed to complete the project within a three month time period, but PRM
is flexible to match the timeline desired by the city.
Month: October Weeks One and Two:
I) Meet with City management team and department heads to review study goals and
objectives. Provide kick off meeting per the suggested communication plan.
2) Obtain budgets, salary levels, staff lists, 8( expenditure data
3) Begin meetings with departments
4) Begin structuring project data into PRM systems
Month: October Weeks Three and Five:
I) Obtain any feedback from departments, continue communication, and answer
questions.
2) Enter transaction data into the PRM models ("estimated time" to complete data)
Month: November Weeks One through Four:
I) Produce any draft models completed
2) Meet with departments to review draft worksheets and discuss outstanding items
Month: December, Weeks One and Two:
I) Link Cost Plan Allocations to User Fee Worksheets
2) Produce second user fee draft worksheets
3) Obtain feedback and comments
Month: December, Weeks Three through four:
I) Deliver final user fee worksheets
2) Develop final project reports
3) Install user fee model/provide training
Public Resource Management Group, LLC
City of Culver City Proposal 21411111111111110
11111111 III Public Resource Management Group, LLC City of Culver City Proposal 22
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE OUTLINE:
Project Step:
Project Weeks: Oct I 2 3 4 5 Nov: I 2 3 4 Dec: I 2 3 4 Jan:
Initial Meetings:
CAP/User Fee Interviews:
st Draft of Reports:
Comments/Changes:
Final Reports Delivered/Meetings:
Final Study Reports Completed:
User Fee Models Installed:
The schedule above is representative of a summary of the steps required to complete the user fee study. The
schedule allows for a limited number of draft reports. The number of draft iterations is limited by the desired
schedule. If the city desires additional chances for review, the schedule can be adjusted to reflect the City's
final goals and objectives.Public Resource Management Group, LLC City of Culver City Proposal 23
V) Project Team References
P
RM believes the best indicator of success for a project of this magnitude, is the track record and
experience of the project team. PRM's project team has completed more cost plan and user fee
projects in the past 36 months than has any other consulting team in the west. Our work has been
for cities of all sizes. Recently, our proposed project team completed cost plan/user fee projects for
cities as large as San Francisco, Long Beach and Sacramento - and we are currently working with the
city of San Diego. In the past 20 years, we are not aware of another company or project team having
this kind of success with city governments this size. In addition to the complex challenges these
agencies represent, our project team has gained valuable "local" cost plan/user fee experience
working with neighboring cities such as Irvine, Los Alamitos, Long Beach, Huntington Beach, La Mesa,
Encinitas and our team is currently 80% complete with a user fee project in Redondo Beach.
Client References:
PRM is pleased to provide the following
CITY OF ENCINITAS:
PRM recently completed a full cost user fee analysis for this city. The study focused on development
related departments. The project was completed in the winter of 2006. Project staff included Ms.
Erin Payton, Mr. Mike Adams and Mr. Brad Wilkes. This project is unique because of their history
with litigation as it relates to building inspection fees. PRM worked closely with the city and the city's
attorney to prepare a fee analysis that would pass legal challenge. PRM has worked with this
particular city attorney in other cities and has developed a good relationship with his office. The
project was completed successfully.
Contact
Jay Lembach
Finance Manager
760-633-2640
jlembach@ci.encinitas.ca.usPublic Resource Management Group, LLC City of Culver City Proposal 24
CITY OF LONG BEACH:
PRM recently completed a full cost user fee analysis for this city. While this was a city-wide study,
special focus was given to development related departments. The project began in the summer of
2004 and was completed fall of 2005. In addition to the challenges of completing such a vast project
for such a large city, PRM provided additional emphasis to the analysis of development related services
in the city's new code enforcement department, related fire department inspections/plan check
services and building inspection/planning services. PRM provided the city an analysis "testing" the
traditional UBC valuation based building inspection fee methodology with state law — with the results
- the city elected to stay with that traditional billing methodology. The city of Long Beach Project staff
included Mr. Jeff Wakefield, Ms. Erin Payton, Mr. Mike Adams and Mr. Brad Wilkes. The project was
completed successfully.
Contact:
Rosie Bouquin
Finance Manager
562-570-7079
Rosie bouquin@longbeach.gov
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA:
PRM originally completed a full cost user fee analysis for this city in 2004. This was a city-wide study,
including all the development related activities. The city then selected PRM to complete an update to
the study later in 2005. The city has again requested that PRM to update the study in 2006/2007.
The original study included all general fund departments in the city. One of the highlights of this
project was the varied and interesting challenges represented by the park and recreation
departments. The parks department is responsible for 54 parks, many of which support recreation
activities. The PRM project worked closely with city staff to reflect the maintenance and field
preparation costs when calculating the full cost of those recreation programs. Project staff included
Mr. Jeff Wakefield, Ms. Nicky Cass, Mr. Mike Adams and Mr. Brad Wilkes. The project was
completed successfully.
Contact
Ms. Jill Taura
Budget Director
805-564-5528
jtaura@ci.santa-barbara.ca.usContact:
Ms. Kathleen Kinney
Accounting Manager
(916) 808-1936
KKinneycityofsacramento.org
City of Culver City Proposal 25
2.1
Public Resource Management Group, LLC
411
—
swum en
CITY OF SACRAMENTO:
Sacramento was one of PRM's first clients. Our project team has completed cost analysis projects for
the city of Sacramento each year since 2002. Project staff has included Mr. Jeff Wakefield, Ms. Nicky
Cass, and Mr. Brad Wilkes. Our annual projects have included cost allocation plans and user fee
studies.
CITY OF FOLSOM — Subject Matter Reference — PRM Commitment:
The city of Folsom is listed as a reference to emphasize our dedication and commitment to each
project — no matter how unique. The city of Folsom was very concerned with the building
community's reaction to the user fee study. The finance director knew that their understanding and
acceptance to the methodology was vital to a successful project. This concern was paramount.
Therefore, PRM worked with the finance director for months after the project was completed —
meeting with the building community numerous times (8 times) until they accepted the study. PRM
did not raise the project fee, because our commitment to the project meant we would do whatever
was necessary to ensure the project was a success. The project was a success and the council
accepted the project and fees were raised. Our annual projects have included cost allocation plans
and user fee studies.
Contact:
Mr. Nay Gill
Finance Director
916-355-7347
ngill@folsom.ca.usCITY OF BURBANK — Subject Matter Expert Reference — Long Term Client
Along with Sacramento, Burbank is one of our long term clients. Our project team has completed
cost analysis projects for the city of Burbank each year since 2002. Project staff has included Ms.
Nicky Cass, and Mr. Brad Wilkes. Our annual projects have included cost allocation plans and other
cost related studies.
Contact
Mr. Justin Hess
Accounting Manager
818-238-5500
JHess ci.burbank.ca.us
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH — Subject Matter Expert Reference — Public Safety:
Our project team completed a citywide user fee study for the city of Huntington Beach in 2005.
Project staff has included the same staff members as listed in this proposal. Our project included a
very thorough analysis of the public safety departments. Our fire department contact reference is:
Contact
Huntington Beach
Eric Engberg
Fire Marshal/Division Chief
714/536-5564
CITY OF IRVINE — Subject Matter Expert Reference — Park and Recreation:
Our project team completed a very thorough and focused user fee study for the city's park and
recreation department in 2005/2006. Project staff has included the same staff members as listed in
this proposal. Our park and recreation department contact reference is:
Contact
City of Irvine
Mike Cribbin
Community Services Sr. Management Analyst
949-724-6658
all
Public Resource Management Group, LLC lllll 11 111
City of Culver City Proposal 26Public Resource Management Group, LLC City of Culver City Proposal 27
29
MI111
VI) Project Budget
P
RM has been successful in providing the best level of service for reasonable prices. During the
competitive bidding process, a city often selects the lowest bidder. PRM has developed this
proposal using the following three assumptions — all of which affect the price of the study.
I) Using only experienced staff The price proposed below is based on using only
experienced team members. Mr. Wilkes, Ms. Payton, Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Adams will
actually be on-site working day-to-day.
2) Comparisons with Neighboring Programs: Because of our recent work with Los
Alamitos, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Redondo Beach, and Santa Barbara, and others,
PRM is able to offer extensive management information related to the charges in other city
governments.
3) Installing the PRM user fee Excel software so that the city can update the user fee data on
an annual basis (optional).
These factors make the PRM proposal unique. Therefore, it is important to note that PRM has the
ability to reduce our fee by using less experienced staff and/or by reducing our proposed project
scope. We have shown our fees using a range so that the city can select how detailed our study
needs to be to match the city's goals and objectives.
We will be pleased to negotiate our prices to reflect the final goals and objectives of the city.
Project Approach:
The city has requested information related to the full cost of providing city services. Specifically:
I. The calculation of indirect costs — all layers: citywide, department-wide and program level costs.
2. The development of a full cost user fee analysis calculating direct costs at the lowest level
possible.
3. The development of a user fee model for city use after the study is completed.
PRM estimates the following number of hours for the tasks listed above:
TASKS SR PRM STAFF PRM STAFF TOTAL
Cost Allocation Plan Review 1 3 4
User Fee Calculation Analysis 80 100 180
Presentations 8 8 16
User Fee Model/Training 5 5 10
Totals: 94 116 210'IP
Public Resource Management Group, LLC
all
-
MIMI III
City of Culver City Proposal 28
The number of hours listed above is based on our current understanding of the project. These
hours could change depending on further discussions with city staff and a more defined project
scope. Our average hourly rate, which includes expenses, for PRM staff is $150. We will not be
using subcontractors.
Our proposed professional fees are:
User Fee Study/Cost Plan Review. $ 27,600 - $34,000
Presentations: $ 2,400
Model: No Chg
Model Installation/Training. $ 1,500
Total Project $ 31,500 — 37,900CULVER CITY
COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE
USER FEES AND CHARGES
RATE STUDY
AUGUST 24, 2006PMC
Submitted to:
Ela Valladares
Deputy City Clerk
Culver City
9770 Culver Blvd., 1st Floor
Culver City, CA 90232
(310) 253-5851
Submitted by:
PMC
1590 Drew Avenue, Suite 120
Davis, CA 95618
Phone: (530) 750-7076 ext. 208
Fax: (530) 750-2811August 24, 2006
Ela Valladares
Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF CULVER CITY
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
RE: PROPOSAL TO PREPARE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE AND
RATE STUDY
Dear Ms. Valladares:
PMC is pleased to submit this proposal for the preparation of a Comprehensive
Citywide User Fee and Rate Study. PMC has assembled an experienced team of experts
from our Municipal Finance and Public Affairs Groups to conduct this important study
for the City.
The study and resulting fee report will review the current user fees contained in the
Master Fee Schedule adopted per Resolution 2006-053 that the City collects for its
services, and recommend appropriate updated fees that can recover the cost of
providing these services. As many of the existing fees may not have kept pace with the
growth in costs to deliver the service, it is desirable to recover costs through updated
user fees that comply with applicable laws, statutes and rules. Effective data collection,
observation and interviews with City staff, as well as a thorough review of fee programs
from other similar cities already identified by the City, will provide a foundation for this
work. A customized computer model will also be developed that will enable "what if"
analyses and changes to inputs by City staff.
This proposal reflects efforts to conduct the analysis for General Fund fee programs, as
well as the City's bus fares which is an enterprise fund. PMC's understanding is that
General Fund fees are the priority of the City to be updated, and PMC has carefully
crafted a detailed scope of work to address these needs. As the General Fund fee
programs cover a wide spectrum of user fee services, from licenses and permits to fines
and forfeitures to charges for services, PMC has proposed a methodology that
comprehensively analyzes the basis for these fees which will lead to the development of
defensible fee recommendations and updates.
PMC will draw upon the firm's senior municipal finance and public affairs personnel who
have recent experience with the services needed to undertake and prepare the study in
satisfaction of the City's requirements. For this important engagement,
Derek Wong,
AICP
will be assigned as the Project Manager responsible for day-to-day management
of the project team, schedule, and work products. Mr. Wong specializes in public
CH( 5A-3
140 1ndeoelalence Cirde
Silat.! C
ChiCO. CA 95973
:530) 894-3469 Phone
15301694-6459 Fax
DAVIS
1590 Drew Avenue
Siae 120
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 750-7076 Phone
(530) 750-2811 Fax
LOS ANGELES
21171 S Western Ave.mee.
SaW 200
1 ()ma., CA 90533
(310) 224-4500 Phone
(310) 320-5772 fa
MONTEREY
585 Cannery Row
Sive 334
Monterey. CA 939A0
(831) 644-9774 Phone
(831164,1 7096 Fax
SNAS
508 C4)6.61(-):)! Street
Sthte A
Shas:a GA 66067
(530) 926-4059 Phone
(530) 526,4279 Fax
OAKLAND
1440 Broadway
Stole 1 MB
040and, CA 94612
(510)272-4491 Phooe
(510126B-0207 Fay
71(346(3
1616 E innian School Road
Stnle 440
;tooth)) Al 85016
(602)279-13E0 Phnne.
(602)279-1356 Fax
11811098
10161 001P1k( n ',,1
Sale 11(1
Sxrwr-LI,;:, CA 95.Q.7
9194351-3284 Phone
(916)361-1574 Fax
FAN DIEGO
10951 Sairento Valley Raarl
Soto 1-A
San Diego. CA 92121
8515 4513-39137 Phone.
(858) 453-3628 fax
1-865-828-6762
PMC: www.parilicmunicipatcomElla Valladares, Deputy City Clerk
August 24, 2006
Page 2 of 2
facilities financing and user fee analysis, including General Fund and transportation related fees. Assisting
Mr. Wong will be Tom Bandy and Jerome Fournier who will each provide technical expertise to
this project. Each will apply their experiences with cost of services projects and development planning.
Kendall Flint will serve as communications specialist for an optional coordinated public input task.
PMC believes this unique and comprehensive arrangement will add value to the study and ensure our
responsiveness in each phase of the project.
The proposal shall remain valid for a period of not less than 90 calendar days from the date of submittal.
PMC is excited about this opportunity to work with the City, and we are eager to respond to this
project in a professional, timely and cost-effective manner.
PMC appreciates the opportunity to propose on this project and we look forward to answering any
questions you may have. Mr. Wong may be contacted at (530) 750-7076 ext. 208 in the event any
clarification is needed regarding the contents of our proposal. His contact information is as follows:
Derek Wong, AICP
Project Manager, Municipal Finance Manager
PMC
1590 Drew Ave, Suite 120
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 750-7076 ext. 208
dwong@pacificnnunicipal.com
Sincerely,
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS
Philip 0. Carter
President
POC:dw:kc
P:\Culver City\P06-0433 Culver City Citywide User Fees and Charges Rate Study\P06-0433 Culver City Cover Letter_ formatted.docPMC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1-1
Company 2-1
Project Team 2-2
Organizational Chart 2-4
Scope of Work/Implementation 3-1
Project Schedule 3-5
Proposed Compensation 3-7
Consultants and/or Subcontractors 4-1
Client References 5-1
Appendices
Appendix A—Ability to Comply
Appendix B—Resumes
Appendix C — Required AttachmentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MEETING COST RECOVERY
From our research in preparation of this proposal, it is our understanding that the City of Culver City
has not conducted a comprehensive user fee and rate study for some time. The City recently adopted
updated rates and charges that are contained in Resolution 2006-053. However, the City desires to
undertake a comprehensive approach to analyzing the cost of providing city services and updating the
fees to recover these costs, either through full cost recovery or through a percentage based (e.g. youth
recreation) where full recovery might be unrealistic. The update will also intend to achieve consistency
with the City's cost recovery policies. The results of the comprehensive fee study will serve as a
"baseline" for future updates by staff and ensure that the City continues its recovery of fee-based costs
allowable under state law (Government Code 65909.5 and 66014).
PMC will analyze and update the City's existing general fund related user fees and rates that are listed in
Resolution 2006-053 with the potential for suggesting new fee programs where a new fee might be
warranted. We will also review and update the City's transit bus fees, however, not the sewer and refuse
fees. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the sewer and refuse fee updates as a separate opportunity
outside the proposed scope of work.
Upon our discussion with City staff and possible refinement to the project scope, we could suggest
several methodologies to approach the fee update. These include project specific user fees, average cost
user fees, and deposits plus time and materials. We will conduct a comparison of fees from similar cities
to provide the City with various fee calculation options. Each methodology calculates the user fees based
on a set of specific assumptions provided by the City including the level of staff effort involved with
providing the service. We will also discuss possible methods for providing annual updates to the fees,
including linkages to indexes such as the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers Los
Angeles/Riverside/Orange County Area; the Los Angeles County General Public Allowable Rate
Schedule (for paramedic emergency services); and/or growth in city staff wages and benefits. These
sample indexes can provide a basis for recovering anticipated incremental cost increases over time.
We will develop and provide training on an Excel spreadsheet fee model to generate the full cost
recovery data that will enable city staff to adjust the fee inputs when conditions change. The model will
be developed to automate annual fee updates and to evaluate 'what-if scenarios.
The City may wish to have the consultant provide coordination of public input so that the findings and
recommendations from the fee study are prepared in user-friendly format and are clearly explained. As
the fees could have some degree of impact on the community at-large, it is important that the public
have an opportunity to review and comment on the fees. PMC has a staff of public information
specialists who can assist with this optional task and bring continuity to each of the task elements
requested by the City.
A central assumption to delivering a highly credible and usable study within the approximate 12 week
timeline is the level of cooperation and assistance that will be provided by City staff. We anticipate
working closely with City staff on this important project, including conducting interviews to clearly
understand the processes employed for each service, and reviewing draft and final products. Our
interaction with staff will be especially critical during the data collection phase in which we will be
verifying the fee types and the method of cost recovery.
PMCCOMPANY
SUMMARY AND EXPERIENCE OF FIRM
PMC is dedicated to serving the needs of cities, counties, and other governmental agencies by providing
a complementary range of municipal finance, planning, environmental, and management services. PMC
is a privately held corporation headquartered in Sacramento with offices in Los Angeles, San Diego,
Davis, Monterey, Mt. Shasta, Chico, Oakland and Phoenix. The firm was established in 1995 with an
ongoing mission to provide municipal services to public agencies, special districts and public-oriented
organizations, and has provided service to more than 200 cities, counties, and special districts
throughout California. The Company has grown steadily in personnel and services offered and today
consists of over 220 employees working out of its nine primary offices. PMC is a well-capitalized firm
and has a strong history of growth and increasing revenues. Our Dun & Bradstreet number is 83-732-
3948. We invite you to visit our website at "www.pacificmunicipal.com ", and for further information
regarding our company, you are welcome to contact PMC's project manager, Derek Wong, AICP at
(916) 530-750-7076, extension 208 or through email at "dwong@pacificmunicipal.com ".
The person authorized to bind the company contractually is:
Philip Carter, President
Pacific Municipal Consultants (A California Corporation)
10461 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110
Sacramento, CA 95827
(916) 361-8384
pcarter@pacificmunicipal.com
MUNICIPAL FINANCE
PMC has dedicated staff with extensive experience preparing cost of services studies for new and
updated user fees. We have worked with a wide variety of public services in the course of our projects
including planning and building, finance, community development and public works. Many of the
projects have included presentations to elected officials and the general public. With a municipal
orientation, PMC personnel operate as an extension of agency staff with the goal of providing legally
defensible fee programs and other financial/fiscal documents in the most efficient manner possible.
Given the breadth and depth of expertise among our staff, PMC is able to offer clients a broad range of
financial services.
PMC provides turnkey finance services, enabling our clients to maintain, enhance, and assure long-term
viability in their growing communities. Our finance services include but are not limited to the following:
• Financial planning and revenue enhancement, including financial projections and policy analysis,
plus rate and user fee studies;
• Capital improvement planning and financing, including infrastructure financing plans and
development impact fee and connection fee studies;
• Economic and fiscal policy analysis of proposed projects and plans, including government
reorganizations studies; and
• Special district creation and implementation, including district formation and Prop. 218 voter
campaigns.
PMCCOMPANY
PMC implements a multi-disciplinary approach to public finance and the following list of completed
projects will give the indication of the breath and scope of the experience we bring to each project.
PUBLIC FACILITATION AND OUTREACH
PMC is pleased to support the city's request for an optional public participation component to this
project with an award-winning team of in-house public information and graphic design professionals
that has created and implemented national, state and local public participation programs. We know that
effective public participation helps reduce the likelihood projects will get shelved, stalled or stopped.
Whether constructing road improvements or undertaking a comprehensive fee analysis study, clients
realize the benefit of involving stakeholders early and often. The active participation of residents,
business people, and public service providers is an essential component to consensus building on issue
resolution. It is our responsibility to take the ideas and concerns expressed by the public and translate
them into clear expressions and issues. PMC staff has extensive experience facilitating public outreach
efforts addressing a wide range of issues and within diverse communities.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT TEAM
We have assigned senior municipal finance staff to this important project. Derek Wong will serve as the
consultant team's Project Manager. Assisting Mr. Wong will be Tom Bandy, Director of Municipal
Finance, and Jerome Fournier, Public Finance Coordinator. We have also assigned Kendall Flint,
Director of Public Affairs, to manage the optional coordination of public input. An organization chart is
shown on the following page. Resumes for each staff member are provided at the back of this proposal.
DEREK WONG, AICP - PROJECT MANAGER, MUNICIPAL FINANCE MANAGER
Mr. Wong has over 11 years of consulting and project management experience specializing in
infrastructure financing of public facilities and impact/user fee analysis. He will manage this engagement
and participate in all aspects of the project, including data collection, analysis and development of
updated fees. He will ensure that all elements of the work plan are undertaken and completed to the
City's satisfaction. Mr. Wong has managed user fee studies for several local jurisdictions, including in the
City of Hughson, the County of Amador and City of Willows. He teaches seminars on public financial
management to planning and finance professionals throughout California with coursework including
revenue strategies and financial planning techniques. His area of expertise is in project management, user
fee studies, infrastructure financing and impact fees.
TOM BANDY - SENIOR FINANCE ADVISOR
Mr. Bandy has over 25 years of administrative and consulting service to local governments. He has
successfully worked on a wide variety of similar projects and has developed numerous fee reports. He
will provide advisory services in preparing the fee study and draft and final products. Mr. Bandy
currently provides consulting services that include the preparation of public facility financing plans that
identify the cost, phasing, and financing of public improvements; annual administration of special
districts to fund capital projects; structuring of growth management techniques to identify and assure the
construction and financing of public facilities; the analysis of water and sewer rates; and the preparation
of development impact fee studies in accordance with the nexus requirements of Government Code
Section 66000.
JEROME FOURNIER - PUBLIC FINANCE COORDINATOR
Mr. Fournier has 18 years of public infrastructure financing experience in the State of California working
with public agencies and private clients. Mr. Fournier has assisted numerous public agencies fund majorCOMPANY
infrastructure improvements through the use of financing tools such as Mello Roos Community
Facilities Districts, Assessment Districts and Public Facilities Financing Plans. During this time Mr.
Fournier has assisted clients fund approximately $500 million in infrastructure improvements.
KENDALL FLINT - PUBLIC OUTREACH
Ms. Flint is an industry professional with more than 20 years of public affairs experience. She has created
and implemented a broad range of outreach campaigns for public agencies. These have included The
City of Dana Point, CalOptima, Caltrans, Orange County Transportation Agency, Riverside
Transportation Agency, Regional Occupational Programs of California, and the Sacramento Municipal
Utility District. Her award-winning work has been honored by the California Association of Public
Information Officers, Public Relations Society of America, the International Television Association, the
International Association of Business Communicators and the American Corporate Video Awards. She
has produced and directed national outreach campaigns featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Will Smith,
Oscar de la Hoya and recently completed a national PSA for Boys & Girls Clubs of America featuring
Mark Wahlberg. Ms. Flint will assist the PMC team with the optional task of providing public education
and input regarding the user fee programs.
ADDITIONAL STAFF RESOURCES
The above list represents the staff which PMC anticipates will be required, however it is possible that the
need for additional staff may arise. Therefore PMC may assign additional staff types as necessary to
complete the services required under this agreement. Compensation rates for additional staff types will
be determined by PMC and will be consistent with the rates listed herein. Assignment of additional staff
will not change the budget of this agreement, unless agreed upon by both parties with the execution of
an amendment.CITY OF CULVER CITY
Derek Wong, AICP
Municipal Finance Manager
PROJECT MANAGER
FINANCE ADVISOR
Tom Bandy
Director of Municipal
Finance
PUBLIC FINANCE STAFF PUBLIC FACILITATION
Kendall Flint
Director of Public Affairs
Jerome Fournier
Public Finance Coordinator
COMPANY
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
An organization chart shows the relationship of the project team.PMC
SCOPE OF WORK/IMPLEMENTATION
SCOPE TO COMPLETING WORK
SAFEGUARDS TO TIMELINE
As a safeguard and to ensure a timeline is maintained, PMC will be responsible for communicating with
the designated City Project Manager on a regular basis via email, phone, fax or meetings. Internally, the
project team will communicate on a regular basis via conference call, email and/or in person to discuss
project status and next steps. PMC has in place project management software and internal controls to
ensure timelines are met and that quality products delivered. Given that the scope of the project requires
regular interface with key City staff as well as distinct milestone deliverables throughout the course of
plan preparation, the City will be kept aware of our progress.
"WORKING" MEETINGS
We will work with City staff to determine the amount of "working" meetings required to successfully
complete this project to the City's satisfaction. We have identified where some of the working meetings
could occur in the tasks. Although the RFP does not state the number of working meetings that the
consultant is required to attend, we are assuming reasonableness in the frequency of attending these
meetings. We might suggest other forms of meeting such as conference calls and email where
appropriate.
EXTENT OF CITY STAFF SUPPORT REQUIRED
The success of this project and its completion within the proposed timeline is reliant on the full
cooperation and timely availability of City staff. In our detailed scope of work describing the tasks, we
identify where staff support will be required, including during the data collection phase and interviews to
determine the full cost of providing City services. We also will hold meetings during the project timeline
and receive comments on deliverables by City management.
DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1 — Project Team Orientation/Kickoff Meeting
To initiate our work, we will hold a meeting with City staff, and others as appropriate, in order to refine
the project scope, purpose and uses and goals of the Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study. During the
meeting we will also:
• Identify members of City staff who will participate in the project.
• Confirm project schedule and establish key milestone dates; schedule meetings as appropriate.
• Establish the capabilities of the City's automated billing/accounting system.
• Identify City's philosophy/policy objective(s) concerning subsidies for programs where
service/user fees are likely to be less than cost of service.
• Develop a contact list and circulate to the project team.
• Discuss development of time and materials worksheet for distribution to staff to record time
allocation to each specific service.SCOPE OF WORK/IMPLEMENTATION
We will also provide the City with sample comprehensive fee schedules from other jurisdictions to
discuss potential new fees for existing services that the City might not already be recovering, as well as to
identify "best practices" in establishing user fees.
Due Date: 10 days upon receiving an executed contract and a Notice to Proceed (NTP).
Task 2 — Data Collection/ Review Existing Policies, Plans and Cost of Service Information
With the City's assistance, we will collect and review pertinent existing City documents including, but
not limited to, the following:
• Indirect Cost Allocation Plan
• Comprehensive Fee Schedule
• User Fee Cost Recovery Goals and Policies
• FYs 2005-2007 Operating and Capital budgets
• Audited financial statements from the preceding three years
• Staff hours and materials costs to complete the services being studied
• Other in-house or external data identified during the course of work.
The review will provide the required background and establish the groundrules for cost recovery. Should
a determination be made that improvements could be recommended for the cost of services
information, we will identify the deficiency and provide comment on how the information could be
improved.
Due Date: 20 days upon receiving an executed contract and a Notice to Proceed (NTP).
Task 3 — Conduct Survey and Comparison of Fees
We will conduct a survey of up to 3 similar local jurisdictions identified by the City for comparison.
Where a different fee structure/cost recovery method is used we will recommend an appropriate basis of
comparison. In instances where wide variation from the average is found we will provide alternative
explanations, such as greater capital investments, that could account for those differences. As stated in
the RFP, the fee comparison will be for information purposes, but will also serve as a benchmark for the
study's current and proposed fee schedule. The cost information gathered might also serve to form
recommendations for this study.
Due Date: 30 days upon receiving an executed contract and a Notice to Proceed (NTP).
Task 4 — Conduct Interviews and Identify Fully Burdened Cost of Providing City Services
We will conduct interviews with key staff to outline processes currently in place to process city
applications and permits, administer services and to collect fees. We will utilize the pre-distributed time
and materials worksheet developed by PMC to discuss the processes and time requirements for each fee
service. The fees proposed for review include those in the City's master fee schedule (as referenced in
Resolution 2006-053):
• General City Copying Services
• Dog License Fee
• Returned Check and Credit Card Fees
• Community Development Department (Planning and Building)
• Fire Department (Emergency Transport and Fire Prevention)
PMCSCOPE OF WORK/IMPLEMENTATION
• Public Works and Engineering (excluding capital facility fees)
• Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department
• Police Department (Alarm systems, firm permits and report copies)
• Miscellaneous (including technology and telecommunications)
We will also include in our analysis the fees for public transportation (bus fares) which is an Enterprise
Fund.
We will work with City Finance staff to determine the cost of direct employee compensation,
departmental charges, and indirect overhead. The City's current Indirect Cost Allocation Plan will be
utilized in the analysis to determine an appropriate overhead rate to apply to each direct cost. This will
result in the calculation of current direct costs and indirect costs attributable to each fee program.
We will determine total costs of General Fund services fees, and identify instances where charges have a
subsidy relation to the General Fund. An example of a program area where a general fund subsidy might
continue is for youth recreation.
Due Date: 35 days upon receiving an executed contract and a Notice to Proceed (NTP).
Task 5 — Develop a Computer Model for Fee Analysis and Future Annual Updates
We will develop an Excel based computer model that will be specifically tailored to the unique
conditions of the City and will include the ability to calculate the fully burdened cost for each fee service.
The model will show the inputs to the fully burdened rate and the time (expressed in hours or fractions
thereof) which are two primary variables to calculating the updated fees. The model will also have
capabilities to conduct 'what-if scenarios that will enable the adjustment of key inputs which will then
alter the fee. This can be useful in evaluating the user fee impact of eliminating subsidies.
For other fees such as for rental of recreation facilities, the model will show the fully allocated cost per
hour to the city based on the city's budget and staff's input on rental availability. For bus fares, the fees
are reliant on ridership data, operating costs and the City's obligation to meet the farebox recovery
standard mandated by the Transportation Development Act (TDA). The model will:
• Be easily updated for annual adjustments to account for changes in levels of service, staffing,
use of subsidies;
• Identify the required data inputs;
• Clearly identify the assumptions underlying the analysis;
• Have the ability to conduct "what-if' analyses.
Due Date: 45 days upon receiving an executed contract and a Notice to Proceed (NTP).
Task 6- Compare Updated Costs with Existing Recovery Levels
Using the computer model, we will create a spreadsheet that shows, side-by-side, the updated total costs
against existing recovery levels. Existing recovery levels would be derived from the existing fees being
charged per unit of service. For example, the existing fee for processing a lot line adjustment application
is $1,175. This number would be compared with the updated total cost to process a lot line adjustment.
If the total cost is higher than the fee, the activity would be considered subsidized by the General Fund.SCOPE OF WORK/IMPLEMENTATION
Potential new fees would be identified and included in the spreadsheet. The comparison with other
agencies would provide the basis for identifying new fees. We will discuss any new fee with appropriate
City staff (possibly via conference call) to determine their applicability to City service and the existing fee
policy.
In our discussions of the updated costs with City staff, if any possible discrepancies are identified, we
might suggest either an alternative fee collection method or adjustment to the fee calculation that
mitigates the discrepancy.
Work conducted from this task will provide the recommended appropriate Fees and Charges.
Due Date: 50 days upon receiving an executed contract and a Notice to Proceed (NTP).
Task 7 — Recommend Appropriate Administrative Fees and Rate Structures
We will provide a recommended schedule of updated fees based on the modeling analysis conducted in
previous tasks. The schedule will include an itemized breakdown of fees that can meet full cost recovery
and those where a subsidy might still be required, based on the City's existing cost recovery policy. We
will determine the new cost recovery percentage as well as the revenue impact to the City from the
recommended fees. It is anticipated that the revenue impact should result in reduced subsidies by the
General Fund towards these services.
If appropriate, and upon our discussions with City staff, we will also recommend alternative rate
structures that are identified during this study. The rate structure could include specific user fees, average
cost user fees, and deposits plus time and materials.
We will also discuss methods for providing annual updates to the fees. The fees could potentially be
linked to an index such as the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers Los
Angeles/Riverside/Orange County Area; the Los Angeles County General Public Allowable Rate
Schedule (for paramedic emergency services); and/or growth in city staff wages and benefits. These
sample indexes can provide a basis for recovering anticipated incremental cost increases over time.
We will meet with appropriate City staff to review the fee analysis and report and receive any
amendments/comments.
Due Date: 55 days upon receiving an executed contract and a Notice to Proceed (NTP).
Task 8 — Complete Evaluation of Current Fees/Develop Report and Updated Master Fee
Schedule
A final Cost of Services report will be delivered that incorporates the work conducted and comments
received as explained in the above tasks. The report will identify the current fees, recommended fees,
percentage change, cost recovery percentage, revenue impact and fee comparison. Five (5) copies of the
final report, and one camera ready unbounded original will be delivered along with an electronic version
of the report in a Word/Excel format that the City can update/make changes to.
We will provide assistance to the City in updating the Master Fee Schedule that includes the updated
fees. Any Word/Excel file used for the updated schedule will be made available to the City.
We will attend up to three (3) meetings plus up to two (2) public meetings to present and discuss the
report findings and recommendations. One of the public meetings will be the presentation to the CitySCOPE OF WORK/IMPLEMENTATION
Council. We will also be available to consult with City staff (including through phone, fax, and email) to
defend the fee study.
Due Date: Final Report 90 days upon receiving an executed contract and a Notice to Proceed (NTP). A
presentation to the City Council is tentatively scheduled for January 2007.
Task 9 — Provide Training
We will provide on-site training of the fee model to enable City staff to update the fees. This will be a 2
to 3 hour training workshop.
Due Date: Date to be agreed upon between City and PMC following development of final report.
Optional Coordination of Public Input
At the City's discretion, the following public participation activities are recommended for the fee analysis
study. The goal for this outreach is to:
• Educate the community and stakeholders about the study through proactive, consistent and
clear communication;
• Encourage and facilitate public input by creating avenues for feedback; and
• Convey important key messages about the city's dedication to community service and public
participation.
PMC commits its award winning public affairs staff to assist with coordinating public input to the fee
update. We will coordinate with the City the extent of our communications with the public and
identified stakeholder groups and to provide assistance in soliciting and receiving public input to the fee
study. For example, we can provide bilingual outreach and translate public information materials into
Spanish, or other language, as needed. We can also provide a press release to encourage public review of
the fee study and input. We will discuss alternatives to assist the City with alerting stakeholder groups
such as the development community regarding the fee analysis and recommendations.
Due Date: Dates to be agreed upon between City and PMC following development of draft report and
before/during public hearing process.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
PMC is committed to meet the City's 12 week timeline as prescribed in the RFP. We understand the
needs of local jurisdictions to effectively serve the public and be accountable for the activities that are
undertaken. With an anticipated start date of October 9, 2006, the scope of work and project due dates
presented in our proposal demonstrate our commitment to complete this important study for the City
within the timeline. The timeline on the next page shows the estimated time by task for the General
Fund fees and bus fares. The timeline excludes the sewer and refuse Enterprise Fund fees, which is not a
part of this work scope. Should there be unforeseen delays or circumstances, we will work with the City
to re-evaluate the timelines and deliverables.Develop and Usepf'Computer Model
Task 6 - Compare Cost with Existing Fees
Task fl L Recommend Appropriate Fees
Meetings with City Staff arid Public
Option: Coordination of Public Input
SCOPE OF WORK/IMPLEMENTATION
Proposed Schedule by Task
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12
Task 1 -Kick Ott,
Task 2 - Data Collection
Task 3- Fee Survey
Task 4 - Interviews and Identify Full Cool of SeThe
Task 8 - Complete Evaluations and Draft/Final Reports
Task 9 - On-Site Training (To be determined with City)Total Hours Total Administrative
Hours $65
$0 10
$0 11
$0 30
$7
$260 4 34 $4
$0 12 $1.
$2 18 $0
$5 10
$1, 8 $0
sk
D. Wong
Project Manager
Hours $125
PMC Staff
T. Bandy
Senior Finance
Advisor
Hours
Hours/Fully Burdened
$140
Rate
J. Fournier
Public Finance
Coordinator
Hours $125|109| $1,000 $280|109| $1,000 $0 3 $375
16 $2,000 2 $280 12 $1,500
d Identify Full Cost i of
48 86,000 3 $420 8 $1,000
Of Computer Model 24 $3,000 2 $280 $500
ith Existing Fees 12 $1,500 0 $0
)ropriate Fees 16 812.000
lOLl
luations and Draft/Final
32 $4,000 2 $280 $1 ,0 0 0
(To be determined with
8 $1,000 $0 $0
14 $33 $910 274 35 $4,375
$1.
$35 $910 $4,375
24 $3
75. The optional coordination of public input services, at the City's discretion, would be an additional $3,000. The following table shows the proposed budget by task by consultant
nu Public Meetings
$0 40
$5
204 $25,500 21 $2,940
$250
$3,190
or diem)
onal Task
if Public Input
$1,300
$26,800CONSULTANTS AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS
PMC Staff Hours/Fully Burdened Rate
At this time, Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) respectfully submits this proposal to the City of
Culver City, without the use of subconsultants. If for any reason (i.e. modification of scope) the use of
subconsultants is identified, PMC will obtain prior written authorization from the City before any
subconsultants are utilized for work on this project.
PMCCLIENT REFERENCES
RECENT CLIENT REFERENCES FOR FEE STUDIES
Susan Grijalva, Planning Director
County of Amador
500 Argonaut Lane
Jackson, CA 95642
(209) 223-6380
Dr. Louis Pietronave, City Administrator
City of lone
1 East Main Street
lone, CA 95640
(209) 274-2412 ext. 101
Joe Riker, City Manager
City of Orland
815 Fourth Street
Orland, CA 95963
(530) 865-1600
Barry Siebe, Planning Director
City of Hugh son
7018 Pine Street
Hughson, CA 95326
(209) 883-4054
Mike Mistrot, City Manager
City of Willows
201 N. Lassen
Willows, CA 95988
(530) 934-7041
Tom Adler, Civil Engineer
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 409-5483
PMC
DTIPMC
APPENDIX A - ABILITY TO COMPLY
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
PMC has reviewed the Request for Proposal #1338 for a Comprehensive Citywide User Fees and
Charges Rate Study for the City of Culver City, and is confident that should PMC be the selected bidder,
we will be able to agree to mutually acceptable contract terms. PMC routinely signs Professional
Services Agreements with various municipalities. We believe resolution of minor language changes can
be easily attained, and have not had difficulty resolving terms with municipalities similar in nature to the
City of Culver City. We appreciate that the City included some of their contractual obligations in the
RFP for review, and we have the following comments regarding some of the language that that has been
disclosed in the RFP.
Indemnification and Insurance Section, Page 11 - PMC is prepared to be responsible for its errors and
understands its obligation to indemnify the City. However, PMC can only take responsibility for its own
errors and not for other people's mistakes. Therefore PMC will request modification of this section by
replacing the phrase "or in any manner directly or indirectly caused, occasioned, or contributed to, or
claims to be caused, occasioned, or contributed to, in whole or in part, by reason of any act or omission,
including strict liability or negligence of Consultant, or of anyone acting.." to the phrase "to the extent
caused by any negligent act, error, omission or willful misconduct by Consultant, or of anyone
Additionally we will request that the following sentence be added towards the end of the first paragraph:
"In the event any liability is caused by the joint or concurrent negligence of Consultant and City, they
shall be borne by each party in proportion to its negligence."
Rights to Materials, Page 11 — PMC agrees that the City should have ownership of documents that are
created in the performance of services; however, PMC produces various types of documents and/or
data/materials for specific projects and purposes. Should the City choose to use documents, data or
materials that PMC prepared for one project on another project, PMC cannot be responsible for any
possible negative results. In other words, PMC cannot be held liable for future uses or misuses of such
documents, data or materials because PMC did not prepare them for all potential uses. Therefore, PMC
will request the addition of the following sentence at in this section: "Consultant shall not be held liable
for any reuse of the City-owned documents for purposes outside this Agreement."Tom Bandy
Director of Municipal Finance
Education
Bachelor of Science, University of Redlands
Master of Public Administration, University of Southern California
Master of Business Administration, Pepperdine University
Experience and Current Responsibilities
Mr. Bandy has 30 years of administrative and consulting service to local governments. For 14 years prior to 1988, Mr. Bandy
served in administrative positions in three California cities, most recently as a department manager responsible for a variety of
municipal services. Mr. Bandy currently provides consulting services that include the preparation of public facility financing plans
that identify the cost, phasing, and financing of public improvements; preparation, formation, and annual administration of special
districts to fund capital projects utilizing bonded indebtedness as well as annual assessments to fund ongoing operation and
maintenance costs; structuring of growth management techniques to identify and assure the construction and financing of public
facilities; completion of public facility elements to General Plans; the analysis of water and sewer rates; and the preparation of
development impact fee studies in accordance with the nexus requirements of Government Code Section 66000.
Relevant Project Experience
Facilities Feasibility, Planning and Financing
• City of San Diego, Impact Fee Methodology Study. PMC, with Tom Bandy as Project Manager, was selected in 2004 to
analyze the city's development impact fees for transportation, parks, libraries, and fire services. The fees are calculated
separately within 28 urbanized neighborhoods. The purpose of the study is to determine if the fees are accurately
reflecting the demand placed on the city's infrastructure by new development.
• Plumas County, Impact Fee Study. PMC, with Tom Bandy as Project Manager, was selected in 2004 to create the
county's first impact fees on new development. The study involves identifying those facilities and services that could be
eligible for funding, generating cost estimates for such facilities, identifying land uses to be permitted over the planning
horizon, and preparing an AB1600 nexus report. The report should be ready for presentation to stakeholder groups in late
2005.
• City of lone, Impact Fee Study. PMC, with Tom Bandy as Project Manager, developed a series of impact fees for funding
new capital infrastructure including fire and police services, park improvements, and city hall facilities calculated through
2020.
? City of Salinas, Traffic Fee Update. As Project Manager for this multi-disciplinary study, analyzed the build out
circulation element streets and developed cost estimates for their construction. This involved an additional study of six
interchanges with Highway 101. Prepared a report identifying each improvement location, sizing, and cost. Presented
updated traffic fees and findings in a series of public workshops and meetings.
• City of Elk Grove, Technical Review of Infrastructure Financing Plan. Managed the staff review of infrastructure financing
plan for the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan covering 1,900 acres and approximately 7,700 residential units and 285 non-
residential acres. The plan will be the subject of future public hearings.
PMCTom Bandy
Director of Municipal Finance
• City of Chula Vista, Transportation Development Impact Fee 2002 Update. Prepared an AB1600 nexus report addressing
transportation projects in one of the fastest growing cities in California. The study identified approximately $185 million
in backbone street costs impacted as the result of planned growth. The resulting fee increased from $6,240 to $8,180
per single-family dwelling unit.
• City of San Marcos, Public Facilities Fee 2003 Update. Prepared an AB1600 nexus study for the funding of circulation
streets, five freeway interchanges, drainage, improvements, NPDES facilities, GIS, parks, and habitat conservation. The
fees were presented at three public workshops and subsequently adopted by the City Council at a Public Hearing.
• City of Novato, Public Facilities Fee 2002 Update. Prepared an AB1600 nexus study for the funding of circulation streets,
drainage, improvements, NPDES facilities, parks, and open space. The fees were presented at two public workshops
prior to being adopted by the City Council at a Public Hearing.
• City of Chula Vista, Eastlake Trails Public Facilities Finance Plan. As Project Manager, prepared this document that
identifies the public improvements and services required to meet the needs of this 1,120 dwelling unit development in
the Eastern Territories of the City of Chula Vista. The document will become part of the SPA plan for this project when
presented to the City Council.
• City of Palmdale, Public Facilities Development Impact Fee. Prepared an AB1600 report identifying the projects, costs,
and nexus for various public facilities required to support new development in the City of Palmdale. The initial fee under
consideration by the City Council is for fire facilities.
• City of Galt, Development Impact Fee Review. Participated on a team that reviewed the City's schedule of impact fees to
determine their appropriateness and adequacy to fund the facilities required by new development. Analyzed the City's
CIP program together with updated costs for all facilities and revised estimates of future land uses and densities.
Presented the study's findings to the City Council at a public information workshop.
• City of Red Bluff, Antelope Area Sewer Study. Prepared this study to determine the requirements for sewer upgrades and
new systems to serve this area of the city. Sized the collection and pump station improvements and addressed funding.
alternatives including the potential for forming an assessment district.
• City of Chula Vista, Growth Management Program. Mr. Bandy participated in the preparation of a growth management
program to guide the future growth and buildout of the City of Chula Vista. The emphasis of the program is to identify the
infrastructure needs for the City and to develop programs and fees to assure their implementation consistent with need.
• City of Oceanside, North Oceanside Annexation Area Financing Plan. As Project Manager prepared a plan to finance the
construction of public improvements required for the development of this 883-acre area following its annexation into the
City of Oceanside.
• City of San Marcos, San Marcos Community Facility Plans. Retained by the City of San Marcos to prepare public facility
financing plans for seven of the City's eight community areas, as well as a plan for citywide facilities. At completion, the
plans involved over $500 million in public facility costs. The plans included the financial impacts resulting from the
City's selection as the location for a new State University.
• City of Chula Vista, Rancho Del Rey Public Facilities Financing Plan. Selected by the City of Chula Vista to assist in the
preparation of the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the Rancho del Rey project in the City of Chula Vista. The Rancho
del Rey project is a major mixed-use development involving 1,600 acres and approximately 4,000 future dwelling units
to be built out over a ten-year period. Phasing and financing recommendations were made for all public infrastructure
needed to develop the site, including streets, storm drains, water, sewer, parks schools, and fire and library facilities.
• City of San Diego, Black Mountain Road Feasibility Stud. As Project Manager, conducted a study of the roadway network
in the vicinity of Black Mountain Road north of the Mira Mesa community and south of the Rancho Penasquitos
Page 2Tom Bandy
Director of Municipal Finance
community. The study essentially resulted in a recommendation on financing mechanisms to be used, together with a
preliminary assessment of lands that benefit from the construction.
• Kern County Facilities Element. As Project Manager, prepared a framework plan for the future analysis of public facilities
and services provided by the County of Kern with offices in Bakersfield. This plan was subsequently adopted by the
Board of Supervisors as the Public Facilities Element of the County General Plan.
• City of Visalia, Circulation Element Update. Provided key financing alternatives for funding circulation improvements in
this citywide analysis.
• Sacramento Army Depot Reuse Plan. As Project Manager, coordinated a team of subconsultants to analyze the existing
condition and capacity of onsite streets, electrical, water, gas, railroad, steam, and sewer systems. Using the results of
this analysis, determined the public facility improvements required to support alternative uses of existing onsite buildings
as well as alternative configurations for new buildings and facilities.
• SAFCA, Capital Investment Equalization Fee. For the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), created an impact
fee payable by all new development within a 100-year flood plan to assist in the funding of a system of flood control
improvements on the Sacramento and American Rivers. The Capital Investment Equalization Fee, payable at building
permit issuance, represents approximately 60 percent of the amount of a benefit assessment which would have been paid
if the property was developed at the time the system of flood control improvements was constructed.
? City of Escondido, Citywide Drainage Fees. As Project Manager for the financing component of this study, analyzed the
location, capacity and cost of build out drainage master plan improvements. Recommended a series of impact fees for
various land uses on a citywide basis. Presented findings in a series of public workshops and meetings before the
Planning Commission and City Council.
• City of Seal Beach, Water Rate Study. As Project Manager, analyzed the Water Utilities Department financial statements
and operations and prepared a report which recommended pass through rates whenever the cost of purchased water
changed. The report included a sixteen-city comparison of rates and operations. The rates were unanimously approved
by the City Council following noticed public hearings.
• City of Goodyear, AZ., Water and Sewer Rate Review. Conducted an analysis of the City's water and sewer operations and
costs to determine the need for a rate increase. The study resulted in a recommendation for a significant rate increase for
water usage and the creation of a new residential rate tier for usage between 10,000 and 20,000 gpm. The City Council
ultimately adopted the new tier and a three-year phase in of the new rates.
• Rancho Santa Margarita Management Company, Water System Cost Apportionment Study. Assisted in the analysis and
identification of the fair share benefit arising from major backbone water distribution facilities. The resulting analysis was
used to redistribute the apportionment of the cost among benefiting property owners.
• City of Novato, Development Impact Fees. Prepared a report identifying the costs and nexus findings for the following
facility categories: Streets and intersections; recreational and cultural facilities; civic facilities; transit facilities;
corporation yard; general government systems and open space. The study included a comparison of fees against 14
neighboring and regional communities.
• City of Chula Vista, Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP). Prepared this strategic financial planning
report on the first phase of this 23,000-acre development in southern San Diego County adjacent to the City of Chula
Vista. Spa One includes 5,758 dwelling units and associated land uses for schools, commercial parks, open space, and
community purpose facilities. The PFFP addressed the timing, cost, and requirements of fourteen public facilities.
• City of Tustin, Commuter Rail Station Fee Study. This study calculated an impact fee on all future development within a
seven-mile benefit radius surrounding the new station. The fee is part of a funding program that includes transit sales tax
Page 3
5Tom Bandy
Director of Municipal Finance
revenue (Measure M), grants, and local matching funds. It is expected that the fee will be adopted by the Cities of Tustin
and Irvine and the County of Orange.
• Town of Corte Madera, Development Impact Fees. Prepared a report identifying the costs and nexus findings for the
following facility categories: Streets and intersections; recreational and cultural facilities; civic facilities; transit facilities;
corporation yard; general government systems and open space. The study includes a comparison of fees to other
neighboring communities.
Special District Formation
• Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Capital Assessment District No. 2. On June 15, 1995, the Board of Directors of
the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency adopted resolutions forming the North Area Local Project Capital Assessment
District No. 2. This action was the culmination of a long and complex effort to fund critical flood control improvements in
the north Sacramento area. The original district as described in the Preliminary Engineer's Report contained 256,000
parcels and 182,000 acres. Based on public review and comment, SAFCA Board directed that changes be made to the
District boundary and assessment methodology. The modified district as described in the Final Engineer's Report
includes 18,000 parcels and 24,000 acres in Sacramento County. The annual capital assessment totals approximately
$3.3 million. The capital assessments will be used to pay debt service on bonds used to finance the $43 million needed
to complete the engineering design and construction of the North Area Local Project.
? City of San Diego, Miramar Ranch North Cost Reimbursement District No. 4068. The district, the largest such district in
San Diego, was formed in 1995 to assure the receipt of over $13 million in identified reimbursements from nine property
owners. Mr. Bandy was Project Manager and lead consultant during the process of determining land use, eligible costs,
and fair share apportionment methodologies for each improvement. He also made presentations to property owners and
the City Council.
• City of Chula Vista, 1913 Act "Acquisition" Assessment Districts - Project Director. During the past ten years,
coordinated and managed the provision of assessment engineering services in the formation of eight (8) 1913 Act
assessment districts that together with 1915 Act bonds funded nearly $100 million in eligible improvements that were
"acquired" by the City following construction by developers. For the most part, these districts were associated with
development of master planned communities.
• City of San Marcos, Assessment Districts. Project Director. During the past ten years, coordinated and managed the
provision of assessment engineering services in the formation of four (4) 1913 Act assessment districts that together with
1915 Act bonds funded major backbone street improvements. These districts were "construction" type districts whereby
bond proceeds were used to construct the improvements.
• City of San Diego, 1913 Act "Acquisition" Assessment Districts - Project Director. During the past ten years, coordinated
and managed the provision of assessment engineering services in the formation of five (5) 1913 Act assessment districts
that together with 1915 Act bonds funded nearly $35 million in eligible improvements that were "acquired" by the City
following construction by developers.
? City of Union City, Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District - Project Manager. This District was formed to
fund the following public services: street lighting, irrigation maintenance, planting and play equipment services, capital
improvement projects for reconstruction, and street tree maintenance. Over $1,000,000 was assessed for the initial year
involving over 13,000 parcels.
• City of Red Bluff, Sewer Assessment District Study - Project Manager. This study resulted in petitions being mailed to all
property owners in the proposed district.
? City of West Sacramento, Integrated Financing District - Project Manager. Prepared preliminary spreadsheets and data
leading to the potential formation of this special district to assess the cost of major backbone improvements in the
Raley's Landing development area.
5k
Page 4Page 5
Tom Bandy
Director of Municipal Finance
Special District Administration (Proposition 218)
• Proposition 218 Experiences. Since the spring of 1997, Mr. Bandy has managed a variety of special districts for client
cities in order to meet the requirements of Prop. 218. Many of the districts required the preparation, mailing, tabulating,
and reporting of ballot election results. The largest district contained 38,000 parcels while the smallest district included
fewer than 500 parcels.
Maintenance District Experience
City of Elk Grove, various Street Maintenance Districts (1982 Act)
• City of Torrance (Citywide Lighting Assessment)
• City of Baldwin Park (Citywide Lighting Assessment)
• City of San Jose, Trails Maintenance Assessment
• City of San Jose, Commercial Landscape Maintenance Assessment
• City of San Jose, Development Maintenance Assessment
• City of Baldwin Park Citywide Landscaping District
• City of Hawaiian Gardens Citywide Lighting District
• City of Claremont (Citywide Park and Landscape Assessment)
• City of Santa Fe Springs, Street Lighting Assessment
• City of Pico Rivera, Citywide Lighting District
• City of Union City Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District
• City of Encinitas Citywide Lighting and Landscaping DistrictDerek Wong, AICP
Municipal Finance Manager
Education
M.B.A., California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
B.S., Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning, emphasis Transportation Policy, University of California, Davis
Experience and Current Responsibilities
Mr. Wong has over 11 years of project management and consulting experience specializing in infrastructure financing of public
facilities. He has managed complex engagements that require the identification and analysis of revenues and costs for local and
regional projects and programs, including for the transportation and development communities. He has developed various revenue
strategies and funding mechanisms that involve consensus building with local community stakeholders and governing boards to
bridge funding shortfalls with capital facilities.
Mr. Wong has taught seminars on public financial management to planning and finance professionals throughout California with
coursework including revenue strategies and financial planning techniques.
He works at PMC's Davis office in the area of project management, infrastructure financing, fiscal analysis and user and impact
fees.
Relevant Project Experience
Facilities Feasibility, Planning and Financing
• Fiscal Impact Analysis, City of Santa Rosa. Managed the analysis and presentation of the fiscal impacts from annexation
of two redevelopment communities adjacent to the City. Tasks included providing an assessment of existing conditions,
confirming land use values and market absorption rates, identifying infrastructure and service deficiencies, determining
project area revenues and capital and O&M expenditures, and developing implementation strategies.
Fiscal Impact Analysis, City of Lakeport. Managed a fiscal analysis for the annexations of a residential development and a
commercial center. As the land uses from these annexations contrasted from one another, the fiscal impacts determined
the City's cost to provide services and the new revenues that are expected to be generated from these development
types.
• Economic Analysis, City of Jackson.
Managed a peer review of the market analysis and economic impacts from a new
home improvement store entering into a rural community. Analyzed key assumptions for revenue projections, market
spending absorption, and likely impacts to local competitors.
• Municipal Service Review, County of Sutter. Managed the finance review component of the MSR. Analyzed the financial
capacity and budget parameters of cities and special districts. Developed findings related to each agency's current
financial condition and ability to fund capital facilities and operations and maintenance.
? Cost of Services Study, County of Amador. Managed a study to determine the County's cost of providing development
related services, and updating the master fee schedule to reflect full cost recovery. The study resulted in more revenue
generation for the County and less subsidies by the General Fund.
• Cost of Services Study, City of lone. Managed a cost recovery study to ensure the City was charging appropriate fees to
development applicants during the planning review phase. The updated fees captured full cost including direct staff labor
and indirect City support costs.
PMCDerek Wong, AICP
Municipal Finance Manager
• Development Impact Fee Study, City of Clearlake. Managing a study that will create a development fee to pay for parks
and recreation facilities. The new fee is based on new development's fair share of the need for new public facilities.
• Cost Allocation Study, San Bernardino Associated Governments. Managing the development of indirect labor cost rates
for general and administrative cost allocations. The allocations are factored into the calculation of billable hourly rates
that could be applied to government grants, fees, federal reimbursements, and other billings.
• Performance Audit, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, San Bernardino Associated Governments, and Imperial
Valley Association of Governments.
For each of these various regional agencies, managed a performance audit of public
transit operators as required by the State Transportation Development Act. Reviewed the efficiency and effectiveness of
operations, maintenance and management. Developed findings and recommendations to improve future service
provision.
• Instructor, California Department of Transportation. Providing instruction to peer professionals on Performance Audits as
required by the State Transportation Development Act. Conducting a series of workshops throughout California.
Prior Experience
• Arthur Bauer & Associates, Sacramento, CA, Senior Associate. While at this transportation management, policy and
public financing consulting firm, he provided services including infrastructure planning and funding, strategic planning,
project management, information technology, financial analysis, performance auditing and economic analyses. He
developed a transportation mitigation fee manual for a foothill community, prepared debt financing plans using revenue
bonds to advance project construction, created detailed cash flow models of local, regional, state and federal revenues
for implementing regional transportation projects over a 30 year horizon, and evaluated project life cycle costs and
benefits of transit infrastructure to determine investment trade-offs. He also conducted performance audits of regional
planning agencies and public transit providers that analyzed operational cost efficiency and effectiveness.
• Solectron California Corporation, Milpitas, CA, Production Planner. Scheduled production and delivery dates for this
provider of electronics manufacturing and supply chain services including product design, high tech equipment and post
manufacturing support. Managed flow and assembly of materials on production floor.
• Planning Experience. Caltrans Division of Rail, Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department,
State Department of General Services Commute Management Department, and County of San Luis Obispo Planning
Department.
Professional Affiliations
American Institute of Certified Planners
American Planning Association
c7
Page 2Kendall Flint
Director of Public Affairs
Education
B.A., English, University of California, Los Angeles
Experience and Current Responsibilities
Kendall Flint is an industry professional with more than 25 years of public affairs experience. She has created and implemented a
broad range of outreach campaigns for public agencies. These have included The City of Dana Point, The City of Livermore, The
City of Elk Grove, CalOptima, Caltrans, Napa County, Orange County Transportation Agency, Riverside Transportation Agency,
Regional Occupational Programs of California, The Toll Roads and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
Her award-winning work has been honored by the California Association of Public Information Officers, Public Relations Society of
America, the International Television Association, the International Association of Business Communicators and the California Local
Economic Development Corp. She has produced and directed national outreach campaigns featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Will
Smith, Oscar de la Hoya and recently completed a national PSA for Boys & Girls Clubs of America featuring Mark Wahlberg.
Ms. Flint has been a guest lecturer at several Southern California colleges and professional associations including AEP, PRSA and
the Rural Water Forum.
Her responsibilities at PMC include the development and implementations of strategic communications plans for public agencies
and management of the public affairs and graphic services team.
Relevant Experience
? County of Yuba Community Facilitation. Ms. Flint is serving as a contract Public Information Officer for the Yuba County
Community Development Department. In this role, she is providing community outreach services for the Yuba Highlands
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a large development project with a long history of controversy. As a contract
PIO, Ms. Flint is acting as an extension of County staff to facilitate public participation in the environmental process. Her
work has included news releases and editorial board meetings; fact sheets; public meetings; stakeholder database; e-
mail advisories; a project information line and ongoing strategic advice. Moreover, PMC serves as the project's
spokesperson for all media and public inquires.
• City of Elk Grove, Old Town Revitalization. Developed and implemented a multi-level public outreach program to
promote the City's efforts in its historic Old Town area. Included local business, resident and stakeholder programs for
Capital Improvement Projects, creation of a new Special Planning Area and future Finance programs. Created complete
branding campaign for all communications efforts related to Old Town and increased public participation at meetings and
events by 300%. Created a unique website for all Old Town projects, e-newsletters and direct mail programs.
Coordinated media relations efforts and served as spokesperson for the project on behalf of the City. Facilitation of
public meetings and presentations.
• City of Rancho Cordova, General Plan Update. Created and implemented a communications program including media
relations, direct mail, internet communications and multi-language communications programs for the City's General Plan
Update. Assisted in facilitation efforts at public meetings.
• Solano County, First 5 Children and Families Commission. Development and implementation of a Strategic
Communications Plan, website and collateral development for Solano County's First Five Commission.
PMCKendall Flint
Director of Public Affairs
? City of Dana Point; Clean Beaches, Clean Oceans Campaign. Created and implemented a public outreach campaign for
to promote practices relating to clean water. Components included public service announcements, video presentations,
collateral materials and public presentations.
• Taco Bell Foundation/Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Provided creative strategy, production and distribution services to
The Taco Bell Foundation since 1998. The Foundation funds TEENSupreme, a Boys & Girls Clubs of America program
which provides mentoring and support for at risk teens nationwide. Flint also created a website for the campaign,
www.teensupreme.org .
The public service announcement campaign was targeted at adults 18-49. The first PSA, "Mugs Shots," was released in
2001 and generated more than seven hundred confirmed PSA broadcasts. In addition, Flint developed co-op-marketing
partnerships with CNN/Airport, Cox Communications, Adelphia and several other cable and media providers to secure
additional airtime for the PSAs. Added value generated by these partnerships resulted in approximately $400-thousand
in additional media placements. She recently completed production on the second PSA featuring Mark Wahlberg. Ms.
Flint secured Mr. Wahlberg's participation in the campaign at no cost to TEENSupreme or the foundation.
? Regional Occupation Programs of California. Created an integrated branding, marketing and public awareness campaign
designed to increase student enrollment and business participation in California's Regional Occupation Programs.
Program included public service announcements, video production, brand development and collateral design and the
development of corporate partnerships. This program was honored by the Public Relations Society of America and the
International Association of Business Communicators.
• Right Decisions — Right Now National Public Service Campaign. Kendall Flint has produced eight Public Service
Announcements and two long-form videos that were distributed throughout the country as part of RJ Reynolds' Right
Decisions, Right Now Campaign. The program, which encourages appropriate lifestyle decisions for teens, has been a
complete success since its creation in 1992. It has featured celebrities including Will Smith, Jennifer Love Hewitt,
Melissa Joan Hart, Joey Lawrence and Tia & Tamera Mowrey and has generated more than one billion impressions. Ms.
Flint's creativity in identifying placement opportunities resulted in co-op marketing partnerships with Blockbuster Video
and Six Flags Theme Parks/Paramount's Great America. The campaign was honored by the Public Relations Society of
America and the International Association of Business Communicators.
• Woodenship Advertising and Public Affairs, Vice President and Creative Director. Created and implemented strategic
communications programs for a broad range of public and private agencies including the California Teachers
Association, American Water, Oracle, Clean Energy Systems, The City of Elk Grove and Taco Bell Foundation.
• APC, President. Owner of award-winning public relations firm. Clients included Caltrans, OCTA, Riverside Transit, The
Walt Disney Company, Honda, Hyundai Motor America, NEC Packard Bell, Warner Bros, and The United States Postal
Service.
• Westinghouse, Group W Productions Newsfeed, Senior Producer. Projects at Group W included development of several
news, travel and entertainment related programs for both domestic and international audiences.
? Cable News Network, Reporter and Senior Producer. Produced the pilot for the long running "Showbiz Today" and was
the show's West Coast Supervising Producer.
Professional Affiliations
California Association of Public Information Officers
American Association of Political Consultants
Public Relations Society of America
59
Page 2Kendall Flint
Director of Public Affairs
International Association of Business Communicators
Page 3Jerome P. Fournier
Public Finance Coordinator
Education
B.S., Geography, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, IA
Graduate work in Geography with emphasis on land use studies, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Experience and Current Responsibilities
Mr. Fournier has 18 years of public infrastructure financing experience in the State of California working with public agencies and
private clients. Mr. Fournier has assisted numerous public agencies fund major infrastructure improvements through the use of
financing tools such as Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts, Assessment Districts and Public Facilities Financing Plans.
During this time Mr. Fournier has assisted clients fund approximately $500 million in infrastructure improvements.
Relevant Project Experience
• City of Elk Grove — Create Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts to help fund variety of public infrastructure
improvements. Work with city staff to develop technical requirements such as a Rate and Method of Apportionment
report.
• City of Rio Vista — Assisting the City to develop a variety of land-based secured funding mechanisms, including Mello
Roos Community Facilities Districts, Assessment Districts and Maintenance Districts. These funding mechanisms will
provide revenues for ongoing infrastructure development and growth.
• City of Ceres — Develop Rate and Method of Apportionment report for creation of Mello Roos Community Facilities
District. Provide technical expertise on rules and regulations pertaining formation of CFDs.
Previous Experience
In the 18 years as a public finance consultant, Mr. Fournier assisted numerous clients fund infrastructure needs. The following
projects serve as recent a sample of the many projects Mr. Fournier has successfully completed.
•
Provence (US Home/Lennar), Emerald Crest (Centex) and Top Capital, LLC, Corona Norco Unified School District and the
City of Corona, CA, Public Finance Consultant —
Established a Mello-Roos CFD district approved by the Corona Norco
Unified School District to fund school fees and city fees for the three developments. The district included three
improvement areas and the approval of a Joint Community Facilities Agreement between the School District (lead
agency) and the City of Corona.
• Eastlake (Eastlake Development
Co) Woods and Vistas, City of Chula Vista, CA, Public Finance Consultant— Established
a Mello-Roos CFD to fund the needed infrastructure conditioned to the Woods and Vistas project by the City. The
development was conditioned to construct major off-site improvements including transportation, water, sewer and
appurtenant facilities that served the project. A method of applying "special benefit" to the development as well as
establishing "fair share" to neighboring projects was established and approved by the City. Bonds were sold to fund the
infrastructure improvements in an amount of approximately $45 million.
•
Otay Ranch Village 11 (Brookfield Shea), City of City of Chula Vista, CA, Public Finance Consultant — Established a
Mello-Roos CFD approved by the City of Chula Vista to fund project-specific on-site landscape and storm drainage
improvements conditioned on the project by the City.Jerome P. Foumier
Public Finance Coordinator
• Scripps Ranch North (McMillin Communities), Willdan Associates, City of San Diego, CA Project Manager, Public
Finance — Established the first Mello-Roos CFD approved by the City of San Diego to fund the needed infrastructure
conditioned to the project by the City and as a result of a settlement agreement approved by the superior court. The
development was conditioned to construct major off-site improvements including transportation, water, sewer and
appurtenant facilities, which served the project. A method of applying "special benefit" to the development as well as
establishing "fair share" to neighboring projects was established and approved by the City. Bonds were sold to fund the
infrastructure improvements in an amount of approximately $65 million.
Calle Cristobal Assessment District (Fieldstone and Genstar), Willdan Associates City of San Diego, CA, Project
Manager, Public Finance — Established a public finance assessment district to fund the construction of Calle Cristobal,
Sorrento Valley and Camino Santa Fe Roads needed to fulfill the infrastructure conditions applied to the project by the
City. The development was conditioned to construct major off-site improvements including transportation, water, sewer
and appurtenant facilities, which served the project.
• Eastlake (Eastlake Development Co), Willdan Associates, City of Chula Vista, CA, Project Manager, Public Finance —
Established a series of assessment districts to fund the needed infrastructure conditioned to the project by the City. The
development was conditioned to construct major off-site improvements including transportation, water, sewer and
appurtenant facilities that served the project. Bonds were sold to fund the infrastructure improvements in an amount of
approximately $35 million.
• Rancho Del Rey (McMillin Communities), Willdan Associates, City of Chula Vista, CA, Project Manager, Public Finance
— Established a series of public finance assessment districts to fund the needed infrastructure conditioned to the project
by the City. The development was conditioned to construct major off-site improvements including transportation, water,
sewer and appurtenant facilities that served the project. Bonds were sold to fund the infrastructure improvements in an
amount of approximately $15 million.
• Otay International Center, Willdan Associates, City of San Diego, CA, Project Manager, Public Finance — Established two
public finance assessment districts to fund the construction of needed onsite and offsite infrastructure to develop the
international business park at the second border crossing with Mexico. Bonds were sold to fund the infrastructure
improvements.
Additional Public Financing Projects
• CFD No. 1, Eastgrove; City of Escondido;
Sunbow II Landscape Maintenance CFD No. 98-3; City of Chula Vista; (1999);
Citywide Landscape & Lighting CFD; City of San Marcos;
• Modification to Special Tax, Miramar Ranch North, Community Facilities District No. 1; San Diego;
• Facility Audit, Santa Luz, Community Facilities District No. 2; City of San Diego;
• Modification to Special Tax, Coto de Caza, Community Facilities District No. 87-8; County of Orange;
• Improvement Area No. 1, Community Facilities District No. 87-8; County of Orange;
• Las Posas/McMahr Road Assessment District; City of San Marcos;
• Mission Road Assessment District; City of San Marcos;
• San Marcos Blvd. Assessment District No. 1; City of San Marcos;
Page 2Donna Snider
Civil Engineer
Education
B.S., Civil Engineering, San Diego State University
Experience and Current Responsibilities
Ms. Snider has over 18 years of civil engineering, public finance, and infrastructure planning experience with the City of Chula Vista
Engineering Department. She has recently accepted a position with PMC in the area of infrastructure financing and related work.
During the past eight years, she has served the city as project manager of infrastructure-related projects including the update of
development impact fees, special district financing programs, assessment district and CFD administration, Subdivision Manual
Update, ADA review of public right of way standards, reimbursement and fee recovery districts, and the preparation and
development of policies and procedures related to special district financing.
Relevant Project Experience
• City of Chula Vista, Temporary Expert Professional. Project Manager for a number of programs including Special District
Financing, Development Impact Fee Updates, and other fee programs; 1913/15 Act assessment district administration,
1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act administration and CFD acquisitions and administration; Subdivision Manual Update
and ADA review of public right of way standards; coordination of review of major roadway and private development
projects; and responsible for ordinance preparation and development of policy and procedures.
• City of Chula Vista, Civil Engineer. Project Manager for engineering development impact fee programs including
transportation, sewer, public facilities and drainage. Project Manager for 1913/15 Act assessment district formation and
administration, 1911 Block Act assessment district formation and administration, and 1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act
district formation and administration. Project Manager for preparation and development of policy and procedures related
to special district financing and Project Manager for reimbursement and fee recovery districts.
• City of Chula Vista, Assistant Engineer. Responsible for the plan review of major and minor development projects
including the Olympic Training Center; responsible for preparation of council reports, agreements and easement
documents, as well as detailed review of tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, environmental impact reports, initial
studies, grading plans, improvement plans, final maps, parcel maps, and master studies for drainage and sewer.
Professional Affiliations
State of California, Professional Civil Engineer
F'MC
6 3Jerome P. Fournier
Public Finance Coordinator
• San Marcos Blvd. Assessment District No. 2, City of San Marcos;
• Bracero Road Assessment District; City of San Marcos;
• Assessment District 99-01; City of Westmorland;
• Alvarado Channel Assessment District; City of La Mesa;
• De La Fuente I & II Assessment Districts; City of San Diego;
• Encinitas Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District; City of Encinitas;
• Wiro Park Landscape Maintenance District; City of Encinitas;
• La Mirada Canyon Landscape Maintenance District; City of Vista;
High Valley Roads; City of Poway;
International Business Center Cost Reimbursement District; City of San Diego;
Mesa Shopping Center Cost Reimbursement District; City of San Diego;
Holly Seacliff Cost Reimbursement District; City of Huntington Beach;
East Otay Mesa Development Impact Fee Study; County of San Diego;
Transportation Development Impact Fee Program; City of Chula Vista;
• Gateway of the Americas, Development Impact Fee Program; County of Imperial;
• Citywide Library Assessment District; City of San Jose;
• Park Maintenance District; Hayward Area Recreation & Park District;
• General Plan Update, Land Use and Public Facilities Elements; City of Vista;
Professional Affiliations
Toastmasters International
American Planning Association
Page 30,41,\(\e\(, y it(QS ' t del*
Printed Name & Title ign L a- ta
I understand that the City shall evaluate proposals in accordance with its
Municipal Code, and that the City reserves the right to reject any or all
proposals and to waive minor irregularities. August 24, 2006
Date
Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) 10461 Old Placerville Road
Company Business Address
Sacramento, CA 95827
City, State, Zip Code
1-866-828-6762 916-361-1574
Phone Number Fax Number
65.City of Culver City
User Fee Study
PROPOSAL TO THE CITY OF CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA
A Proposal to Prepare a Comprehensive
User Fee Study — RFP #1338
August, 2006
Prepared by:
MAXIMUS*
HELPING GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE'
Richard Pearl
Manfred Endres
Manager, Client services
Sr. Vice President
richardpearl@maximus.com manfredendres@maximus.com
cell: 916.715.9666
1.800.243.9013, ext. 109
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 1MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Ms. Ela Valladares
Deputy City Clerk
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
Re: Proposal for a User Rate and Fee Study
August15, 2006
Letter of Offer
MAXIM US is pleased to deliver this proposal for a cost allocation plan and user fee
study for the City of Culver City. We intend to deliver a product that not only
responds fully to the user fee cost identification requirements of the RFP, but will
deliver computerized models that will enable you to predict future staffing levels so
as to maintain both quality and service as unit volumes fluctuate. MAXIMUS is
uniquely qualified to deliver these critical financial and management insights.
Highlights of our qualifications are as follows:
4- We have been serving government for 30 years. We bring the knowledge
and best practices from our national practice to our clients. Our greatest
asset is enterprise-wide collaboration of the cities, counties, and states
agencies we serve everyday.
MAXIMUS has the deepest "bench" of any firm, with more than 100 expert
consultants in cost allocation services. The single greatest advantage of a
larger company is the ability to identify, absorb, and mitigate risk.
Governments are complex organizations requiring the large and diverse
services of their professional service firm partners.
4- MAXIMUS is never satisfied with "good enough." We strive to be great. Our
goal is to anticipate our client's needs, even when they are outside of the
service we are currently providing. MAXIMUS now offers our clients a full
suite of financial services to serve its public sector clients .services like
revenue maximization, performance analytics, and user fee studies.
? We are in the business of continuous improvement; finding newer, better
solutions for the people we serve. As a publicly traded company, our
stockholders demand exceptional performance and growth. They have
challenged MAXIM US (and our clients) to break free of "business as usual"
and to become great leaders in government.
• As MAXIMUS continues to grow and explore new services, our clients have
become our greatest advisors and partners. Our best ideas have come
from our clients. The people we serve inspire our greatest technological
leaps. Our achievements are measured, not in profit, but in the progress
we make every day Helping Government Serve the People.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 2
LiCity of Culver City
User Fee Study
VALUE
It is common for firms to speak of "value-added." MAXIMUS believes in
VALUE FIRST. Our clients want, and deserve, consulting that improves not
only their bottom line, but consulting that improves their service delivery. The
goal of our Value First approach is to identify these "change agents" before
they are even asked for! We are, after all, the experts in revenue enhancement
and cost identification. Examples of our Value First approach include:
Process Analytics: Based on the power of Activity Based
Costing/Management, this MAXIMUS-only cost methodology identifies
components of fee cost by discrete activity. The benefit is for our clients to
better understand why services cost what they do .the first and most
important step in process re-engineering. The immediate value is a rock-
solid, totally defensible user fee schedule.
mk Performance Analytics: This MAXIMUS management tool identifies macro-
level solutions to situations uncovered in Process Analytics. Performance
Analytics also provides performance measures and year-to-year tracking
via a "ScoreCard."
4- NEXUS Building Fee Analysis: California governments are under increased
legal scrutiny for documenting and validating building plan checking and
inspection fees. Even before any lawsuits reached the courtroom,
MAXIMUS developed a fully defensible fee process that has now been
selected by over forty jurisdictions.
Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. On behalf of MAXIM US, we look
forward to working with you. We are prepared to begin the project two weeks after
execution of a contract. As a vice president of the corporation, I am empowered to
commit the firm to the contents of this proposal. This proposal shall remain in
effect for a period of 90 days from the above date.
Sincerely,
4aks 0 -(4
Manfred Endres, Senior Vice President
MAXIMUS Financial Services Division
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 3City of Culver City
User Fee Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Culver City recognizes the general opportunity to modify its fee
for service activities to align better with actual costs. A comprehensive
analysis of the true, full costs of providing fee-for-service activities has not
been accomplished for approximately fifteen years. In addition to assuring
a fairer and more equitable charging format, an important benefit of this
restructuring is usually an overall increase in fee revenues to the
jurisdiction. A MAXIMUS study will help you achieve your objectives, and
many others. Benefits include an analysis that:
• Is supportable and defensible - to the City Council, the public, local
industry, and the courts.
• Is consistent with local, state, and federal cost recovery requirements,
and complies with State laws and their interpretations.
• Is adaptable to future program changes and inflation.
• Is a tool that will Increase revenue to the general fund - within the
bounds of proper and defensible accounting treatments.
• Is a process that will identify new fees and other opportunities for the
City to increase the scope and breadth of its fee revenue generation
ability.
This proposal includes development of an analysis on the City's fee-for-
service activities for its development services divisions (planning, building,
and engineering), police, fire and recreation.
No city can, from a practical standpoint, collect and/or offset 100% of their
user fee activities .especially where a jurisdiction is providing recreational
services. A direct result of the MAXIMUS client-centric, Value First
approach, however, is success in obtaining nearly full recovery for profit-
based (development, business) activities. We are also successful in
improving recreation fees, but this area is always heavily subsidized in
many of its services.
We note from your web site (budget section) that the City is anticipating a
sizeable decline in Building and Safety revenue in the 2006/07 fiscal year.
There also appears to be significant subsidies in the Planning and Fire
Prevention areas. Our MAXIMUS computer models will allow the City to
both better understand required cost recovery levels, and perhaps as
importantly, staffing implications.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 4
5'MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
USER FEE STUDIES - OUR APPROACH & METHODOLOGIES
For over 25 years, MAXIMUS has been providing State and Local
governments a wide range of consulting services. Principally, these
services have focused on cost analysis of indirect overhead rates and user
fees. This experience provides MAXIMUS a depth of experience and
leadership that is unmatched within our industry.|109| GENERAL APPROACH TO USER FEE STUDIES
A user fee is a governmental activity/service that is performed at the
request of, and specifically for, a particular individual, business, or
group .as opposed to a service for the community as a whole. An example
of the former is a request for a zone change to build a new business. The
requestor will be gaining a specific economic benefit from that service not
shared by the community at large. An example of the latter is police or fire
protection, which is considered a community-wide activity and supported by
taxation.
The approach, philosophy and methodology of a User Fee Study are as
important as the final outcome. While the calculation of a number or cost of
a specific user fee is important, it is equally important that this number be
defensible, clearly understood by staff, and useful for improving long-term
performance. Because of this underlying philosophy, MAXIMUS
employs costing methodologies that meet these criteria. Specifically our
studies:
I. Provide cost calculations that are easily defensible. By this we
mean, staff can easily defend the process, the results and the
rational behind the methodology used to calculate "full cost".
2. Involve staff in a highly collaborative fashion that gleans the
wisdom and experience of City expertise.
3. Develop costs from the "ground up". By this we mean that costs
are calculated by first understanding and modeling the entire range
of services. We then develop a clear understanding of the internal
processes and only then calculate the cost of services.
4. Identify all costs associated with fees. These costs routinely
include cross-departmental support, City overhead, department
overhead, process costs and reserve funds.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 5MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
5. Project revenue at "full cost". In addition, MAXIMUS will provide
detailed worksheets for the staff report projecting revenues based
on staff recommendations.
6. Include Advanced Methodologies — NEXUS, Process Analytics.
The level of detail we create is unsurpassed in our industry. The
additional steps we take will provide data that will assist leadership
in developing service models that will strengthen and enhance City
services. These will often include process improvement
opportunities and best practice comparisons (where available).
7. Identify pricing issues that will impact operational efficiencies.
We often find that poor pricing policies or practices contribute
negatively to staff workload without value.
8. Present findings in public forums. Typical presentations include
any and all stakeholder groups such as the City council,
development associations, and community groups.
9. Implementation strategy. User Fee studies are often delayed in
implementation for a variety of external factors. MAXIMUS has
designed (if requested) a facilitated process that will speed
implementation.
10. Lay the groundwork for Operational Improvement. Because we
take the extra step of understanding and on occasion, mapping
operational processes we can leave the City with the tools to
continue its own improvement work, or retain MAXIMUS to
thoroughly document industry best practices and offer process re-
engineering solutions (optional subsequent study).
A user fee study is relatively simple on the surface, but extremely complex
in practice. We will be using the phrase "collaborative" several times
throughout this proposal because it goes to the heart of our work plan. Our
results are not "black box" nor are they developed without total vetting by
City staff. When complete, the City will have a thorough road map of not
only where the fee costs came from, but why costs are what they are. The
following graphic displays the flow of information throughout the user fee
project.
PROJECT EXECUTION
1.1 MAXIMUS RESULTS
MAXIMUS has been performing cost of service/user fee studies for more
than 20 years. The graph below shows the results of our more recent
efforts:
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 60,83
$1,221
$3,077
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Average New Revenue from Fee Increases
($ thousands)
<50K
c
.2 50-100K
0 4.*
O. CU
CL 100K+
4 0
E
a)
3 Counties
$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
The above represents fees that could reasonably be increased to full or
nearly full cost recovery, and generally includes full city or county -wide fee
studies. Our experience is that "development services," taken as a whole,
is invariably moderately too significantly — and unintendedly — subsidized
even where an individual division may be over recovering for services.
1.2 MAXIMUS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
When requesting a user fee study, clients typically think in terms of the
consultant providing a listing of the full cost of the jurisdiction's current and
potential fee-for-service activities. MAXIMUS believes the client also will
benefit from a better understanding of the cost components of each fee or
activity. To this end, we have designed an analytical model (Process
Analytics) based on the principles of Activity Based Costing.
In effect, "Level 1" gives the client the fee data; "Level 2" provides insight
as to why costs are what they are, and highlights targets of opportunity for
business process re-engineering. An example of the activity information is
displayed below: We believe we are the only firm to provide this type of
information.
(GRAPH FOLLOWS)
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
it
Page 7MAXIMUS
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%|1010|City of Culver City
User Fee Study
o Non-Specific Activity
• Intake and Processing
O Initial Review
o Detailed Review
• Follow -up Questions
Ea Documentation
• Notification
o Filing and Archiving
MAXIMUS has a subsequent program to define solutions to reengineering
opportunities identified in the Process Analytics component. Performance
Analytics accomplishes this and can include best practices, performance
measurement, and ScoreCarding for improvement tracking. (Note:
Performance Analytics is an optional service, tailored to the individual
client. Please see page 28 for an overview of this effort)
2 User Fee Study - Project Steps
MAXIMUS uses several fee models to calculate service costs: our
MAXFEE model for planning, engineering, police, and fire; our NEXUS
model for Building and Safety fees; and a cost-revenue match-up model for
Recreation. MAXFEE is used for calculating standard-time based fees.
NEXUS was created due to the very specific nature of building fees and the
requirement to have a dynamic structure that can readily accommodate a
wide range of structures and structure sizes. Recreation uses a match-up
because their activities frequently shift size and focus and a fee schedule
should accommodate this dynamic.
2.1 BUILDING THE COSTING MODEL FOR PLANNING,
ENGINEERING, POLICE, FIRE
Historically, MAXIMUS constructed fee tables based on a "bottom-up"
analysis of summing individual staff times-to-complete each fee and non
fee activity. Those hours, multiplied by full productive hourly rates, created
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 8
13—1 Pre-application Review H
H Application Intake H
H Application Review H
_J Set Conditions of
Approval
H
Review by Planning
Commission
Lot Line
Adjustment
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
standard costs which then became the fee. We employed this method for
over twenty years; no successful challenge was ever mounted and, in fact,
our client's clients (the applicants) were appreciative of the fact that the
data was easily analyzed and understandable for review.
While the results were good and met our client's expectations, we believe
that "good is not good enough." A hallmark of the MAXIMUS Western
Region has been innovation and the development of value-added services
to our clients. Towards this end, we re-crafted our user fee model to
incorporate the principles of Activity Based Costing (ABC). We call it,
Process Analytics.
At its core, Process Analytics seeks to know what activities, products, and
services really cost, and understand what drives that cost. With this
knowledge, the organization is in a better position to deliver services faster,
cheaper, and more effectively. In the MAXIMUS solution, our Process
Analytics delivers the initial knowledge, and our Performance Analytics
delivers potential solutions.
In this proposal, MAXIMUS will employ its Process Analytics approach to
fee determination. (Performance Analytics is an optional service). The goal
of Process Analytics is to track costs to core business practices, as shown
in the following graphic:
In a highly collaborative work session, MAXIMUS will work with staff and
leadership to identify and define those work processes that produce City
services. The list is individualized to each client, although we can provide
general guidelines from other studies. As an example, for the Planning
Division, MAXIMUS consultants will facilitate a process that identifies
mission critical processes and then define those processes by the activities
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 9City of Culver City
User Fee Study
and tasks that support them. One recent project resulted in the following
partial list of planning processes:
Planning Department
Processes
Activity / Definition
Pre application review
Application Intake
Application Review
Environmental
Compliance
Development Review
Committee
Maintain Legal
Documents
Plan Check (both
residential and
commercial)
A formal meeting over the phone or at the counter.
Something involving extensive discussion beyond normal
public information at the counter or over the phone.
Receive application; enter into database; assign to a
planner, create application file.
Review for completeness; zoning calculations; initial design
review; site visit; prepare findings report, routing plans.
Schedule and attend managed meeting; prepare conditions
of approval; prepare and mail letters; close file. Respond
to public inquiries via phone, counter, e-mail associated
with a particular project.
Determine if exempt; prepare initial study; send to
responsible agencies; complete Negative Declaration; filing
documents with City recorder.
Development review committee meetings and design
review, set agendas, write and transmit minutes.
Update zoning ordinance; condition of approval
maintenance; zoning interpretations; legal updates; prepare,
print and maintain zoning and general plan maps; annual
Planning Commission Report.
Review project in plan check; follow up on conditions of
approval; site visit for project final; review legal agreements
(CC&R's development agreements).
Staff will be asked to identify times not to the individual fee, but to each
activity within each fee (examples above) that will build to a fee total. While
this may seem somewhat extreme and an onerous time burden on staff, we
have found that the approach — by more effectively defining service times
at a more detailed level — actually saves time overall. The reason is that we
develop better initial information which shortens the number of review and
fine-tuning iterations. The internal balancing routines within the Process
Analytics model correlate total time spent to the number of units produced,
and compares that total against a known available number of productive
hours. In the end, we arrive at rock-solid times-to-complete/total cost that
balances with known staff resources. An example of an individual fee is
shown below:
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 10MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Conditional Use Permit: Child-Care Center 2,094
Application Intake 41
Pre application review $ 82
Application Processing $ 165
Application Review $ 165
Development Review Committee $ 494
Zoning Administrator Meeting $ 329
Public Interaction $ 165
City Board Meetings & appeals $ -
General Administration $ 60
Public Counter $ 388
GIS $ 53
EPC Maintenance $ 36
General Plan & Data Maintenance $ 90
Maintain Legal Documents $ 26
Again, "good is not good enough." In addition to the activity costs, we can
also assign additional coding — attributes — to each activity. Attributes are
specific characteristics of an activity. Attribute examples include: mission
critical, regulatory required, value added, non-value added, administrative.
Examples of the output available are shown below:
Activity Definition
28°'
30%
,
M Intake and
Processing (b)
• Initial Review (b)
o Detailed Review (a)
0 Follow-up Questions
(a)
• Documentation
0 Final Review
• Notification
25%
sir
20 0 /0
15 0 /o
10%
5%
0%
lir
Er
il
%
•|1010|18°
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 11MAXIMUS
Planning Attribute Costs - Dept Totals
Non Value
Added/M.C,
32% Op
Agency
.1111111111106• Mandates
Mission 19%
Critical
30%
x Administrative
• Agency Mandates
Mission Critical
Non Value Added/M.C.
Adm inistrati
ye
19%
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Attribute Analysis
If, for example, an activity that has significant cost displays low value
added (from the client's perspective), and is not mission critical or
regulatory required, it is a logical candidate for business process re-
engineering.
In summary, Process Analytics will provide City staff not only with a fee
table and projected revenue, but a significantly improved understanding of
the cost and rationale of the activities underlying each fee.
Deliverable: A documented set of Planning, Engineering, Police, fire
fees (See Appendix A for example). Also, delivery of the Process
Analytics Excel-based computer program for internal use by the City
of Culver City.
Goal: A complete understanding of City services.
2.2 CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING & SAFETY COSTING MODEL
HISTORICAL CONTEXT — MAXIM US SOLUTION
Building fees have traditionally been set based on structural valuation. This
method is exceedingly difficult to correlate to services provided and the
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 12City of Culver City
User Fee Study
resultant fee for that service. There have been numerous legal challenges
— primarily in California - to this approach over the past 15 years.
To provide our clients with a workable, defensible building fee schedule,
MAXIMUS has developed a specialized application for the determination
of building inspection and plan check costs: our NEXUS model. This
approach represents a distinct change in fee calculation and
administration. Over three dozen California cities and counties have
engaged MAXIMUS to develop a NEXUS study for their building and
safety (including fire) fees. Key elements of this approach are described in
subsequent paragraphs of this proposal.
The goal of a NEXUS study is to create a new format that is legally
defensible, fair to the consumer, and administratively workable. NEXUS
complies with California and other state's legal imperatives that call for a
direct relationship (nexus) between fees levied and services provided. The
traditional valuation tables do not provide this validation, but NEXUS does.
This study should accomplish each of the following objectives:
• Develop a Building Fee schedule that recovers 100% of
Building's direct and indirect costs, as well as the cost of
supportive operating departments (e.g., Planning).
• Communicate to the public and development community that a
clear, equitable, and defensible method has been used to
calculate plan check and inspection fees.
• Result in a fee schedule that is easy to administer.
The model develops three primary fee tables: new construction,
mechanical/electrical/plumbing (M/P/E) individual service fees, and
miscellaneous fees. The City's client merely identifies what service is
desired, and is shown the specific fee for that service. No additional
calculations are required. New construction fees — both for plan checking
and inspection — are calculated based UBC category and structured based
on time .then adjusted for square footage variations. Appendix B displays
an example of the NEXUS new construction fee table. M/P/E and
miscellaneous services are structured based on specific (time-originated)
services
In addition to the actual fee schedules, our NEXUS model will provide the
City with significant management information in terms of both current and
forecast net revenue and staffing. With our 30+ client data base, we can
also provide comparative information and "bench-checks" against other
jurisdictions providing identical services.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 13
IsMAXImUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
2.2.1 The NEXUS Advantage
Revenue Analysis - NEXUS does not, by design, reconcile to the City
financial records. The very nature of building & safety operations is typically
multi-year, e.g. revenues may be received in one fiscal year, but the
services not be performed until the following year. To "lock-in" the impact
of NEXUS, our program correlates net revenues based on identical unit
volume data under both the current fee schedule and the new NEXUS
schedule.
The deliverable revenue analysis is shown in the following schedule:
FEE AND REVENUE - COMPARISONS
Building Fee Category
Revenue at
Potential Fee
Revenue at
Current Fee
Current
Revenue
Surplus /
(Subsidy)
New Construction
Inspection $ 919,860 $ 750,000 $ (169,860)
Misc. Items $ 165,850 $ 150,500 $ (15,350)
Fire Items $ - $ - $ -
MP&E's $ 95,700 $ 5,000 $ (90,700)
Total Revenues: $ 1,181,410 $ 905,500 $ (275,910)
• Staffing Requirements - A critical piece of the NEXUS
methodology is the productive hour calculation. By integrating unit values
with time data and matching that to available productive hours, the result is
the number of staff required to fulfill the department's mission. By varying
forecast unit volumes, the City will be in a position to better understand its
future staffing requirements. The information is shown below:
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 14
7qNEW CONSTRUCTION INSP TIME ESTIMATES POPULATION: 200K 500K|10101010|POPULATION: Over
co
cn
UBC /
IBC Class
Building Use: (UBC / IBC Occupancy Type)
Average
Sq. Ft.
U)
p
M
g
.5
. .-•
c§
. .- 2,
C.)
U)
M
M
g
.5
.g
c§
. .a.
0 o o
R-1 Apartment Bldg 10000 39.00 6.00
R-1 Apartment Bldg (repeat) 10000 8.00 6.00
R-1 Hotels & Motels 10000 6.00
R-1 Hotels & Motels - Phased Permits 10000 54.00
R-3 Dwellings - Custom 1000 4.00
R-3 Dwellings - Custom (1.5k sq ft) 1500 5.00
R-3 Dwellings - Custom (2k sq ft) 2000 9.00 5.00
R-3 Dwellings-Custom (3k sq ft) 3000 11.00 6.00
R-3 Dwellings - Custom (5k sq ft) 5000 16.00 6.00
R-3 Dwellings - Custom (10k sq ft) 10000 8.00
R-3 Dwellings - Model 1000 4.00
R-3 Dwellings - Model (1.5k sq ft) 1500 5.00
R-3 Dwellings - Model (2k sq ft) 2000 5.00
R-3 Dwellings - Model (3k sq ft) 3000 6.00
R-3 Dwellings - Model (5k sq ft) 5000 6.00
R-3 Dwellings - Model (10k sq ft) 10000 8.00
22.50 15.30
7.00 6.93
6.00 6.00
54.00 54.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
7.00 6.71
8.50 8.12
11.00 9.80
8.00 8.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
6.00 6.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
39.00 6.00 22.50
7.00
6.00
54.00
4.00
5.00
7.00
8.50
11.00
8.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
8.00
8.00 6.00
6.00
54.00
4.00
5.00
9.00 5.00
11.00 6.00
16.00 6.00
8.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
8.00
15.30
6.93
6.00
54.00
4.00
5.00
6.71
8.12
9.80
8.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
8.00
:2‘
500K
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
FTE ANALYSIS:
Current Volume: Forecast Volume:
Total Total Hrs. Total FTE's Total Total Hrs. Total FTE's Req.
Building Fee Category Units Consumed Consumed Units Consumed Consumed Adjust.
New Construction 481 10,839 8.0 676 12,034 10.4 2.4
Miscellaneous Items 2,605 10,563 7.8 2,905 11,637 8.6 0.8
MP&E's 3,970 3,814 2.8 4,610 4,429 3.3 0.5
Total
7,056 25,216 18.6 8,191 28,100 22.3 3.7
In the example shown above, the forecast volume increase indicates a
required staffing increase of 3.7 (say 4) new employees, assuming
continuation of current service times. The reverse would also be true, of
course, in times of declining unit volumes.
• Comparative Data - All city and county building departments provide
essentially the same services. MAXIMUS is developing a database of
service times-to-complete for objective review of performance. We
make no value judgments based on this information, but offer it to our
clients as a benchmark for their own data. An example of this data is
shown below (Note: the data base is presently under construction and
will be completed shortly).
(TABLE FOLLOWS)
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 15MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
In summary, NEXUS will provide the City with the tools to not only
restructure its fees to comply with state law, but significant management
information to more quickly adapt to changing operational environments.
Deliverable: Fee schedules for plan checking and inspections
services, by new construction, trades, and miscellaneous services.
Also, delivery of the NEXUS computer model for the City of Culver
City internal use only.
Goal: A legally defensible fee schedule that is client-friendly yet
captures all appropriate City costs of providing building services.
Please note that if the City wishes us to preserve the current fee format, we
will prepare a revenue-cost match-up (based on available City data) that
will allow for a macro-level adjustment to the current tables based on a
percentage adjustment.
3 PARKS AND RECREATION
For most service areas we utilize a "unit cost build-up" approach to identify
the cost of each individual service for most programs and departments.
For the majority of recreation programs and facility rentals, this unit cost
build-up approach is not feasible or desirable due to variances in cost
inputs, staffing, service demand, and market-limiting factors.
As a result of these issues, we employ a cost-revenue analysis approach
for Recreation programs to identify cost recovery performance at program
levels. This method allows us to identify potential increases (on a
percentage basis) for the programs overall, which the City can consider
when determining the potential increases to individual service fees. We
provide results in this format, rather than individual fee
levels/recommendations, since Recreation program fees are subject to
particularly intense political scrutiny and considerations that have nothing
to do with actual cost. The alternative for the City is to spend considerable
staff time (and additional consultant fees) on a detailed unit cost study that
has questionable validity and even less utility for fee setting.
At the study's conclusion the client has the tools to adjust fees in a
dynamic-model fashion, completely current with future costs and goals. An
example of this structure is shown below:
(GRAPHIC FOLLOWS)
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 16MAXIMUS
% INCR. REQ. TO REACH GOAL, incl OA INCREASED REVENUE AT ALT. RECOVERY LEVELS:
1 5% 36% 49% 59%
30% 51% 64% 77%
13% 23% 30% 38%
202% 234% 253% 268%
41%
41% 53% 69%
-40% -20% -15% -8%
11% 58% 70% 82%
111% 280% 310% 333%
133% 145% 175% 200%
13% 19% 35% 47%
-17% -12% 1% 10%
-12% 11% 15% 23%
77% 113% 118% 131%
33% 96% 110% 124%
158% 252% 278% 298%
42% 77% 80% 88%
27% 86% 99% 111%
_5% _5%
3% 9%
$ 23,257 $ 55,452 $ 74,751 $ 91,120
$ 41,985 $ 71,565 $ 89,296 $ 106,888
$ 15,898 $ 29,107 $ 37,025 $ 47,636
$ 86,079 $ 99,477 $ 107,508 $ 113,902
$ 17,113 $ 17,113 $ 22,145 $ 28,609
$ (34,514) $ (17,174) $ (12,887) $ (7,114)
$ 23,097 $ 127,302 $ 153,060 $ 179,564
$ 43,791 $ 110,842 $ 122,628 $ 131,797
$ 50,625 $ 55,195 $ 66,464 $ 76,217
$ 90,376 $ 133,787 $ 240,830 $ 327,174
$ (298,813) $ (206,511) $ 21,088 $ 184,650
$ (25,289) $ 22,136 $ 30,233 $ 48,014
$ 6,508 $ 9,467 $ 9,935 $ 11,044
$ 2,469 $ 7,162 $ 8,201 $ 9,202
$ 24,235 $ 38,682 $ 42,747 45,829
$ 23,144 $ 42,678 44,653 $ 48,819
$ 20,275 $ 65,005 $ 74,296 $ 83,837
$ (83,924) $ (83,924) $ 50,881 $ 158,885
1340-1325 Moana Pool
1340-1326 NW Pool
1340-1327 Idlewild Pool
1340-1329 NECC Pool
1345-1332 CS Leisure Lrn
1350-1333 Ath Fld/Crt
1350-1335 Ath Leagues
1360-1341 Sr. Recrec
1365-1344 Youth R&S
1365-1346 Youth Camps
1365-1348 Youth Sierra Kd
1375-1 353 - OD Ice Rink
1375-1354 Sky Tavern
1380-1356 Paradise Pk
1380-1359 Neil Rd Rec Ctr
1380-1360 Comm Halls
1380-1361 - NE Comm Ctr
GOLF
PROG NAME/NBR.
NO INCR.
20 % INCR
NO REDUC*
25% INCR
25% I NCR
25% INCR
NO REDUC*
NO REDUC.
25% INCR
25% INCR
10% INCR.
10% INCR.
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
2 COST ALLOCATION PLAN
The City has its own, internally constructed central services cost allocation
plan. We would use that document for city-wide overhead input.
MAXIMUS, as the nation's leading provider of cost plans, will review the
city's cost plan for any potential improvements. The City can then decided
if the suggestions are significant enough for further exploration and
perhaps production. There will be no charge for this review. Our firm is, of
course, ready-willing-able to produce a tailored cost plan for the City under
a separate contract.
t|109| iterative reviews and quality assurance
Reviewing data and assuring a quality and defensible set of fees is critical
to the process and implementation. Our process for assuring a quality
project is based on the idea of quality input = quality output. Besides onsite
data checks MAXIMUS holds a minimum of two formal reviews of data
and results. Typically the first review is with front line staff and leadership
(division level). The second review is typically with department level
leadership. Based on our years of experience, we consistently find that
formal opportunities for reviews at each operational level is critical to the
full implementation of fees.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 17
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Quality input = quality
output. Therefore,
manage the input.MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study|109| Presentations and delivery of final report
MAXIMUS is very firm in its commitment to quality assurance. Because of
this, no report is written and no presentation is made until departmental
leadership formally approves of all of the data inputs and is secure in the
understanding that all of the issues relating to the establishment of full cost
have been identified. Once these reviews have been adopted, MAXIMUS
will prepare a comprehensive report and deliver this report to the City
Council.
In addition, we are often asked to make presentations to stakeholder
groups and meet with city councils in work sessions. These are all helpful
and available to the City as contract options.|109| Work Plan
Our detailed work plan comprises seven tasks, as outlined below:
Task 1: Build the Operational Costing Model(s)
In a highly collaborative work session, MAXIMUS will work with staff and
leadership to identify and define those work processes that produce City
services. As an example, for the Planning Division, MAXIMUS consultants
will facilitate a process that identifies mission critical processes, and will
then define those processes by the activities and tasks that support them.
The departments and divisions to be included in the fee study are:
Nk Development Services operations (Building, Planning, and
Engineering)
4- Parks and Recreation
4- Police and Fire
Anticipated schedule: October/November 2006
Deliverable: no specific document; however, our models will
be designed with a schedule of fees encompassing the
current structure and proposed changes to the existing
structure for all departments.
Goal: create base models containing all fee activity
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 18
& 3MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Task 2: Calculate Hourly Rates, and Develop Time and Volume
Data
This second step involves inputting expense, time, and volume data into
our modeling software for each department/division. There are various
subtasks, as listed below:
Calculate productive hourly rates, as necessary.
• Develop time estimate data. By facilitating interactive interviews,
time data will be developed that will provide an understanding of staff
utilization and cost on critical processes and activities.
• Input volume data. City staff are responsible for providing this
data. Volume data for each service (fee) is critical for two reasons:
o They provide a basis for revenue projections at both full cost
and recommended prices; and
o They provide a basis for cross checking quality data.
Anticipated schedule: October/November 2006
Deliverable: Populated NEXUS and Process Analytics
models with initial data sets and time estimates.
Goal: assign all staff time, account for all work volumes,
include all budgetary data.
Task 3: Iterative Reviews and Quality Assurance
It is critical to assure that data are of high quality and that calculations are
accurate. That assurance is necessary to creating a defensible set of fees,
final implementation, and reasonableness. We hold a minimum of two
formal reviews of data and results. The first review is with front line staff
and leadership (division level). The second review is with department level
leadership. In addition to formal reviews with staff and leadership,
MAXIMUS assigns a senior consultant with significant experience to review
each model.
Anticipated schedule: December 2006
Deliverable: Draft of NEXUS and Process Analytics models
with departmental concurrence that data reflects current
work activity.
Goal: account for all work and volume activity, along with a
reasonable allocation among fees
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 19MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Task 4: Testing for Reasonableness
MAXIMUS believes that the full cost of every fee should also be tested for
TESTING FOR reasonableness. Inherently, this testing is difficult because it forces the
REASONABLE- question of "how do we define what is reasonable?" Different service
NESS levels, social economic values, and business climates are all variables that
MAXIMUS can can be considered in setting "reasonable" prices for fees. However, most
provide time jurisdictions want to have some method of testing their fees against some
estimates and hourly norms. MAXIM US can provide three tests of reasonableness:
rate comparisons for 4- Are the hourly rates that are ultimately the financial driver of cost
several jurisdictions
of com parable size. reasonable with respect to other California jurisdictions?
4- Are the time estimates that are used to calculate staff involvement
reasonable with respect to other California jurisdictions?
4 Are the prices that will eventually be implemented comparable
within the marketplace?
MAXIMUS has a 25-year history of conducting fee studies in California.
Annually, we complete 15-20 such studies in California alone. This
experience provides an extensive database of the actual costing inputs.
We can compare the costing inputs of the City against a universe of
comparable jurisdictions.
MAXIMUS will also compare current and newly-determined user fees for
the City of Culver City against our data base and Culver City-surrounding
areas.
Anticipated schedule: December 2006
Deliverable: Comparison against acceptable, anticipated
ranges of values.
Goal: all fee and hourly amounts fall within reasonable
ranges
Task 5: Quality Assurance Review and Procedure
Quality Assurance is an important and vital aspect of every engagement.
MAXIMUS takes seriously the idea that quality input yields quality output.
Our approach to quality assurance is to develop a process that is
transparent to staff and the public. Specifically, we have three checks for
Quality Assurance, as follows:
4- After the initial costing model is built and all data are collected.
-4- As part of the iterative review process, staff will be asked to "sign
off' on preliminary results.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 20
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
Quality input =
quality output.
Therefore,
manage the
input.City of Culver City
User Fee Study
4- Before going to the City Council, all models are reviewed by a
senior MAXIMUS consultant.
Anticipated schedule: December/January 2006-07
Deliverable: Staff sign-off on full models.
Task 7: Presentations and Delivery of Final Report
Once the results have been reviewed, MAXIMUS will prepare a
comprehensive report and deliver this report to staff and the City Council.
In addition, we can optionally set up web-based conferences for those
groups that ask more detailed questions or want a more thorough
understanding of the process and results.
Anticipated schedule: January 2007
Deliverable: Final reports and training.
3(
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 21MAXIMUS
EXPERIENCE
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
EDUCATION &
PUBLICATIONS
7 PROJECT TEAM
The following consultants will be assigned to this particular project. Each of
these consultants has local government experience and/or significant
experience in financial analysis within the public sector. Combined, these
staff members have worked on nearly 40 cost of service studies (cost plans
and fee studies).
DANIEL EDDS, MBA - PROJECT DIRECTOR & USER FEE MANAGER
Mr. Edds began his consulting experiences as an independent consultant.
His clients were principally public education K-12, Community Colleges and
education related state agencies. His work on behalf of these clients
focused on cost analysis, process re-engineering and performance
management.
Since joining MAXIMUS , Mr. Edds has been involved with conducting
and managing financial analysis projects with numerous counties and
cities. Principally, these projects have involved process analysis for the
purpose of restructuring fees for full cost recovery of Land Development,
Planning, Public Works, Recreation, Police, Fire, Hazardous Materials, GIS
and Library services. Recent projects completed or currently under way
include Modeling Cost Processes for Napa County, Butte County and the
cities of: Porterville, Hercules, Mountain View, Half Moon Bay, Pasadena,
Morano Valley, Imperial Beach, Rancho Cucamonga, and Happy Valley,
Oregon.
In addition to his consulting work, Mr. Edds is regularly invited to speak at
state finance officers associations. His recent presentations have been for
the Washington Officers Finance Association and the Oregon Municipal
Finance Officers Association.
Mr. Edds holds a Masters in Business Administration (International
Business) from the Albers School of Business at Seattle University (1993)
and has additional graduate level work in Operations Management.
Based on the results and original research gained with his public sector
clients Spiro Press (London England) invited him to write a book. The result
is Transformation Management, which has already earned him recognition
as a leading thinker in how performance management can transform public
sector organizations from within. He has also been a contributor to The
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 22MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Journal of Cost Management and a contributing editor to School Planning
& Management.
REFERENCES
Michael Stoltz: Deputy Director of Public Works, Napa County, California,
707.253.4821
Helen Ansted: Senior Budget Analyst, Mountain View, California,
650.903.6011
Darrel Pyle: City Manager, City of Tulare, California
Ms. Linda Southard, Administrative Officer, County of Yuba
(530) 749-5430
NICOLE KISSAM — SENIOR CONSULTANT
Nicole Kissam is a user fee specialist in the Cost Services Division of MAXIMUS.
Since joining MAXIMUS in early 2003, Ms. Kissam has assisted or developed
enhanced User Fee Studies for many California clients. Principally, her work has
involved Cost of Services studies with Development Services agencies. In addition,
she is also experienced in the development of Indirect Cost Allocation Plans, and
specialty departments such as Recreation, Fire Prevention, Probation, and Special
Districts.
Recent projects for Ms Kissam include:
EXPERIENCE
s
• City of El Cerrito — Principal and Lead Consultant. Provided a
Comprehensive Cost of Service Study that incorporated all fees and
developed the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan.
• City of Paso Robles — Lead Consultant for a Comprehensive Cost
Of Service (User Fee) Study.
• City of San Buenaventura — Lead Consultant. Cost Allocation Plan
and Cost of Service (User Fee) Analysis.
• City of Livermore - Building and Safety and Fire Prevention Cost of
Service (User Fee) Analysis.
• City of Pasadena — Lead Consultant for Planning, Engineering and
Police departments within a Comprehensive Cost of Service (User
Fee) Analysis.
• Yuba County — Lead Consultant for Building & Safety and Code
Enforcement portions of a Comprehensive Cost of Service Study.
• Sacramento County — Lead Consultant for a Probation Services
Cost of Service Study
• Santa Barbara County, Cities of Winters, Vacaville and Alameda —
Currently conducting Cost of Services Studies as Principal and
Lead Consultant.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 23MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Prior to joining MAXIMUS, Ms. Kissam served as a Special Projects aide in
the Finance Department for the City of Temecula, California. In this
capacity she had direct experience in budget and revenue analysis. In
addition, she has substantial consulting experience in management,
marketing, and public relations for private companies, (national and
international).
EDUCATION
REFERENCES
Ms. Kissam earned a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration at
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
Ms. Linda Southard, Administrative Officer, City of Yuba
(530) 749-5430
Mr. Jurg Neuberger, Planning Director/Building Official
(760) 482.4236
Ms. Mary Dodge, Director of Finance, City of El Cerrito
(510) 215-4317
Ms. Margaret Van Warmerdan, Director of Finance, City of Red Bluff
(530) 527-2605
Mr. Michael Compton, Admin. Svc. Director, City of Paso Robles,
(805) 237-3999
BRIAN FOSTER — SENIOR MANAGER
Mr. Foster is a Senior Manager with MAXIMUS. He has been a
governmental practitioner and consultant for approximately 24 years,
having worked with cities, counties, courts, and special districts during his
career. Mr. Foster has worked with large, medium, and small organizations.
Mr. Foster's focus is on the areas of organizational analysis, operational
efficiency, financial management, and technology improvements in
complex environments. Mr. Foster has been responsible for: management
and organizational analyses, budgetary analyses, rate studies, technology
solutions designs, policy studies, and revenue enhancement reviews.
Mr. Foster has specific experience in the following areas:
4. Public Sector Management Audits|109| Financial, Accounting, and Budget Management
4- Revenue Management and Analysis
4- Systems Analysis, Design, and Implementation
4- Legislative Monitoring and Analysis
4 Community Liaison
4 Business Planning
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 24City of Culver City
User Fee Study
EXPERIENCE
EDUCATION
The following list of accomplishments represents Mr. Foster's public sector
management skills in the development services and recreation areas.
Management Studies and Audits
Performed an operational review of certain divisions in the City of
San Jose's Department of Planning, Building, and Code
Enforcement, including the development of new operating
procedures.
Recommended organizational and internal control changes to the
City of La Palma's Finance, Public Works, and Building and
Safety Departments.
Performed management audits for the City & County of San
Francisco—Bureau of Building Inspection, City and County of
San Francisco's General Hospital, Social Services Department,
and Youth Guidance Center.
Finance, Accounting, and Budgeting:
Reviewed the financial history and projected the financial needs for
the City of Imperial Beach, CA (leading to expenditure
reductions and revenue alternatives).
Established hourly planning rates and user fee schedules for the
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD).
Created user fee schedules for the Engineering Department of the
City of Brentwood.
Developed alternative revenue generating mechanisms to support
litter abatement activities for the City of Lynwood.
Mr. Foster joined MAXIMUS in 1999. He has worked in both our Cost
Group and Management Services Group. Other municipal and consulting
experiences include:
• City of El Cerrito, California, Financial Services Manager/City
Treasurer
• Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC, Fremont, California, Senior
Associate
• GCI Jennings, Inc., Operations Director, 1995-1996
• City of Oakland, Administrative Services Manager II
• Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, Senior
Management and Budget Analyst
Mr. foster holds both undergraduate and graduate degrees for U.C.
Berkeley (Masters in Public Policy, 1982).
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 25MAXIML1S
REFERENCES
EXPERIENCE
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Ms. Lora Cohen, Fiscal Officer, Livermore Area Recreation & Park District;
915.373.5700
Mr. Tom Ritter, Assist. City Manager, City of Imperial Beach, 619.423.8615
Ms. Stephanie Larsen, Assist. County Administrative Officer, County of
Humbolt; 707.476.2388
GRETA DAVIS - MANAGER
Ms. Davis has 20 years of experience in local government services. Her
range of experience includes the following:
Budget preparation, auditing, analysis, development, and
presentation
Research, development and implementation of municipal
programs
Risk management, waste and recycling management
Personnel policy and procedure development
Legislative research, analysis and development
Cost allocation plan development (OMB A-87 and Full Cost)
Cost of Service/User Fee Studies
Revenue maximization and enhancement
Since joining MAXIMUS in June 1999, Ms. Davis has worked on the
following projects.
• County Cost Allocation Plans: Ms. Davis has prepared the
OMB A-87 Cost Allocation Plan for Orange County, In Ohio,
Ms. Davis prepared the OMB A-87 Cost Allocation Plans for
Trumbull, Union, Butler, Portage and Columbiana Counties.
3 Cost of Service/User Fee Analysis for the following cities
and counties:
3 Ms. Davis provided services to Lancaster, Vallejo, Vista,
Encinitas, Oceanside, Malibu, Dana Point, Mission Viejo,
Hawthorne, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Cucamonga, Grover
Beach, Orange, Lynwood, Irvine and Butte County in CA.
Additionally, Ms. Davis conducted User Fee Studies in Henderson, NV,
Athens, OH, Euclid, OH, Montgomery County, OH and Detroit, MI
Building Nexus Fee Studies: Ms. Davis provided services for Malibu,
Rancho Cucamonga, Oceanside, and Orange County in California and
Montgomery County in Ohio.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 26
9/MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
EDUCATION
Jail Rate/Booking Fee Studies: Ms. Davis has performed a Sheriff
County-wide Booking Fee Analysis for Butte County, CA and a U.S.
Marshall Per-Diem Jail Rate for Henry County, Indiana.
Prior to joining MAXIMUS, Ms. Davis gained extensive skills and
experience in budget and revenue analysis and the development of user
fees and cost allocation plans with Management Services Inc. (MSI), as
well as the three California cities that she worked for.
Ms. Davis received her Bachelor's Degree in Social Science (Emphasis in
Finance), University of California, Irvine, 1990. She holds a Risk
Management Certificate, University of California, Riverside 1992.and
membership in the Municipal Management Assistants of Southern
California (MMASC) 1989-2002
STACY V. SHELL - ANALYST
Ms. Shell joined MAXIMUS as an Analyst in 2006. Her previous vocational
expertise was in marketing and sales analysis. Since joining MAXIMUS,
she has worked on the following user fee studies: Ontario, Chula Vista,
San Luis Obispo, and Dana Point.
Ms. Shell has a Bachelor of Science degree in Finance (2002).
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 27MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study|109| COST SUMMARY
MAXIMUS will deliver the proposed cost plan and fee study for a fixed
professional services fee of $42,500 plus a maximum of $3,000 in
expenses. We believe that 100% of this fee could reasonably be
recaptured through inclusion in future user fee and overhead rates.
The fee includes one formal presentation to the City Council. Additional
meetings with the City Council or special interest groups would be charged
on a time and expense basis. Special presentations typically cost $1,250.
The scope of public input coordination potentially desired by the City is not
pre-calculable and accordingly would be a contract addition at the
negotiated scope of service. MAXIMUS is well versed in client-community
facilitation. MAXIMUS current professional services rates would be in effect
for this service.
8.1 COST BASIS
Our fixed cost is based upon our estimated use of consultants at the
following rates:
Consultant Level Hourly
Rate
Vice President $ 25
Director $ 175
Senior Manager $ 160
Manager $ 140
Consultant Level Hourly
Rate
Senior Consultant $ 120
Associate Consultant $ 100
Support Staff $ 75
The user fee systems will be made available to the City at no cost. Please
note that these are relatively complex systems designed for internal use by
MAXIMUS consultants. Training is required and will be provided at no cost
when accomplished in conjunction with the study's scheduled on-site visits.
Any subsequent training would be charged for at MAXIMUS' then-current
rates. A license agreement is also required. MAXIMUS cannot be
responsible for any errors resulting from the City's use of these systems in
the future.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 28MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
8.2 BILLING MILESTONES
MAXIMUS proposes to invoice the City of Culver City for completed work
according to the following schedules of milestones:
• Completion of interviews and data collection 40%
• Delivery of draft cost plan and user fee analysis: 35%
• Delivery of draft user fee report/final cost plan 15%
• Delivery of final report and presentation 10%
8.3 COST CONTROL
The MAXIMUS cost proposal assumes that we are able to employ our
effective standard approach to this Cost of Service study, which includes a
specified number of on-site visits: two kick-off/process visits and one final
presentation/meeting to staff. If the City requires excessive on-site visits
(over two) due to City-caused delays, lack of participation in earlier
meetings, City staffing changes, management actions, or other factors not
caused by MAXIMUS, we will identify and communicate the potential cost
of these additional visits in advance to allow the City to make an informed
decision whether to request supplemental visits.
Our price also assumes that we devote not more than 16 hours of
professional time to this project after delivery of our draft report, for further
editing, research, meetings or work of any kind related to this project
(except proposed presentation/meetings). Should we need to devote time
in excess of 16 hours after delivery of the draft, we would charge our actual
time and expenses for the additional services at our standard hourly rates.
Actual time spent after delivery of the draft is unlikely to exceed 16 hours.
8.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE
We anticipate the project to take approximately three months to bring it to
the City Council presentation level, as shown below. Please note, however,
that user fee projects are complex, and require City staff to be diligent in
responding to requests for data and in reviewing data drafts and reports.
(SCHEDULE FOLLOWS)
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 29MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
WEEKLY PROJECT SCHEDULE
Task / Activity JBy Week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Task 1: Interview stakeholders M/C
Task 2: Review organization and budget
structure M/C
Task 3: Data Collection M/C
Task 4: Determine costs of fee services M
Task 5: Review Draft fee Results C
Task 6: Revise Data M
Task 7: Finalize data; write draft; final
reports M/C
7.7.1: Presentation to CM.; C.C.
subsequent m
M = MAXIMUS is primarily responsible for completing these tasks.
C- City is responsible for completing these tasks.
M/C - Both the City and MAXIMUS must work together to complete these tasks
A note about schedules. MAXIMUS takes an "on-site" approach as
much as possible to minimize delays. The above schedule is
representative of similar projects; however, the actual project may require
less time, or more depending upon any number of factors.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 30Public
(Police Patrol)
Public/Private
(Parks)
Private/Public
(Recreation)
Private
(D evelo pm en t)
MAXIMUS
Implementation
Calculating the cost of
our fees is just the first
step. Implementing
these fees is the hard
part.
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
9 OPTIONAL SERVICES:
9.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING — ENHANCED COMMUNITY
FACILITATION (ECF)
Many firms offer "expert guidance & advice" or "hand holding" through the
process of implementation of a fee schedule that is "full cost". In reality this
is really only a short presentation to the City Council in either a public
meeting or work session. Often the total time allocated to this important
part of a see study is 30 minutes or less. The result are fee levels that are
often set without consideration of service levels and broad policy goals.
MAXIMUS believes this is often insufficient to maximize cost recovery
opportunities.
We believe that the calculation of costs and the development of a current
fee schedule is only the beginning of step in a long-term strategy to
maximize cost recovery. To best serve our clients, we have developed our
optional Enhanced Community Facilitation (ECF). ECF is designed to
engage the community - policy makers and business - in better
understanding the rationale for user fee cost recovery. The goal to enlist
their support and to have them become advocates for implementation of a
fair and equitable fee schedule. (Please note that this process is custom
tailored to the individual client based on their specific needs, and the
fee would be quoted separately:
In an interactive focus group we would discuss policy implications of full
cost recovery or subsidy and the impact on the general fund and the
jurisdiction's ability to deliver services to the community. We would discuss
such economic implications as elasticity and inelasticity of demand,
competitive restraints, and subsidy issues. We would also discuss issues
such as cost components, value added, non-value added, mission critical,
and required activities in the providing of governmental services. We would
advance the concept of a fee setting policy matrix, one having the following
attributes:
Who
Benefits?
Community
Type of
Service?
Funding
Source?
Taxes
Mostly Taxes
Mostly Fees
Fees
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 31MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
In this meeting we would provide a general outline of our modeling
approach and the final information that would be provided. The intended
goal is to enlist the Board's up front support in understanding that the
jurisdiction's only interest is recovering its appropriate costs.
In addition to the above MAXIMUS could design a focus group session
to facilitate a discussion of community expectations, service level impacts,
cost implications of heightened service levels, and performance issues. In
this environment, the process flow would be as follows:
Improving Service Delivery & Meeting Client Expectations
Stakeholder Focus
Groups
Statement of Expectations,
Benchmarks, Performance
Indicators
Calculate staffing levels,
cost and operational
improvements to meet
client expectations.
Current Service
Levels
Cost of Current Service Lev-
els and Fee Calculations
Calculate additional fee
levels to meet service
requirements.
ECF— Consumer Group(s): BIA, etc.
MAXIMUS has found that when impacted community groups are included
in the analytical process and are provided the opportunity to up-front
express concerns, the implementation of a new fee schedule — even where
fees are significantly increased — is a much smoother process. In this
environment, we chair a meeting to fully describe the processes we will
use, provide insight as to our experiences in other communities, and elicit
their concerns. Invariably, these special interest groups are primarily
concerned about service delivery. Operating fees are not typically as
consequential to their bottom line as their bridging finance charges. We
have found that they: (1) want to pay only their fair share, (2) are
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 32City of Culver City
User Fee Study
understanding of government's requirement to recapture fee for service
costs, and (3) want government understand that service delivery is
paramount.
9.2 OPTIONAL SERVICE: PERFORMANCE ANALYT/CS
MAXIMUS provides a separate package of additional value-added work
that follows a User Fee Study. The goals of this second study are as
follows:
1. Review current processes for cost drivers, problem solving, and
improvement analysis.
2. Establish a set of best practices based on available research.
3. Establish performance measures that reflect current best practice
research and community service standards. These may include
organizational restructuring, changes in processes or other changes
that may result in a public participation process.
4. Suggest changes in the current process.
5. Report on the findings and formalize recommendations in a public
meeting.
Research Best Practices
MAXIMUS has provided research into best practices for virtually all
services delivered by local government. While there is no single source of
best practice research, several associations, organizations, and local
governments have established best practice standards. MAXIMUS will
provide this research and then do a comparative analysis of where the City
stands with regards to these standards. In addition, we maintain our own
database of process costs and staffing levels. Because of its 25-year
history and by providing 20-25 similar projects each year (just the West
Coast), we can compare processes for similar jurisdictions. There are two
benefits to this analysis:
1. It provides a degree of quality assurance within the primary costing
project. For example, we can compare the City's process time, the
plan check, and inspection application on a single-family home of
2,500 SF with any number of similar jurisdictions. If the total time for
Jurisdiction "X" is 10 hours and the mean of similar jurisdictions is
20 hours, either local staff in are very efficient or there is the
possibility of other cost to inputs.
2. It provides a level of security that local staff are "in the ball park" in
a comparison of other jurisdictions.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 33City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Initiate Process Analysis for work processes
Because MAXIMUS takes the additional step in its original costing process
(Process Analytics), we can then take one additional step, which is to
analyze each process for several factors:
1. Cost Drivers: every process will have influences that drive costs up
or down. While all cost drivers cannot be eliminated, we will identify
those factors that drive costs to maximum levels without value.
2. Measure the impact of the cost drivers. It is important to
measure the cost both in terms of dollars and total impact on
service levels.
3. Provide solutions or alternatives to current processes. In
collaborative work sessions, MAXIMUS will work with staff to
identify solutions to those factors that increase costs.
4. Measure the impact of the solution. Any solution must be
measured. If not, there is little reason to initiate or design a solution.
This step will have specific application to the goal of reviewing, for
example, the appeals process. MAXIMUS will tailor specific analysis
around the activities that comprise this specific process to identify
opportunities for improvement.
Process Identified Problem Impact of Solution to Measurable
(example)
Problem Problem Impact
Solution
Setting conditions
Conditions
Planners make
Establish Either additional
for approval
are missed
excessive plan
additional plan revenue for plan
or ignored
checks —12
check fee checks or a
additional per
reduced number of
month
plan checks.
Process #2
Process #3
Culmination of Process Analytics could result in a management
"ScoreCard", which incorporates performance measures, goal attainment,
and trends. An example of this is shown below:
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 34
9 2City of Culver City
User Fee Study
Performance
Measures
Operating Indicators
Average residential plan
review time (days)
Standard
2 days
Current
Period
•
Prior
Period
•
Trend
00
Management
Comment
Full staffing in place
Percentage of inspections
completed w/in 1 day
98%
II.
92% achieved this period
due to recent retirements
Customer satisfaction index
95%
0 4
Recently completed training
is having an impact
Abandonment request
processing time (days)
120
• • 1
Prior period represented a
spike in filings
Permit counter wait times,
over the counter permits
Future Trends
Total revenue collected
15 minutes
60% of annual
total budget
•
•
400
le*
Continued focus on training
Revenues continue to track
budget projections
Dollar value of issued
building permits
$$ year to date
• .11.
Decrease suggest an
economic slowdown
Employee turnover rate <5%
• •
41.* Staff retention is stable
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 35
00MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
10 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE
MAXIMUS is a Virginia corporation qualified to conduct business in
California. It was established in 1975 for the sole purpose of Helping
Government Serve the People
TM
We are proud of our success at this
calling — a success that has led to our growth as a company and to a
record of satisfied clients. Today, we are the largest management
consulting firm in the nation serving the needs of non-defense, public
sector clients in management services, consulting, and software
applications. This includes federal, state, and local governments, in
addition to many other public institutions. We serve clients in all 50 states,
including 97 of the 100 largest cities. Additional corporate information can
be found at our web site at www.maximus.com .
Within the Cost Services Division (the old David M. Griffith & Associates),
our area of expertise is local government (city and county) where we
provide a range of services including:
• Administrative Cost Plans including OMB A-87 plans to more than
200 jurisdictions in the Western States alone.
• Revenue enhancement studies for operating fees and development
impact fees.
• Organizational efficiency, operational effectiveness, business
process reengineering and cost of service studies utilizing the
tools of Activity Based Management.
Our firm is the acknowledged national leader in cost allocation, cost
analysis, and federal cost negotiation issues. We are also the leading firm
specializing in maximizing federal cost recovery for state and local
governments.
The Western Region encompasses the territory from Colorado to Hawaii,
with the majority of the work performed in California. We have two
California offices: Sacramento and Irvine. This region has provided
services since 1979 to all 58 California counties and more than 100 cities
and special districts. The Region has delivered more than 125 user fee
studies since this product line inception in 1983.
We are, unquestionably, a large ($600 million) firm, and are we proud of
our listing on the New York Stock Exchange. The advantage this brings to
a City is an entrepreneurial-based consulting division supported by a
diversified organization. We can support the city today, and into the future
with a myriad of services and programs as required. . In short, no other firm
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 36
tvtMAXIMUS
Selected Project References
Selections from a list of similar recent projects recently completed
Contact Information Type Of Project Fee Study Departments Included
User Fee Studies
County of Yuba Full Cost Allocation Plan Building, Planning, and Engineering
User Fee Study
City of Rancho Cucamonga User Fee Study Building, Planning, and Engineering
Development Services User Fee
Study
Cost Allocation Plan
User Fee Study
Cost Allocation Plan
User Fee Study
Cost Allocation Plan
User Fee Study
NEXUS Study
Cost Plan/User Fee
User Fee Study
Cost Allocation Plan
User Fee Study
Cost Allocation Plan
User Fee Study
Building, Fire, Engineering, and Communiti
Development
Building, Planning, Engineering, Recreation
and Police
Administration, Building, Planning, Police,
Public Works / Engineering, and Recreation
Building & Safety, Fire Prevention, Plannin
Public Works / Engineering, Police, and
Community Services (recreation)
Building, Planning, Engineering, Recreation
and Police
Building, Planning, Engineering, Recreation
and Police
Building, Planning, Engineering, Fire,
Police, and Recreation
Building, Planning, Engineering, Police,
Fire, and Recreation
County of Napa
Covina, CA
City of Livermore
City of Temecula
El Cerrito
Moreno Valley
Vacaville, CA
National City, CA
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
in the nation can match the experience, the resources and the staff of
MAXIMUS .
Corporate offices: 11419 Sunset Hills Rd, Reston, VA 20190,
800.368.2152
Western Region Office: 4320 Auburn Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95841
916.485.8102
11 SAMPLE OF RECENT PROJECTS OF SIMILAR
SIZE AND SCOPE
Shown below are user fee examples from our California engagements.
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 37MAXIMUS
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
12 POINTS OF PROPOSAL CLARIFICATION
This proposal:
1. Excludes any and all development impact fee
2. Excludes any and all taxes and/or subventions
3. Excludes from specific calculation any fee areas for which a time-
based data source is not available (e.g. facility rental fees)
4. Performance Analytics and Enhanced Community Facilitation (ECF)
are optional services and would be tailored to the City's
requirements.
5. Contractual Requirements. We anticipate some negotiation with the
City regarding contracting. For example, we cannot be liable for
errors caused by erroneous information provided by the City. We
also must place a reasonable limit of liability on the contract. A firm
without any material assets can always pledge unlimited liability;
MAXIMUS is a $600 million revenue firm with $300 million in net
worth. Regarding insurance, MAXIMUS is a New York Stock
Exchange list company with extensive insurance coverage. We can
provide the City with appropriate certificates of insurance.
We are confident agreement can be reached to both parties
satisfaction.
13 APPENDICES (Follow)
Appendix A — Example of Planning Fees
Appendix B — Example of Building Fees
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 38
( 0 3MAXIMUS
Standard Report Format
Shows annual quantity, curre
fee, actual cost, subsidy or
over charge and calculates
revenue totals for each fee ar
for the department
City of Culver City
User Fee Study
APPENDIX A
Example Results:
Planning (Recommended Fees)
ACTUAL COST RESULTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1
UNIT COSTS REVENUE IMPACTS
Fee or Service Name! Description
Annual
Quantity Current Fee
Actual
Unit Cost!
Potential Fee
Per Unit Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee
Actual
Annual Cost!
Potential
Revenue
Annual
Revenue
Surplus I
(Deficit)
Appeals Staff/Zoning Administrator/Planning
Dir Decision 20 725.00 $ 1,606.64 $ (881.64) $ 14,500 $ 32,133 (17,633)
Landmark & Historic Designation Applications
(new fee) $ 2,655.24 $ (2,655.24) $ - $ 15,931 $ (15,931)
Zone Changes 2 $ 5,805.00 $ 17,356.33 $ (11,551.33) $ 11,610 $ 34,713 $ (23,103)
Historic District Zoning Overlay 0 $ - $ 15,432.80 $ (15,432.80) $ - $ - $ -
Development Agreement 0 $ 5,805.00 $ 15,070.59 $ (9,265.59) $ - $ - $ -
General Plan Map Amendment 2 $ 5,805.00 $ 16,554.66 $ (10,749.66) $ 11,610 $ 33,109 $ (21,499)
General Plan Amend. - Add! Zone Change
Appl 2 869.00 $ 16,554.66 $ (15,685.66) $ 1,738 $ 33,109 $ (31,371)
Legal Description 3 $ 1,155.00 $ 15,072.65 $ (13,917.65) $ 3,465 $ 45,218 $ (41,753)
Master Development Plan Fee/Plan
Amendments 4 $ 6,966.00 $ 19,361.46 $ (12,395.46) $ 27,864 $ 77,446 $ (49,582)
Master Dev Plan - Add'I Zone Change
Application 0 $ 869.00 $ 21,082.26 $ (20,213.26) $ $ - $ _
Master Dev Plan - Add'I Gen Plan Amendment 0 $ 484.00 $ 21,082.26 $ (20,598.26) $ - $ - $ -
POP - Planned Dev Amendment 1 $ 6,966.00 $ 19,362.70 $ (12,396.70) $ 6,966 $ 19,363 $ (12,397)
PDP - Add, Gen Plan Amendment 0 $ 484.00 $ 17,551.66 $ (17,067.66) $ - $ - $ -
CUP 56 $ 2,005.00 $ 5,166.50 $ (3,161.50) $ 112,280 $ 289,324 $ (177,044)
CUP-Modification 4 $ 1,002.50 $ 4,114.40 $ (3,111.90) $ 4,010 $ 16,458 $ (12,448)
MAXIMU
works
recomme
inclusion
re
will provide
Ieets for
dations for
in the staff
)ort.
RECOMMENDED FEE RESULTS
NNING DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDED FEES REVENUE IMPACTS
Fee # Fee Service Name / Description
Current
Fee
Recommended
Fee
% Recovery
(of full cost)
-
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee
Potential
Revenue at
Rec. Fee
Potential
Additional
Revenue
(© Rec'd Fee)|1010|Appeals Staff/Zoning Administrator/Planning
Dir Decision $ 725 $ 1,607 100% $ 14,500 $ 32,140 $ 17,640|1010|Landmark & Historic Designation
Applications (new fee) $ - $ 2,655 100% $ - $ 15,930 $ 15,930
6 Zone Changes $ 5,805 $ 17,356 100% $ 11,610 $ 34,712 $ 23,102
7 Historic District Zoning Overlay
$ - $ 15,433 100% $ - $ - $ -
8 Development Agreement
$ 5,805 $ 15,071 100% $ - $ - $
9 General Plan Map Amendment $ 5,805 $ 16,555 100% $ 11,610 $ 33,110 $ 21,500
10
General Plan Amend. - Add, Zone Change
Appl $ 869 $ 16,555 100% $ 1,738 $ 33,110 $ 31,372
11 Legal Description
$ 1,155 $ 15,073 100% $ 3,465 $ 45,219 $ 41,754
12
Master Development Plan Fee/Plan
Amendments $ 6,966 $ 19,361 100% $ 27,864 $ 77,444 $ 49,580
13
Master Dev Plan - Add'I Zone Change
Application $ 869 $ 21,082 100% $ - $ - $ -
14
Master Dev Plan - Add'I Gen Plan
$ 21,082 100%-.
_ $ -
Amendment
1 r. n, _.1..._
15 PDP - Planned DeAVAdAlA
UKN BLVD; Sk9bir $ 19,363 100% 490 -0 1 61 $ $ 19,363 $ 12,397
16 PDP - Addl Gen Plan Amendment $ 484 $ 17,552 100% $ - $ - $ -
17 CUP $ 2,005 $ 5,167 100% $ 112,280 $ 289,352 $ 177,072
18 CUP - Modification $ 1,003 $ 4,114 100% $ 4,010 $ 16,456 $ 12,446City of Culver City
User Fee Study
APPENDIX B
BUILDING FEE SCHEDULE
NEXUS New Construction
Construction Types:
I FR, 11 FR
Construction Types:
111-FR1111-FR, V 1-FR
Construction Types:
11 N,111 N, IV, V N
UBC
Class UBC Occupancy Type
Project
Size
Threshold
Base Cost
@
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 s.f.*
Base Cost
@
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 s.f.*
Base Cost
@
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 s.f.*
A-1 Theater 1,000 $2,491 $4.75 $2,076 $3.96 n.a. n.a.
5,000 $2,681 $15.05 $2,234 $12.54 n.a. n.a.
10,000 $3,434 $15.59 $2,861 $12.99 n.a. n.a.
20,000 $4,992 $16.15 $4,160 $13.46 n.a. n.a.
50,000 $9,837 $8.55 $8,198 $7.12 n.a. n.a.
100,000 $14,112 $8.55 $11,760 $7.12 n.a. n.a.
A-2
,
Church (non repeat) 1,000 $2,938 $4.75 $2,449 $3.96 $1,959 $3.17
5,000 $3,128 $18.62 $2,607 $15.52 $2,086 $12.41
10,000 $4,059 $18.11 $3,383 $15.09 $2,706 $12.07
20,000 $5,871 $20.92 $4,892 $17.43 $3,914 $13.95
50,000 $12,147 $10.77 $10,122 $8.97 $8,098 $7.18
100,000 $17,530 $10.77 $14,608 $8.97 $11,686 $7.18
A-2.1 Auditorium 1,000 $2,499 $12.32 $2,083 $10.27 $1,666 $8.22
5,000 $2,992 $8.82 $2,494 $7.35 $1,995 $5.88
10,000 $3,434 $21.48 $2,861 $17.90 $2,289 $14.32
20,000 $5,581 $20.99 $4,651 $17.49 $3,721 $14.00
50,000 $11,880 $7.95 $9,900 $6.62 $7,920 $5.30
100,000 $15,854 $7.95 $13,211 $6.62 $10,569 $5.30
4320 AUBURN BLVD., SACRAMENTO, CA 95841 916.485.8102
Page 40|10 13|