Res No 077-13-13895Al &I k11
RESOLUTION NO. 77-13-13895
A Resolution relating to soliciting request for proposals for concurrency and
impact fee studies for the City of South Miami; authorizing the City
Manager to enter into a contract not to exceed one (1) year from the date of
award for professional services with Tischler Bise, Incorporated.
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the Public Works, Finance and City's Purchasing
Division , the Planning Department solicited requests for quotations for concurrency and impact
fee studies for the City; and
WHEREAS, in response to the changes in the Florida Statures Chapter 163.3180, to the
way a municipality evaluates concurrency, it is vital that the City evaluates its methodology and
established levels of service deficiencies based on current regulatory standards; and
WHEREAS, the City of South Miami does not currently collect impact fees for
development; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to develop a comprehensive impact fee program that meets
the requirements of the Florida Impact Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to engage a firm that can provide
all services related to the scope of services with positive, dependable and accurate results to the
end users; and on March 8, 2013 a request for proposal [RFP #PZ 2013- 03 -01] was released by
the City for these studies ; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2013 the City received and opened three sealed proposals for
concurrency and impact fee studies[RFP #PZ 2013- 03 -01], of which Tischler Bise, Incorporated
provided the City with the responsive and responsible proposal, within the City's adopted budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a contract not to exceed
one (1) year from the date of award and expend funds to Tischler Bise, Incorporated for the
goods and services set forth in the City's Scope of Services, in an amount not to exceed
$70,000.00, which shall be charged to account No. 001 - 1620 -524 -3450 with a current balance of
$12500.00. A copy of RFP #PZ2013 -03 -01 and the proposal made by Tischler Bise,
Incorporated is attached and made part hereof by reference.
Section 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon being approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 6t4 day of April , 2013.
page 1
03
Res. No. 77 -13 -13895
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
//rA /1 1/ AY 1/l
Y
READ AND,.-A? ROVED AS TO FORM, COMMISSION VOTE: 5 -0
LANG U EGA IT A Mayor Stoddard: Yea
E ° T N THE O Vice Mayor Liebman: Yea
Commissioner Newman: yea
! ; Commissioner Harris: Yea
Commissioner Welsh: Yea
CITY TTORNE
page 2
X11 4r
South Miami
OF •4 8 IM �
OFFICE OF THE I MANAGER
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor Stoddard and Members of the City Commission
Via: Steven Alexander, City Manager
From: Christopher Brimo, AICP
Planning Director r
Date: April 16, 2013
SUBJECT.
A Resolution relating to soliciting request for proposals for concurrency and impact
fee studies for the City of South Miami; authorizing the City Manager to enter into
a contract not to exceed one (1) year from the date of award for professional
services with Tischler Bise, Incorporated.
BACKGROUND,
In conjunction with the Public Works, Finance and City's Purchasing Division, the
Planning Department solicited requests for quotations for concurrency and impact fee
studies. This is a budgeted item in the amount not to exceed $70,000.00, that was
approved by the Commission.
On March 8, 2013 the City's Purchasing Division released a request for proposal (RFP) to
interested firms. Twelve firms downloaded a copy of the RFP, and on March 27, 2013
the City received and opened three sealed proposals for these studies. The three firms
were Tischler Bise, Incorporated; Duncan Associates; and Tindale - Oliver & Associates.
All three firms that submitted are excellent choices. The staff review conducted by
Planning, Finance, Purchasing and Public Works, concluded that Tischler Bise,
Incorporated provided the City with the best proposal within the City's adopted budget.
The concurrency study is in response to the recent changes in Florida Statutes 163.3180,
which stipulates the way a municipality evaluates concurrency, and will help determine
whether adjustments or modifications to the levels of service need to be adopted.
Additionally, the study will analyze the costs and /or benefits to the City of adopting such
changes. Additionally, the City currently does not collect impact fees for development.
The study will determine the potential for the City to impose fees as virtually every other
city and county do, for transportation, parks and recreation and public safety, and that
meets the requirements of the Florida Impact Fee Act.
Staff recommends the contract be awarded to Tischler Bise, hncorporated.
%; \Commission hems\ 2013 \4- 16- 13 \Concurrency_hnpact Fee RFP \Concurrcncy_Impact Ices contract_ CM Report 4- 10- 13.docs
EXHIBIT I : CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CONCURRENCY AND IMPACT
FEE STUDIES
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 Consultant Services for Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies
THIS CONTRACT is made between TischlerBise. Inc., a Florida corporation, ( "CONSULTANT ") and
the City of South Miami, a Florida municipal corporation, ( "CSM ") through CSM's City Manager (who
shall hereinafter be referred to as "City "), on this 23 d this day of April, 2013,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements hereinafter set
forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
General Provisions: The CONSULTANT shall not commence performance of the Scope of
Services ( "WORK "), as described in the Attachment "A" to this Contract, until a Notice to Proceed is
issued.
2. Contract Documents and Precedence. The Contract Documents shall include the Request for
Proposal, including all attachments and affidavits to the solicitation ( "RFP "), the Response to the RFP,
including all attachments and affidavits to the Response ( "Response to RFP "), and this agreement,
including all attachments to this agreement ( "Contract "). In the event that there is a conflict between any
of the Contract Documents, this Contract shall prevail. In the event that there is a conflict between the
RFP and the Response to RFP, the RFP shall take precedence over the Response.
3. Professional Services. The professional services to be provided by the CONSULTANT shall be as
set forth in the Scope of the Work which has been marked as Attachment "A" and made a part of this
Contract by reference.
4. Time for Completion The term of this contract shall expire nine months from the date of
award, and shall commence on the date set forth in the Notice to Proceed.
A. This Contract shall remain in force until the actual completion of performance of the
project awarded to the CONSULTANT, or unless otherwise terminated by the CITY.
B. A reasonable extension of time will be granted in the event there is a delay on the part
of the CITY in fulfilling its part of the Contract, or for any applicable changes in the
WORK that require additional time or should any other events beyond the control of
the CONSULTANT render performance of his duties impossible to be performed
within the time required by this Contract. Notwithstanding anything contained herein
to the contrary, the total time for the completion of this contract shall not exceed one
(1) year unless this contract had been approved by the City Manager.
5. Renewal Option. This Contract may be renewed, at the sole discretion of the City Commission
1
m.
for the City of South Miami, for an additional period not to exceed a total contract period, including
renewals, of five (5) years.
6. Basis of Compensation. The fees for Professional Services for the WORK is as set forth on
Attachment "B ", and includes the CONSULTANT's submittal to RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -0, which is attached
to this Contract and made a part thereof by reference.
7. Payment and Partial Payments. In the event that the contract price is not a lump sum, the
CONSULTANT shall submit an original invoice to the City's project representative for each payment
certifying the percentage of the WORK completed by the CONSULTANT. The invoice shall contain the
following information:
A. The amount of the invoices submitted shall be the amount due for all WORK performed
to date, as certified by the CONSULTANT.
B. The request for payment shall include the following information:
i. Project Name and CONSULTANT's Name.
ii. Total Contract amount (CONSULTANT's lump sum negotiated), if applicable.
iii. Percent of work completed.
iv. Amount earned.
V. Amount previously billed.
vi. Duc this invoice.
vii. Balance remaining.
viii. Summary of work done this billing period.
ix. Invoice number and date.
X. CONSULTANT's W -9
C. Upon request by the CITY the CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with certified
payroll data for the WORK reflecting salaries and hourly rates.
8. Right of Decisions. All services shall be performed by the CONSULTANT to the satisfaction of
the CITY's representative, who shall decide all questions, difficulties and disputes of whatever nature
which may arise under or by reason of this Contract, the prosecution and fulfillment of the services, and
the character, quality, amount and value and the representative's decisions upon all claims, questions, and
disputes shall be final, conclusive and binding upon the parties unless such determination is clearly
arbitrary or unreasonable. In the event that the CONSULTANT does not concur in the judgment of the
representative as
to any
decisions made
by him, he
shall present his written objections to the City
Manager and shall
abide
by the decision
of the City
Manager,
9. Ownership of Documents. All reports and reproducible documents, and other data developed by
the CONSULTANT for the purpose of this Contract shall become the property of the CITY without
restriction or limitation in connection with the owner's use and occupancy, if any, of the project. The
City may reuse of these documents without the need for consent of the CONSULTANT. When each
2
individual section or phase, if any, of the WORK under this Contract is complete all of the above
applicable data shall be delivered to the CITY.
10. Audit Rights. The CITY reserves the right to audit the records of the CONSULTANT related to
this Contract at any time during the execution of the WORK and for a period of one year after final
payment is made. This provision is applicable only to projects that are on a time and cost basis.
11. Subletting or Assigning. The CONSULTANT shall not sublet, assign, or transfer any WORK
under this Contract or any of the services to be performed by it hereunder, without the prior written
consent of the CITY. Any assignment or subcontracting in violation hereof shall be void and
unenforceable and shall be deemed a material breach of this Contract. The CONTRACTOR shall be
as fully responsible to the CITY for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors or sub - consultants as
it is for the acts and omissions of people directly employed by it. The CONTRACTOR shall require
each subcontractor or sub - consultant, approved by the CITY, to agree in its contract to observe and
be bound by all obligations and conditions of this Contract to which CONTRACTOR is bound.
12. Personnel. All CONSULTANT personnel fulfilling the terms of this Contract, shall be
employed solely by the CONSULTANT and be employees of the CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT
agrees to pay the following for CONSULTANT employees:
Wages
Income tax withholdings
Social security withholdings
State unemployment insurance
Federal unemployment insurance
Workmen's compensation insurance
CONSULTANT shall train personnel. Personnel not performing up to the standards of the City will
be replaced by the CONSULTANT immediately.
13. Representations. The CONSULTANT warrants that it has not employed or retained any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or
secure this contract and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person other than a bona
fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT any fee, commission, percentage fee, gifts or any
other considerations contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach
or violation of these representations, the CITY shall have the right to annul this contract without liability.
14. Termination of Contract. It is expressly understood and agreed that the CITY may terminate this
Contract without penalty by declining to issue the Notice to Proceed.
A. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause upon 30 days written notice to
3
the other party. Upon termination, the CITY shall be entitled to a refund of any monies
paid for which work was not performed.
B. Upon notice of such termination, the City shall determine the amounts due to the
CONSULTANT for services performed up to the date of termination. The
CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to payment of any lost profits or for Work
performed after the date of termination.
C. After receipt of a notice of termination, and except as otherwise directed, the
CONSULTANT shall stop all Work under this Agreement, and shall do so on the date
specified in the notice of termination.
D. The City may terminate this
Agreement
upon five (5)
days written notice if the
CONSULTANT defaults on
any material
term of this
Agreement.
15. Breach of Contract and Claims. In the event either party fails to comply with any of the
provisions of this Contract (the "Defaulting Party "), the aggrieved party may declare the Defaulting
Party in breach of the Contract ( "in Default ") and notify him in writing, citing the provision in the
Contract that is alleged to have been breached and describing, with particularity, the acts or omissions
that form the basis for such conclusion.
A. The Defaulting Party shall have thirty (30) days after receiving written notice of the
Default ( "Cure Period ") to cure the Default, unless this same or similar Default has
occurred within the previous 180 days, in which event the Defaulting Party shall have
waived its right to cure and the aggrieved party shall have the right to immediately
discontinue his performance and sue for breach of contract. A Default of the same or
similar nature that has occurred twice within a 180 day continuous period of time, or
the failure to timely cure a Default, shall be a material breach of the contract unless a
request for extension of time is timely made and the Contractor proceeds to timely
cure the Default with the extended time.
B. In the event that the Defaulting Party has not waived his right to cure and it is
impossible to cure the Default within the Cure Period, through no fault of the
Defaulting Party, the Default Party may, prior to the expiration of the Cure Period,
serve the aggrieved party with a request for an extension of time setting forth the
reason for the delay and the evidence establishing the basis for the request. If the
Defaulting Party timely requests an extension of time to cure the Default, the
Defaulting party shall have sufficient time to cure the Default. The term "Sufficient
Time" shall mean the minimum amount of time necessary to cure the Default, using all
due diligence and without any undue delay, and no more time than is necessary to cure
the Default.
n
W
C. In the event that the Defaulting Party has either waived the right to cure, or if he has
not waived his right and fails to timely cure the Default (including any timely extension
of time authorized) and it is not impossible to cure the Default within the Cure Period
including any authorized extension of time, or, if it is impossible to timely cure the
Default but the Defaulting party fails to use all due diligence, or it delays the cure in any
way, the aggrieved party shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the Default,
or to discontinue further performance on its part and sue for breach of contract.
16. Notice of Claims. If the Contractor has a claim arising out of this Contract and /or the work
contemplated by or performed pursuant to this Contract, a Notice of Claim shall be made in
writing and delivered to the City within twenty one (21) days of the date when the claimant
knew or should have known of the claim.
A. Any Notice of Claim not timely filed shall be deemed waived.
B. In any event, the CONSULTANT shall not be entitle to delay damages or consequential
damages and his sole compensation for a Default by the City shall be termination of the
Contract and /or compensation provided by this Contract for any completed professional
services. In the event partial payment has been made for such professional services not
completed, the CONSULTANT shall return such sums to the CITY within ten (10) days
after notice that said sums are due.
17. Insurance and Indemnification. The CONSULTANT shall not commence WORK on this
Contract until it has obtained all insurance required by the CITY and delivered to the CITY with proof of
insurance. The CONSULTANT shall maintain and keep in full force and effect the coverage as set
forth in the City's standard insurance requirements, a copy of which is attached as Attachment "C -
Insurance and Indemnification." The CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements set forth in
Attachment C.
A. The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save the CITY harmless from any and all
damages, claims, liability, losses and causes of actions of any kind or nature arising out of a
negligent error, omission, or act of the CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives,
employees, sub - consultants, sub - contractors or assigns, incident to or arising out of or
resulting from the performance of the CONSULTANT'S professional services under this
Contract. The CONSULTANT shall pay all such claims and losses of any kind or nature
whatsoever, in connection therewith, including the CITY'S attorney's fees and expenses in
the defense of any action in law or equity brought against the CITY arising from the
negligent error, omission, or act of the CONSULTANT, its sub - consultant or sub-
contractor or their agents, representatives, employees, or assigns, incident to, arising out
of or resulting from the performance of the professional services contemplated by this
Contract.
5
B. The CONSULTANT agrees and recognizes that the CITY shall not be held liable or
responsible for any claims, including the costs and expenses of defending such claims which
may result from or arise out of actions or omissions of the CONSULTANT, its agents,
representatives, employees, sub - consultants, sub - contractors, or assigns. In reviewing,
approving or rejecting any submissions or acts of the CONSULTANT, the CITY in no way
assumes or shares responsibility or liability of the CONSULTANTS, or its Sub - consultants,
their employees, agents or assigns.
C. The CONSULTANT shall maintain during the term of this Contract the insurance set
forth in Attachment C.
18. Codes.
Ordinances
and
be
Laws.
CONSULTANT agrees to provide its services during the term of
to the
this Contract
in accordance with all
applicable laws, rules,
regulations, and health and safety standards
of the federal,
state, and City, which
may be applicable to
the service being provided.
A. The CONSULTANT is required to complete and sign all affidavits, including Public
Entity Crimes Affidavit form (attached) pursuant to FS 287.133(3) (a), as required by
the solicitation applicable to this Contract. CONSULTANT shall comply with the Drug
Free Workplace policy set forth in the CSM solicitation for this Contract which is made
a part of this Contract by reference.
B. The City of South Miami's hiring practices strive to comply with all applicable federal
regulations regarding employment eligibility and employment practices. Thus, all
individuals and entities seeking to do work for the CITY are expected to comply with
all applicable laws, governmental requirements and regulations, including the regulations
of the United States Department of Justice pertaining to employment eligibility and
employment practices. The CITY reserves the right at its discretion, but does not
assume the obligation, to require proof of valid citizenship or, in the alternative, proof
of a valid green card or other lawful work permit for each person employed in the
performance of work or services for or on behalf of the CITY including persons
employed by any independent contractor. By reserving this right the CITY does not
assume any obligation or responsibility to enforce or ensure compliance with the
applicable laws and /or regulations.
19.
Taxes
CONSULTANT shall
be
responsible for all payments of federal, state, and /or local taxes
related
to the
Operations, inclusive
of
sales tax if applicable.
20. Independent
Contractor.
CONSULTANT is an independent entity
under this Contract and
nothing herein shall
be construed
to create a partnership, joint venture, or
agency relationship
31
between the parties.
21. Licenses and Certifications. CONSULTANT shall secure all necessary business and professional
licenses at its sole expense prior to executing the Contract.
22. Entirety of Contract. This Contract constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and
supersedes any prior agreements, understandings, representation or negotiation, written or oral, with
reference to the subject matter hereof that are not merged herein and superseded hereby. No
alteration, change, amendment or modification of the terms of this Contract shall be valid unless made in
writing and signed by both parties hereto, and approved by the City Commissioner if required by
municipal ordinance or charter. This Contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
CSM and CONSULTANT and to their respective heirs, successors and assigns.
23. jury Trial. CITY and CONSULTANT knowingly, irrevocably voluntarily and intentionally waive
any right either may have to a trial by jury in State or Federal Court proceedings in respect to any
action, proceeding, lawsuit or counterclaim arising out of the Contract Documents or the
performance of the Work thereunder.
24. Attorney
Fees. In
the
event of any litigation
between the parties
arising out of or relating in
any way to this
Contract
or a
breach thereof, each
party shall bear its own costs and legal fees.
25. Non - Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Contract to
the contrary, nothing in
this Contract nor any statement,
act or omission of a City
officer,
Commission member or employee, shall be construed to
be a waiver of the City's
right to the
protection of sovereign
immunity.
26. Validity of Executed Copies. This Contract may be executed in several counterparts, each of
which may be construed as an original.
27. Rules of Interpretation. Throughout this Contract the male pronoun may be substituted for
female and neuter and the singular words substituted for plural and plural words substituted for
singular wherever applicable. Any heading preceding the text of the paragraphs of this Contract are
inserted solely for the convenience of reference and shall not constitute a part of this Contract nor
shall they affect its meaning, construction or effect. This Contract shall not be construed more
strongly against either party hereto, regardless of who was more responsible for its preparation.
28. Severability. If any term or provision of this Contract or the application thereof to any person
or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Contract, or
the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is
held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term and provision of this
VA
Contract shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
29. Non - Waiver. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that no failure to exercise and no delay in
exercising any right, power or privilege under this Contract on the part of either party shall operate as
a waiver of any right, power, or privilege under this Contract. No waiver of this Contract, in whole
or part, including the provisions of this paragraph, may be implied by any act or omission and will only
be valid and enforceable if in writing and duly executed by each of the parties to this Contract. Any
waiver of any term, condition or provision of this Contract will not constitute a waiver of any other
term, condition or provision hereof, nor will a waiver of any breach of any term, condition or
provision constitute a waiver of any subsequent or succeeding breach.
30. No Discrimination. No action shall be taken by the CONSULTANT which would discriminate
against any person on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, familial or
marital status, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical, or mental, disability. The CONSULTANT shall
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and all amendments thereto.
31. Equal Employment. In accordance with Federal, State and Local law, the CONSULTANT shall
not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, ethnicity,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or handicap. The CONSULTANT shall comply with all
aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the performance of this contract. The
CONSULTANT shall take affirmative action to ensure that such discrimination does not take place
and the CONTRACTOR shall ensure that the foregoing provisions are included in all subcontracts
or sub - consultant contracts for any work covered by this Contract so that such provisions will be
binding upon each subcontractor and /or sub - consultant.
32. Governing Laws. This Contract and the performance of services hereunder will be governed
by the laws of the State of Florida, with exclusive venue for the resolution of any dispute being a court
of competent jurisdiction in Miami -Dade County, Florida.
33. Effective Date. This Contract shall not become effective and binding until it has been executed
by both parties hereto and the effective date shall be the date of its execution by the last party so
executing it.
34. Third Party Beneficiary. It is specifically understood and agreed that no other person or entity
shall be a third party beneficiary hereunder, and that none of provisions of this Contract shall be for
the benefit of or be enforceable by anyone other than the parties hereto, and that only the parties
hereto shall have any rights hereunder.
3S. Further Assurances. The parties hereto
agree to
execute any and all
other and
further
documents as might be reasonably necessary in
order to
ratify, confirm, and
effectuate
the intent and
DOO
purposes of the Contract.
36. Ownership of Preliminary and Final Records. All preliminary and final documentation and
records shall become and remain the sole property of the CSM. The awarded firm shall maintain
original documents thereof for its records and for its future professional endeavors and provide
reproducible copies to the CSM. In the event of termination of the agreement, the proposing firm shall
cease work and deliver to the CSM all documents (including reports and all other data and material
prepared or obtained by the awarded firm in connection with the City of South Miami City Consultant
Service for Impact Fee Studies RFP.) The CSM shall, upon delivery of the aforesaid documents, pay
the firm for the goods and services rendered and the firm shall accept the payment as full payment for
its goods and services rendered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract. The payment
shall be equal to the percentage of the work satisfactorily completed by the firm and accepted by the
City.
37. Time of Essence. Time shall be of the essence with regard to all action to be taken under the
terms of this Contract and no extension of time shall be allowed unless the extension of time is
provided for in a writing signed by the other party.
38. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy conferred upon or reserved to any party hereto, or existing
at law or in equity, shall be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every
such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this
Contract or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute.
39. Force Majeure. Neither party hereto shall be in default of its failure to perform its obligations
under this Contract if caused by acts of God, civil commotion, strikes, labor disputes, or governmental
demands or requirements that could not be reasonably anticipated and the effects avoided or
mitigated (hereinafter referred to as "force majeure "). Each party shall notify the other of any such
force majeure within ten (10) days of the occurrence. Neither party shall hold the other responsible
for damages or for delays in performance caused by force majeure which may include weather
conditions affecting performance, floods, epidemics, war, riots, strikes, lockouts, or other industrial
disturbances, or protest demonstrations. Should such acts or circumstances occur, the parties shall
use their best efforts to overcome the difficulties and to resume the work as soon as reasonably
possible.
40. Notices. Any notices, reports or other written communications from either party shall be
considered delivered when received by the other party or its authorized representative. Whenever
notice shall be required or permitted herein, it shall be delivered in such a manner that there is
written proof of delivery (including electronic, digital or other similar record that is capable of being
produced) including but not limited to certified mail with a return receipt, hand delivery, e-mail,
facsimile transmission or other type of transmission that provides a record of transmission and
9
k,
�:
4.
receipt. Certified mail shall be sent with return receipt requested and shall be deemed delivered on
the date shown on the postal delivery confirmation or the date shown as the date same was refused
or unclaimed. Hand deliver to the City shall not be sufficient notice for any purpose unless a copy of
the notice is produced with the official City Clerk's date and time stamp appearing upon it. Notices
shall be delivered to the following individuals or entities at the addresses (including e-mail) or facsimile
transmission numbers set forth below:
To CITY:
With copies by U.S. mail to:
To CONSULTANT:
City Manager, Steven Alexander
6130 Sunset Dr.
South Miami, FL 33143
Fax:
E -mail:
City Attorney, Thomas Pepe, Esquire
6130 Sunset Dr.
South Miami, FL 33143
Tel: (305) 667 -2564
Fax: (305) 341 -0584
E -mail: tpepe @southmiamifl.gov
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands on the date set forth below their name.
III
7saME "3
F Jr
ATTESTED:
By: Z 9 d
6 Maria M. Menendez, CMC
City Clerk
ti
Read anclAom oved as to�Fo anguage,
LegaFity aiad Ekecution th'e eof:
By:
Thomas F. Pepe,/)Esq.
-City Attorney
OWNER: CITY OF SO-QTH MIAMI
L -_.I. -r
City Manager
Wj
ATTACHMENT "A"
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Purpose
The purpose of the study is to 1) review and evaluate the City of South Miami's (CSM) existing
transportation network and parks /open spaces, in conjunction with the CSM's "adequate public
facilities and services" requirements and adopted comprehensive plan; provide recommended changes
and adjustments based on current regulatory standards and current conditions. 2) The CSM currently
does not collect impact fees; the study will develop a comprehensive Impact Fee program that meets
the requirements of the Florida Impact Fee Act, and serves the need of the CSM.
Required Study Elements Scope of Service.
Concurrency Review
Review the CSM's existing comprehensive plan requirements and land development codes for
adequate public facilities and services in conjunction with the recent legislative changes under Chapter
163.3180 F.S., and recommend adjustments or modifications to the levels of service for transportation
and parks /open space. In addition, the report will analyze the potential costs and /or benefits to the
CSM of adopting adjusted levels -of- service standards for transportation, including Miami -Dade County
policies that affect the CSM's road network. The analysis and recommendations shall consider the cost
and administrative impacts of specific concurrency requirements enumerated under Chapter 163.3180,
Florida Statutes. The report will also provide options for establishing a Concurrency Management
System, and propose /develop a system that could be implemented by the City.
Impact Fee Study
Develop appropriate impact fee determination methodology and fee assessment schedules necessary
for the CSM to establish and defend its proposed impact fees. The procedure will need to meet the
"rational nexus" test, which is the underpinning of fairness in allocating impact fees. The procedure,
which must be easy to understand and to implement and must provide impact fees for a wide range of
development types (i.e. commercial, multi - family, residential, etc.).
The Impact Fee Scope of Services, listed below, is for proposal development and evaluation. The
proposer shall expand on this scope in their proposal:
Data Collection and Development. The consultant shall work with CSM departments to collect
all available data and to develop additional data required to fully support a comprehensive Impact Fee
study, which recommends an economically and legally supportable set of impact fees to offset the
growth related to transportation, recreation, public safety and any other areas the consultant my
recommend.
Impact Fee
Calculation
and
Analysis. The consultant
shall determine the City of South Miami
Development
Impact Fees
based
on the proposed facility
requirements. Additionally, the consultant
11
may suggest unique areas or separate zones where appropriate and necessary to identify opportunities
for additional revenue to accommodate City -wide growth, taking possible annexations into
consideration. Fees shall be calculated to provide for facilities, equipment, infrastructure, and services
needed to support growth based on forecasts of new development over a 20 -year period. The
proposed new impact fee analysis shall take into account existing fees, if any, and be compared to both
surrounding and comparable cities to ensure reasonableness, consistency, and feasibility.
A. The CSM currently has no Impact Fee for Transportation. The proposer shall review existing
and future services; estimate the projected population and level of service required through 2032
taking possible annexations into consideration and recommend an impact fee schedule to support
the projected growth.
B. The CSM currently has no Impact Fee for Parks & Recreation. The proposer shall review
existing and future services; estimate the projected population and level of service required through
2032 taking possible annexations into consideration and recommendation impact fee schedule to
support the projected growth.
C. The CSM currently has no Impact Fee for Public Safety. The proposer shall review existing
and future services; estimate the projected population and level of service required through
2032 taking possible annexations into consideration and recommend an impact fee
schedule to support the projected growth.
D. Identify any legal consideration for the recommended impact fee schedule including the
minimum requirements for a legally defensible impact fee system, State and Miami -Dade
County requirements.
E. Impact fee recommendation should be allocated between residential and commercial customer
base, if appropriate.
F. Prepare a fee comparison report between the recommended fees and fees of surrounding
Municipal and County governments.
Draft Report. The consultant shall prepare and provide a report that documents the elements of the
three study areas, including, but not limited to, a description of the overall methodology, findings,
supporting justification, recommendations, and in the case of Impact Fees, calculations that provide the
legal nexus between Impact Fee recommendations and new development.
Presentation of Materials. The consultant shall present information at briefing meetings with CSM
staff and affected CSM departments at critical points in the preparation process. In addition, upon
completion of the various reports, the consultant shall be prepared to present the study, including all
above elements and recommendations at I meeting with the development community.
Final Report and Presentation. A final report of the three studies shall be provided and presented
to the City Commission.
12
ATTACHMENT "B"
BASIC COMPENSATION
PRICE
PROPOSAL
SHEET
GRAND
Study
+
Analysis
=
Yc�:'#�Z�i.csi -+:l w`•
s d:A`^'_``�- ei"`�SNn T ., "..s. •..
••`� �,',:a:',::'" LS' ".�.re -.:1r J6�_FLid w o3??L�/at��: ". .. �*.:s2y?:�JcTiX.l�.+,t.A'se�.:.
. ka4 . " /de?,aa'idfJ� &1= �::FF3`zni� . 4�", =51 ?^ y�13. - �K`a`_�: .Yv^u" •n
:fir..S3- ti,,.�. •a,� "+.. :k;.
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 Consultant
Services for Concurrency and Impact
Fee Studies
Proposers must include the Price Proposal Sheet with their submittal. Failure to do so will render your
proposal non - responsive and will be rejected from further consideration.
PRICE PROPOSAL SHEET
Note: Provide a price for each discipline and a Grand Total including all disciplines
listed below:
Concurrency
Impact Fee
GRAND
Study
+
Analysis
=
TOTAL
$32,000
it,36,000 $68,000
WE
6; 01 & &fr
ATTACHMENT "C"
INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
Without limiting its liability, the proposing firm shall be required to procure and maintain at
its own expense during the life of the Contract, insurance of the types and in the minimum
amounts stated below as will protect the proposing firm, from claims which may arise out of
or result from the proposing firm's execution of a contract with the City of South Miami for
Consultant Service for Impact Fee Studies, whether such execution by the firm or by any
sub - consultant, or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or by anyone
for whose acts any of them may be liable.
The CONTRACTOR/COMPANY shall not commence WORK on this Agreement until he has
obtained all insurance required by the City. The CONTRACTOR/COMPANY shall indemnify
and save the CSM harmless from any and all damages, claims, liability, losses and causes of
actions of any kind or nature arising out of a negligent error, omission, or act of the
CONTRACTOR/COMPANY, its agents, representatives, employees, Sub - Contractor, or
assigns, incident to arising out of or resulting from the performance of the
CONTRACTOR/COMPANY'S professional services under this Agreement. The
CONTRACTOR/COMPANY shall pay all claims and losses of any kind or nature whatsoever,
in connection therewith, including the CSM's attorney's fees and expenses in the defense of any
action in law or equity brought against the CSM arising from the negligent error, omission, or
act of the CONTRACTOR/COMPANY, its agents, representatives, employees, Sub -
Contractor, or assigns, incident to, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the
CONTRACTOR/COMPANY'S professional services under this Agreement..
The CONTRACTOR/COMPANY agrees and recognizes that the CSM shall not be held liable
or responsible for any claims, including the costs and expenses of defending such claims which
may result from or arise out of actions or omissions of the CONTRACTOR/COMPANY, its
agents, representatives, employees, Sub - Contractors, sub - contractors, or assigns. In reviewing,
approving or rejecting any submissions or acts of the CONTRACTOR/COMPANY, the CSM
in no way assumes or shares responsibility or liability of the CONTRACTOR/COMPANYS,
Sub - Contractors, their agents or assigns.
The CONTRACTOR/COMPANY shall maintain during the term of this Agreement the
following insurance:
A. Comprehensive general liability insurance with broad form endorsement, on a Florida
approved form including automobile liability, completed operations and products liability,
contractual liability, severability of interest with cross liability provision, and personal injury
15
tre k> h 6c
and property damage liability with limits of $1,000,000 combined single limit per
occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, including:
• Personal Injury: $1,000,000;
• Medical Insurance $25,000 per person;
• Property Damage: $5000,000 each occurrence;
• Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 each accident/occurrence,
B. Umbrella Commercial General Liability
insurance on a
Florida
approved form with the
same coverage as the primary insurance
policy but in the
amount
of $1,000,000 per claim.
The CSM must be named as additional "named" insured for all except Workers'
Compensation, and reflect the indemnification and hold harmless provision contained
herein. Policy must specify whether it is primary or excess /umbrella coverage. CSM
must receive 10 days advance written notice of any policy modification and 30 days
advance written notice of cancellation, including cancellation for non - payment of
premiums. All insurance must remain in full force and effect for the duration of the
contract period with the CSM. The CONTRACTOR/COMPANY must provide not
only a "certified copy" of the Binder but also the Policy itself with the name, address
and phone number of the agent and agency procuring the insurance.
D. Workman's Compensation Insurance in compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, as
presently written or hereafter amended.
E. The policies except for Section 10 A shall contain waiver of subrogation against CSM
where applicable, shall expressly provide that such policy or policies are primary over any
other collective insurance that CSM may have. The City reserves the right at any time to
request a copy of the required policies for review. All policies shall contain a "severability
of interest" or "cross liability" clause without obligation for premium payment of the CSM.
F. All of the above insurance required to be provided by the CONTRACTOR/COMPANY is
to be placed with BEST rated A -8 (A -VIII) or better insurance companies, qualified to do
business under the laws of the State of Florida on approved Florida forms.
The CONTRACTOR/COMPANY shall furnish certified copies of all "Binders" or
certificates of insurance to the City prior to the commencement of operations, which
"Binders" or certificates shall clearly indicate that the CONTRACTOR/COMPANY has
obtained insurance in the type, amount, and classification as required for strict compliance
with this Section and that no reduction in limits by endorsement during the policy term, or
cancellation of this insurance shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior written notice
to the CITY.
Lts
Compliance with the foregoing requirements shall not relieve the
CONTRACTOR/COMPANY of his liability and obligations under this Section or under
any other portion of this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR/COMPANY agrees to supply copies of certificates of insurance to the
City verifying the above - mentioned insurance coverage. CONTRACTOR/COMPANY
agrees to list CSM as an Additional Insured of the CONTRACTOR/COMPANY's
General liability insurance and shall provide the CSM quarterly reports concerning any
and all claims.
END OF SECTION
17
March 29, 2013
4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240
Bethesda, MD 20816
Contact: L. Carson Bise, II, AICP
Phone: (800) 424 -4318 Ext. 12
E -Mail: carson@tischlerbise.com
0 4e,
.. '�
Project (dame: Request for Proposals, Consultant Services for
Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies
• r
Date: March 19, 2013
Sent: Fax/E- mail /webpage
This addendum submission is issued to clarify, supplement and /or modify the previously issued
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Documents, and is hereby made part of the Documents. All
requirements of the Documents not modified herein shall remain in full force and effect as
originally set forth. It shall be the sole responsibility of the bidder to secure Addendums that
may be issued for a specific solicitation.
Pg 9, section d.2: The RFP calls for resumes of key individuals, and states that respondents may
submit SF 330, 254, or 255 forms. Is the use of these forms mandatory, or is it acceptable to
the City for relevant information to submitted as part of the proposal document (Le.: not on
any of these forms)?
While it is
preferable respondents
submit SF 330,
254, or 255 forms for resumes of key
individuals,
it is not mandatory
the
information be
submitted in this
format.
*' i ;±fin
Pg 9, section f.i: Proof of authorization from the FL Secretary of State. Please confirm that the
City requests Certificates of Status to fulfill this requirement. If not, what specific
documentation /verbiage is required here?
Page 1 of 2
A printout from Sunbiz will be sufficient to comply with rage 9, section f. i.
Page 2 of 2
k
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
k,
City of South Miami, FL
Letterof Interest .................................................................................................. ..............................1
Qualificationsand Experience .............................................................................. ..............................3
ProjectUnderstanding and Approach ............................................................... ..............................3
ProjectUnderstanding .......................................................................................... ............................... 3
ProjectApproach................................................................................................... ............................... 3
TeamResumes ................................................................................................. ..............................6
Carson Bise, AICP, President, TischlerBise ............................................................ ............................... 7
Dwayne Guthrie, Ph.D., AICP, Principal, TischlerBise ............................................. ..............................9
Gerald A. Debkowski, P.E., Operations Manager, Baker ....................................... .............................13
Mary Anne Bowie, FAICP, Senior Planner, Baker .................................................. .............................15
Christopher D. Frank, Transportation Concurrency Specialist, Baker ................... .............................17
DisclosureStatement. 9 a a 0 9 9 9 8 0 6 9 4 0 0 * M 0 a Q a a 6 a 6 a 6 * 6 a 0 a a a a * 9 a 4 * 0 9 0 * * * * 6 0 a 0 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0 a * 8 a a a 8 a a 0 a a 8 0 a 8 a 9 9 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0
i
AdditionalInformation:
Proposed
Scope of Work ............................................ .............................18
PhaseI:
Concurrency
Review ................................................................................
.............................19
Task1: Project Initiation ........................................................................................ .............................19
Task 2: Concurrency Review Kickoff ...................................................................... .............................19
Task 3: Prepare Land Use Assumptions ................................................................ .............................20
TASK 4: Inventory Facilities and Determine Development Potential .................... .............................20
Task 5: Develop Recommendations Regarding "Adequate Public Facilties and Services"
Requirements...................................................................................................... ............................... 20
Phase II: Fiscal Sustainability Audit ....................................................................... .............................21
Task 1: Review Relevant Published Material and Interview Service Providers and Personnel .........21
Task 2: Conduct Cost of Growth Seminar ........................................................... ............................... 21
Task 3: Prepare Fiscal Sustainability Audit............................................................ .............................21
Phase III: Impact Fee Study (If Recommended) .................................................... .............................22
Task 1: Determine Capital Facility Needs and Service Levels ................................ .............................22
Task 2: Evaluate Different Allocation Methodologies ......................................... ............................... 23
6;
4:.
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
e:.
4,
k
City of South Miami, FL
Task 3: Determine the Need for "Credits" to be Applied Against Capital Costs ... .............................23
Task 4: Conduct Funding and Cash Flow Analysis ................................................. .............................23
Task 5: Prepare Impact Fee Report, Public Presentations .................................... .............................24
Task 6: Meetings with Stakeholders ..................................................................... .............................24
Restrictionon Representation ............................................................................. .............................25
Documentation................................................................................................... .............................26
Proofof Authorization. 0 0 1 $ 4 0 a a a 0 a a a a a a a 10 0 # 0 9 0 a I 1 0 A a 6 a 8 0 8 9 a 6 * 9 0 0 0 a 9 0 9 9 0 0 9 19 1 * a * 0 0 a 0 & * & * & * a * a 0 8 8 0 v a
ProposedOrganization Chart.......................................................................... .............................27
Client List and References ....
...................................................... .............................28
ClientLists ............................................................................................................. .............................28
References........................................................................................................... ............................... 34
Attachments1- 5 ............................................................................................. .............................35
PriceProposal Sheet ....................................................................................... .............................36
Additional Information: Baker's Florida and Transportation Planning Experience ..........................37
Florida Experience - Baker ..................................................................................... .............................37
Small Urban Area Transportation Plans Example - Baker ..................................... .............................37
ii
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
City of South Miami, FL
March 29, 2013
Ms. Maria M. Menendez, CIVIC, City Clerk
South Miami City Hall Building
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, FL 33143
Re: RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 Consultant Services for Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies
Dear Ms. Menendez,
TischlerBise, Inc., on behalf of M. Baker Corporation (Baker), is pleased to submit the enclosed proposal
to provide consultant services for concurrency and impact fee studies for the City of South Miami,
Florida. This assignment requires a consultant team with a unique combination of experience and
expertise. We feel that our team is ideally suited to undertake this project based on our extensive
national and Florida impact fee experience, especially our previous impact fee work in the City of Miami,
the Cities of North and West Miami, and the adjacent City of Coral Gables.
TischlerBise, Inc., is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm that specializes in impact fees,
fiscal /economic impact analysis, infrastructure funding strategies, and market and financial feasibility.
Our firm has been providing consulting services to public agencies for over 35 years. In this time, we
have prepared over 800 impact fee evaluations — more than any other firm. We have also prepared
numerous infrastructure financing strategies. Through our detailed approach, proven methodology, and
comprehensive work products, we have established TischlerBise as the national leader on revenue
enhancement and cost of growth strategies.
TischlerBise will utilize the services of M. Baker Corporation (Baker) for the City's assignment. Baker
brings several strengths that are important to creating planning products that will assist the City of
South Miami in meeting its goals. Baker is an excellent team partner and has partnered with TischlerBise
on several impact fee projects. Baker provides comprehensive services in all certified planning,
registered design, and engineering disciplines. With approximately 3,000 employees, Baker provides
excellent, award winning projects and is consistently ranked high among the best
architectural /engineering firms in the nation. Baker creates value for its clients by providing focused
solutions for governance challenges that are both physical and policy- driven. In Florida, Baker brings a
well- orchestrated, highly experienced and expert team to prepare the concurrency review for the City of
South Miami. Baker will join TischlerBise in comprehensively supporting the City of South Miami as it
explores opportunities for growth and fiscal stability linked to options including strong annexation
policies and comprehensive impact fee approaches.
There are several points which we would like to note that make our team's qualifications unique:
1. Depth of Experience. TischlerBise is the nation's leading impact fee and infrastructure financing
consulting firm. Our qualified professionals bring an unparalleled depth of experience to this
assignment. We have managed over 800 impact fee studies across the country — more than any
other firm. We are innovators in the field, pioneering approaches for credits, impact fees by size
of housing unit, and distance - related /tiered impact fees. More importantly, a TischlerBise
impact fee methodology has never been challenged in a court of law. The addition of Baker to
our team as a sub - consultant provides valuable experience evaluating existing parks /open space
and transportation networks, as well as conducting traffic modeling for concurrency.
1
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
City of South Miami, FL
2. Technical Knowledge of Land Use Planning and Local Government Finance. The City requires
consulting expertise in the areas of land use planning and growth management in the State of
Florida, as well as in local government finance. Many communities overlook the fact that
impact fees are a land use regulation. Therefore, the City's project requires a team with years
of experience preparing impact fee studies within the context of overall City financial needs, as
well as its land use and economic development policies. This will lead to a work product that is
both defensible and that promotes equity.
3. Community Outreach. An important component of a successful impact fee program is
community support. Both Carson Bise and Dwayne Guthrie of TischlerBise have substantial
experience developing and managing public outreach and community relations programs
associated with impact fees and infrastructure finance.
4. Responsiveness. Asa small firm, we have the flexibility and responsiveness to meet all deadlines
of the City's project. We offer you the level of service and commitment that the larger firms
save for their biggest contracts.
Our team hereby acknowledges receipt of Addendum 1. As President of TischlerBise, I have the
authority to make representation for and contractually bind the firm. We look forward to the possibility
of working with the City of South Miami and are committed to providing cost - effective, high - quality
support for this assignment.
Sincerely,
L. Carson Bise, AICP, President
TischlerBise, Inc.
4701 Sangamore Road, Suite 5240
Bethesda, MD 20816
Phone: (800) 424 -4318 Ext. 12
E -mail: carson @tischlerbise.com
2
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
IN
k
City of South Miami, FL
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
It is our understanding that the City is interested in 1) a review and evaluation of its existing
transportation network and parks /open spaces, in conjunction with the City's "adequate public facilities
and services" requirements and adopted comprehensive plan; 2) recommended changes and
adjustments to these requirements based on current regulatory standards and current conditions; and
3) the development of a comprehensive impact fee program that meets the requirements of the Florida
Impact Fee Act. Because impact fees are intended to provide growth - related capacity, our experience in
urban areas such as the City of South Miami suggests that impact fees are likely to solve only a small
portion of the City's overall infrastructure funding needs. Therefore, the experience of the consulting
team in preparing overall infrastructure funding strategies, as well as experience in the areas of fiscal
impact analysis and fiscal sustainability should be a key consideration in the selection process. The
TischlerBise team has this experience and this is the reason why our proposal includes a Fiscal
Sustainability Audit that will serve as a "white paper" discussing fiscal issues related to annexation,
redevelopment, levels of service, infrastructure needs, exaction policy, impact fees, and how the
City's revenue structure influences the fiscal impacts of various land uses. Given our Team's
understanding of the City of South Miami, impact fees might not be the in the City's best interest,
especially if it is trying to incentivize redevelopment.
PROJECT APPROACH
Concurrency Review
Baker, with its extensive Florida experience in all realms of planning, design and engineering of public
infrastructure, brings its professional, unbiased research and analysis expertise to the City of South
Miami's Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies. Baker's on -time deliveries, high quality products, and
focused efforts add value for the City. Baker is an excellent team member and will work closely with
TischlerBise on this effort.
The City of South Miami will benefit from Baker's fresh assessment of the City's holdings conducted with
a systematic, structured asset management approach. This will include: 1. identifying current population
and developed properties; 2. identifying current public facility conditions; 3. identifying the gaps; 4.
generating future development estimates; 5. identifying future requirements; and 5. identifying the
relationship of future requirements to existing development vs. projected future development. Baker's
structured approach to assessment and implementation ensures that development is tailored
specifically to the needs of the City of South Miami and the business community.
TischlerBise brings an expert considered approach to understanding the demographic data that will be
generated. For instance, in generating future development estimates, TischlerBise will consider not only
the recent stagnation of the economic climate, but also the reviving housing market and other economic
trends. TischlerBise will take a "larger picture" approach to project future related factors such as
residential and commercial growth, City income, and highway traffic characteristics. This means looking
both in and outside of the City and possibly beyond the State's boundaries to understand how national
trends will impact the City of South Miami.
3
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
City of South Miami, FL
Baker's team of AICP certified planners uses numerous strategic planning tools to develop creative, cost -
effective, sustainable, and achievable plans. Baker is active in the planning community and continually
seeks opportunities to incorporate innovative planning tools and techniques. Baker has strong
experience in conducting in -depth data collection that is relevant for the City of South Miami's
concurrency analysis tasks. Baker is an expert in all types of facility and highway data collection and
analysis. For military clients in the United States and overseas, Baker has provided asset management
plans and programming efforts that include facility and infrastructure inventory, vulnerability, and
capacity analysis, and capital improvements programming.
In the area of transportation, Baker has managed all forms of traffic data collection, including ADTs, 12-
hour counts, turning movements, parking occupancy rates, speed /delay runs, pedestrian and bike
counts, roadside origin- destination, and parking turnover. Some prior projects using these skills include
traffic counts to support corridor studies on Route 711 in Chesterfield and Powhatan Counties and
Route 360 in Amelia County, as well as complex parking lot counts for two different parking - related
studies in northern Virginia under the Multimodal On -Call. Baker also oversaw comprehensive data
collection for the development of travel demand models in the Harrisonburg and Lynchburg regions,
including home interview surveys and license plate -based origin- destination surveys. Baker is
accomplished at cost - effective data analysis. The firm's sophisticated GIS capabilities will enable our
team to glean tremendous value from collected data, with an emphasis on graphic interpretation and
geospatial analysis.
Baker is also an expert in planning for operational, safety and ITS improvements. Collectively, the firm's
staff has performed hundreds of traffic studies including capacity and level of service, high -crash locations,
signal warrants, signal phasing, all -way stops, roundabouts, speed studies, and crosswalk studies, bringing
to bear expert knowledge to efficiently identify appropriate solutions. Baker's approach to a traffic
engineering study is like that of a forensic engineer, in that the firm first attempts to identify the problem
and then develop a solution tailored to the specific context. Our team recognizes that the effectiveness of
traffic analysis is severely limited if the meaning of the analysis is not clear. We excel at assembling concise
data, interpreting the data, and producing coherent conclusions and recommendations.
Additionally, Baker has extensive experience developing intersection improvements to address safety
and operation problems. The firm has performed safety studies and safety audits at many intersections
within northern Virginia and the District of Columbia to identify correctable crash patterns. Relatively
low -cost adjustments to the traffic signal design, operation, and channelization often can provide sizable
reductions in the number and severity of crashes at intersections. Baker is very familiar with the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as well as the "Proven 9 Counter - measures" and their
applications as identified by FHWA (safety audits, safety edge, and yellow change intervals, rumble
strips /stripes, median barriers, roundabouts, turn lanes at stop - controlled intersections, refuge areas,
and walkways) through past projects with local jurisdictions.
Baker understands the importance of measured capital improvements programming and helps clients
make good decisions to minimize or reduce risks. This will enable the City to make prudent investment
decisions. Guided by evaluations by Baker's full range of experts, the City will be made aware of possible
pitfalls and will have confidence in making tough and complicated decisions.
Fiscal Sustainability Audit
Given that the City of South Miami plans on annexing land with existing development and is trying to
encourage redevelopment, impact fees may not be the answer to the City's infrastructure issues.
Therefore, TischlerBise proposes conducting a Fiscal Sustainability Audit that catalogs and reviews City
growth issues (annexation /redevelopment), policies related to growth, and growth - related
19
0:
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
City of South Miami, FL
infrastructure needs versus existing deficiencies, and provides direction and recommendations as to
what type of analysis should be conducted, given the City of South Miami's situation and desired
outcomes. The analysis and recommendations will be based on on -site interviews with key City
personnel and feedback from City Council members.
Impact Fees
If our analysis concludes that one or more infrastructure categories are impact fee eligible, our approach
to calculating impact fees is discussed in detail. Impact fees are fairly simple in concept, but complex in
delivery. Generally, the jurisdiction imposing the fee must: (1) identify the purpose of the fee, (2)
identify the use to which the fee is to be put, (3) show a reasonable relationship between the fee's use
and the type of development project, (4) show a reasonable relationship between the facility to be
constructed and the type of development and (5) account for and spend the fees collected only for the
purpose(s) used in calculating the fee.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves the following two steps:
1. Determine the cost of development - related capital improvements, and
2. Allocate those costs equitably to various types of development.
There is a fair degree of latitude granted in constructing the actual impact fees, however, as long as the
outcome is "proportionate and equitable." Fee construction is both an art and a science, and it is in this
convergence that TischlerBise excels in delivering its products to clients.
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular
method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for the facility type
being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation and to some
extent they are interchangeable because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs
created by development.
In practice, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables
involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for capital facilities. The
following paragraphs discuss the three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those
methods can be applied.
Plan -Based Impact Fee Calculation - The plan -based method allocates costs for a specified set of
future improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements are identified by a
facility plan. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to
calculate a cost per unit of demand. The plan -based method is often the most advantageous
approach for facilities that require engineering studies, such as roads and utilities.
Cost Recovery Impact Fee Calculation - The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new
development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities from which
new growth will benefit. To calculate a development impact fee using the cost recovery approach,
facility cost is divided by ultimate number of demand units the facility will serve. An oversized water
storage tank is an example.
Incremental Expansion
Impact Fee Calculation - The incremental
expansion method
documents the
current level -of- service
(LOS) for each type of public facility in
both quantitative
and qualitative
measures, based on an
existing service standard such as square
feet per capita or
park acres per
capita. The level -of- service standards are determined in a
manner similar to the current
9
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
replacement cost approach used by property insurance companies. However, in contrast to
insurance practices, clients do not use the funds for renewal and /or replacement of existing
facilities. Rather, the jurisdiction uses the impact fee revenue to expand or provide additional
facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is
best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards
based on current conditions in the community.
Evaluation of Alternatives. Designing the optimum impact fee approach and methodology is what sets
TischlerBise apart from our competitors. Unlike most consultants, we routinely consider each of the
three methodologies for each component within a fee category. The selection of the particular
methodology for each component of the impact fee category will be dependent on which is most
beneficial for the City. In a number of cases, we will prepare the impact fees using several
methodologies and will discuss the various trade -offs with the City. There are likely to be policy and
revenue tradeoffs depending on the capital facility and methodology. We recognize that "one size does
not fit all" and create the optimum format that best achieves our clients goals.
Each client is different, each fee category is different, and TischlerBise compares alternative
methodologies to maximize revenues for our clients.
For example, TischlerBise typically calibrates the impact fees to the specific jurisdiction's road network
and demographic data, whether using an incremental expansion or plan -based method. Our ability to
evaluate alternative methods was demonstrated in the City of Missoula, Montana, where the initial
policy direction was to calculate transportation impact fees for a specific, high - growth area near the
airport. A plan -based method was appropriate for this relatively small geographic area that had specific
improvements already identified through a prior planning effort. During a series of meetings with the
local advisory committee and staff, TischlerBise agreed to also prepare a citywide transportation impact
fee using the incremental expansion cost method. Our firm is able to evaluate different methods
because we do not rely on state /regional transportation models to provide data inputs for the impact
fee calculations. In essence, we develop our own aggregate travel demand model that is in some ways
more sophisticated than the large -scale computer models used by state and regional agencies. For
instance, it is common for link- specific computer models to lump together all housing types and only
separate retail from all other types of nonresidential development. TischlerBise routinely uses at least
two types of housing units and between three and five nonresidential development types in our travel
demand analysis.
Our team has also prepared a proposed scope of work for the City's assignment, which can be found at
the end of this section.
TEAM RESUMES
To successfully navigate through the City's concurrency and impact fee studies, the successful
consultant and their team must possess specific, detailed and customized knowledge, not only of the
technical analysis, but also of the context of the impact fee structure in achieving City land use, financial,
and economic development policy goals. Our project team for this assignment includes our most senior
and experienced impact fee professionals. We have unsurpassed experience performing projects
requiring the same expertise as that needed to serve the City of South Miami. The role of each team
member and their qualifications are briefly discussed below.
Carson
Bise, AICP, President
of TischlerBise, will serve as Principal -In- Charge and coordinate
our project
team's
interaction with the
City to ensure that all
work is completed properly, on time,
and within
budget.
He will work closely
with Dwayne Guthrie,
P.D., AICP, developing and reviewing all
aspects of
11
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
the project and providing overall quality assurance for the project. Mr. Bise has worked on several
Florida impact fee and fiscal impact assignments. A partial list of these assignments include Pasco
County Schools, Seminole County Schools, DeSoto County, Manatee County, Lake Wales, North Miami,
Hernando County, Hillsborough County, and Plant City,
Dwayne Guthrie, Ph.D., AICP, Principal at TischlerBise, has been selected as Project Manager for this
project because of his substantial experience preparing development fees and financing strategies, as
well as his strong project management skills. Dr. Guthrie will be responsible for controlling the work in
progress, providing feedback to project team members and staff, and meeting the technical
requirements of the project. Most importantly, Dr. Guthrie, in conjunction with Mr. Bise, will ensure
constant collaboration and communication between staff and our team through frequent progress
memorandums, conference calls, and in- person meetings.
Gerald Debkowski, PE, Operations Manager at Baker, will be responsible for assuring complete client
satisfaction in all aspects of traffic, planning, and civil engineering. Mr. Debkowski has 33 years of
relevant experience and will assist with the development of a clear scope and quality control process,
adherence to the agreed upon project schedule, and preparation of a high quality finished product.
Mary Anne Bowie, FAICP, Senior Planner at Baker, will assist with our Team's Concurrency Review. Ms.
Bowie is a comprehensive urban planner well experienced in economic development, sustainability,
military community planning, land and site planning, transportation project impact analysis, community
visioning and creating partnerships.
Christopher Frank, Transportation Concurrency Specialist at Baker, will lead our Team's Concurrency
Review. Mr. Frank has been involved in the construction and design of roadway projects of varying
magnitude for 12 years. His experience includes engineering of minor to major roadway projects that
encompass a range of multi - disciplined tasks. He has a solid background in the design of rural and urban
roadways, including geometrics, quantities computations, cost estimates, pavement design, and utility
coordination. He has provided roadway design / plans production for the Florida Department of
Transportation, Orlando- Orange County Expressway Authority, Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, the City of
Deltona, and Orange, Lake, Osceola, and Seminole Counties.
Project Team resumes are provided below:
CARSON BISE, AICP, PRESIDENT, TISCHLERBISE
EXPERIENCE
Carson Bise has 20 years of fiscal, economic and planning experience and has conducted fiscal and
infrastructure finance evaluations in 27 states, including the state of Florida. Mr. Bise has developed
and implemented more fiscal impact models than any consultant in the country. The applications that
he has developed have been used for evaluating multiple land use scenarios, specific development
projects, annexations, urban service provision, tax - increment financing, and concurrency /adequate
public facilities monitoring. Mr. Bise is also a leading national figure in the calculation of impact fees,
having completed over 200 impact fees for the following categories: parks and recreation, open space,
police, fire, schools, water, sewer, roads, municipal power, and general government facilities. In his six
years as a planner at the local government level, he coordinated capital improvement plans and
conducted comprehensive market analyses and business development strategies. Mr. Bise has also
written and lectured extensively on fiscal impact analysis and infrastructure financing. His most recent
publications are Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for Planners, published by the American Planning
Association, a chapter on fiscal impact analysis in the book Planning and Urban Design Standards, also
published by the American Planning Association, and the ICMA IQ Report, Fiscal Impact Analysis: How
II
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
Today's Decisions Affect Tomorrow's Budgets. Mr. Bise was also the principal author of the fiscal impact
analysis component for the Atlanta Regional Commission's Smart Growth Toolkit and is featured in the
recently released AICP CD -ROM Training Package entitled The Economics of Density. Mr. Bise is currently
on the Board of Directors of the Growth and Infrastructure Finance Consortium (formerly the National
Impact Fee Roundtable) and recently Chaired the American Planning Association's Paying for Growth
Task Force.
SELECTED IMPACT FEE AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING STRATEGY EXPERIENCE
■
City
of
Daphne, Alabama — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
Gulf Shores, Alabama — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
Orange Beach, Alabama — Impact Fee Study
■
Town of Camp Verde, Arizona — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
Eloy, Arizona — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
Siloam Springs, Arkansas — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
National City, California — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
National City, California — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
Avenal, California — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
Banning, California — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
Temecula, California — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
Tulare, California — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
Boulder, Colorado — Impact Fee /Excise Tax Study
■
Town of Castle Rock, Colorado — Impact Fee Study
■
City
of
Coral Gables, Colorado — Impact Fee Study
If
City
of
North Miami, Florida — Impact Fee Study
■ City of West Miami, Florida — Impact Fee Study
■ City of Miami, Florida — Impact Fee Study
■ City of Punta Gorda, Florida — Impact Fee Study
■ DeSoto County, Florida— Impact Fee Study
■ Manatee County, Florida— Impact Fee Study
■ Pasco County, Florida — School Impact Fee Study
■ Polk County, Florida — Impact Fee Study
■ Seminole County, Florida — School Impact Fee and Infrastructure Financing Study
■ City of Hailey, Idaho — Impact Fee Study
■ City of Hailey, Idaho — Annexation Fee Study
■ City of Nampa, Idaho — Impact Fee Study
■ City of Post Falls, Idaho — Impact Fee Study
■ Calvert County, Maryland — Impact Fee Study
■ Carroll County, Maryland — Impact Fee Study
■ Charles County, Maryland — Impact Fee Study
■ Hagerstown, Maryland — Impact Fee Study
■ Town of Hampstead, Maryland — Impact Fee Study
■ Washington County, Maryland — Impact Fee Study
■ Gallatin Canyon /Big Sky, Montana — Capital Improvement and Funding Plan
■ Flathead County, Montana — Impact Fee Study
■ City of Missoula, Montana — Impact Fee Study
■ Missoula County, Montana — Impact Fee Study
■ City of Greenville, North Carolina — Impact Fee Study
■ City of Hagerstown, Maryland — Impact Fee Study
■ Abbeville County, South Carolina — Infrastructure Funding Strategy
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
■ Beaufort County, South Carolina — Infrastructure Funding Strategy
■ Clinton City, Utah — Impact Fee Study
■ Draper City, Utah —Impact Fee Study
■ Logan City, Utah — Impact Fee Study
EDUCATION
M.B.A., Economics, Shenandoah University
B.S., Geography /Urban Planning, East Tennessee State University
B.S., Political Science /Urban Studies, East Tennessee State University
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
■ Impact Fee Basics, National Impact Fee Roundtable
■ Fiscal Impact Assessment, AICP Training Workshop, American Planning Association National
Planning Conference
■ Dealing with the Cost of Growth: From Soup to Nuts, International City /County Management
Association National Conference
■ Demand Numbers for Impact Analysis, National Impact Fee Roundtable
■ Impact Fees and Cash Proffers, APA Virginia Annual Planning Conference
■ Calculating Infrastructure Needs with Fiscal Impact Models, Florida Chapter of the American
Planning Association Conference
■ Economic Impact of Home Building, National Impact Fee Roundtable
■ Annexation and Economic Development, American Planning Association National Conference
■ Economics of Density, American Planning Association National Conference
■ The Cost /Benefit of Compact Development Patterns, American Planning Association National
Conference
■ Fiscal Assessments, American Planning Association National Conference
■ From Soup to Nuts: Paying for Growth, American Planning Association National Conference
■ Growing Pains, International City /County Management Association National Conference
■ Mitigating the Impacts of Development in Urban Areas, Florida Chapter of the American Planning
Association
■ Fiscal Impact Analysis and Impact Fees, National Impact Fee Roundtable
■ Are Subsidies Worth It? American Planning Association National Conference
DWAYNE GUTHRIE, PH.D., AICP, PRINCIPAL, TISCHLERBISE
EXPERIENCE
Dr. Guthrie has 32 years of experience as a professional planner, working primarily in the areas of
impact fees, demographic analysis, infrastructure funding, fiscal evaluations, and transportation
planning. His career includes 23 years of work as a planning consultant and nine years of public sector
experience. At TischlerBise, Dr. Guthrie is the impact fee team leader, with over 380 studies completed
for approximately 120 jurisdictions in 25 states /provinces. Dr. Guthrie has also served as an expert
witness on the topic of impact fees.
As a planning practitioner, Dr. Guthrie promotes smart growth through revenue strategies and pricing
policies. By helping communities implement development impact fees, local governments create a
nexus between private sector development and the demand for public facilities. Rather than subsidize
growth with general tax revenues, Dr. Guthrie works to ensure designated funding for infrastructure
that also helps to minimize externalities like traffic congestion. He has pioneered innovative methods for
0
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
tabulating census data to support higher fees for larger housing units and reducing fees for infill
development located in urban centers.
Dr. Guthrie also teaches graduate planning courses at local universities, including Growth Management
at the Alexandria campus of Virginia Tech and Planning Techniques at Catholic University of America.
His doctoral dissertation, titled "Understanding Urban, Metropolitan, and Megaregion Development to
Improve Transportation Governance" documents the expected geographic extent of commuter sheds in
2030 for large metropolitan areas within the continental United States. Commuter sheds provide a
viable refinement to current statistical area designations and solve problems due to inconsistent and
fragmented MPO boundaries. Nine transportation megaregions are proposed based on specific criteria,
including global gateways that facilitate movement of people and goods, contiguous commuter sheds
with urban centers spaced a suitable distance for high -speed rail service, and end -point commuter sheds
projected to add at least one million persons and jobs from 2000 to 2030. The dissertation recommends
a new paradigm for transportation governance with scale- dependent decision- making and funding
strategies.
SELECTED IMPACT FEE AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING ASSIGNMENTS
City of Foley, Alabama - Development Impact Fees
■ Baldwin County, Alabama - Development Impact Fees
Apache Junction Water Company, Arizona - Water System Connection Fees
■ City of Avondale, Arizona - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Casa Grande, Arizona - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Glendale, Arizona - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Goodyear, Arizona - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Goodyear, Arizona - Water Resources Fee
■ City of Peoria, Arizona - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Prescott, Arizona - Feasibility of Development Impact Fees for Roads
• Town of Queen Creek, Arizona - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Scottsdale, Arizona - Development Impact Fees
■
Cityof
Show Low, Arizona - Development Impact Fees
■
City of
Surprise, Arizona - Development Impact Fees
•
City of
Tolleson, Arizona - Development Impact Fees
■
Cityof
Bentonville, Arkansas - Development Impact Fees
■
City of
Chino Hills, California - Development Impact Fees
■
City of
Clovis, California - Sewer Impact Fee
■
City of
Temecula, California - Development Impact Fee
■
City of
Tulare, California - Development Impact Fee
•
Pitkin County, Colorado - Funding Strategy & Impact Fee
•
City of
Boulder, Colorado - Development Excise Taxes
■
Town of Castle Rock, Colorado - Development Impact Fees and Evaluation of Douglas County
School Fees
■ Montezuma County, Colorado - Development Impact Fee
■ Town of Erie, Colorado - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Evans, Colorado - Development Impact Fees
■ Town of Johnstown, Colorado - Drainage Financing Alternatives, Development Impact Fees, and
Water Rate Study
■ Arapahoe County, Colorado - Rural Road Funding Strategy
■ City of Louisville, Colorado - Development Impact Fees
• City of Pueblo, Colorado - Development Impact Fee
10
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
0;
■ Town of Vail, Colorado - Development Impact Fee
■ State of Delaware — Transportation Impact Fee
k
City of South Miami, FL
■ New Castle County, Delaware - Development Impact Fees, Sewer Policies and Capacity Fees
■ DeSoto County, Florida - Development Impact Fees
■ DeSoto School District, Florida - School Impact Fees
■ Manatee County, Florida - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Lake Wales, Florida - Development Impact Fees
■ Polk County School District, Florida - Capital Needs Assessment
■ Pasco County School District, Florida School Impact Fees
■ City of Miami, Florida - Development Impact Fees and Evaluation of Miami -Dade County Impact
Fees for Roads and Schools
■ City of Naples, Florida - Development Impact Fees
■ Coral Ridge Properties - Capital Improvements Element for Parkland, Florida
■ Cityof Punta Gorda, Florida - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Sunny Isles Beach, Florida - Development Impact Fees
■ Gordon County, Georgia - CIE and Development Impact Fees
■ City of Douglasville, Georgia - CIE and Development Impact Fees
■ Douglas County, Georgia - CIE and Development Impact Fees
■ City of Garden City, Georgia - CIE and Development Impact Fees
■ Henry County, Georgia — CIE and Transportation Impact Fee
■ Effingham County, Georgia - CIE and Development Impact Fees
■ Town of Hailey, Idaho - Annexation Study and Development Impact Fees
■ City of Nampa, Idaho - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Post Falls, Idaho - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Baltimore, Maryland - Transportation Funding Strategy
■ Home Builders Association of Carroll County, Maryland - Evaluation of Development Impact Fees
■ Cecil County, Maryland - Development Excise Tax
■ Frederick County, Maryland - Development Impact Fees
■ Town of Hampstead, Maryland - Development Impact Fees
■ Charles County, Maryland -School Impact Fees
■ Worcester County, Maryland - Development Impact Fees
■ Queen Anne's County, Maryland - Development Impact Fees
■ Carroll County, Maryland - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Westminster, Maryland - Capital Improvements Plan
■ City of Madison, Mississippi - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Nixa, Missouri - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Belgrade, Montana - Development Impact Fees
■ Gallatin County, Montana — Roads and Fire District Impact Fees
■ Florence - Carlton School District, Montana - School Impact Fees
■ City of Great Falls, Montana - Evaluation of Capacity Fees
■ Town of Manhattan, Montana - Development Impact Fees
■ City and County of Missoula, Montana - Development Impact Fees
■ Frenchtown Fire District, Montana - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Polson, Montana - Development Impact Fees
■ Douglas County, Nevada - Road Impact Fees
is NAOIP & HBA of Albuquerque, New Mexico - Evaluation of Impact Fees
■ City of Las Cruces, New Mexico - Development Fees
■ Currituck County, North Carolina - School Impact Fee
■ Orange County, North Carolina - School Impact Fee
11
k
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
4::
City of South Miami, FL
■ City of
Jacksonville, North
Carolina — Water and
Sewer Facilities Charges
■ Home
Builders Association
of Beavercreek, Ohio
- Review of Transportation Fees
■ City of Delaware, Ohio - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Green, Ohio - Development Impact Fees
■ Village of Sunbury, Ohio - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Edmond, Oklahoma — Water and Sewer Impact Fees
■ City of Cambridge, Ontario - Development Charges
■ Hydro Electric Commission of Cambridge, Ontario - Development Charges
■ City of Sarnia - Clearwater, Ontario - Development Charges
■ Township of Wellesley, Ontario - Development Charges
■ Aiken County, South Carolina - Development Impact Fees
■ Anderson County, South Carolina - Development Impact Fees
■ Georgetown County, South Carolina - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Sherman, Texas - Development Impact Fees
■
City
of
American Fork, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
City
of
Clearfield, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
City
of
Clinton, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
City
of
Draper, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
City
of
Farmington, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
City
of
Hooper, Utah - Sewer Impact Fee
■
City
of
Hyde Park, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
City
of
Kaysville, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
City
of
North Logan, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
Cityof
Pleasant Grove, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
Salt
Lake County, Utah — Stormwater and Park Impact Fees
■
South Valley Sewer District, Utah - Sewer Impact Fees
■
City
of
Spanish Fork, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
City
of
Springville, Utah - Park Impact Fees
■
City
of
Wellsville, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■
City
of
West Jordan, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■ City of Woods Cross, Utah - Development Impact Fees
■ Home Builders Association of Chesterfield County, Virginia - Cash Proffer Study
■ Isle of Wight County, Virginia - Cash Proffer Study
■ Graham Companies (Loudoun County, Virginia) - Evaluation of Dulles Sewer District
■ City of Suffolk, Virginia — Water and Sewer Availability Charges
■ Jefferson County, West Virginia - Development Fees
■ City of Eau Claire, Wisconsin - Public Facilities Needs Assessment
■ City of Kenosha, Wisconsin - Evaluation of CIP Process
■ City of Casper, Wyoming - Development Impact Fees
■ Teton County, Wyoming — Transit Impact Fee
EDUCATION
Ph.D., Planning, Governance, and Globalization, Virginia Tech
M.A., Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florida
B.A., Education, University of Florida
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
■ "Impact Fees ", Utah City Engineers Association.
■ "Funding the Infrastructure Gap," American Planning Association National Conference
12
0:
4y
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
■ "Preparing the Impact Fee Ordinance," Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia, Land Use
Law Program
■ "Development Impact Fees," Association of Idaho Cities Conference
■ "Reasonable Impact Fees," National Association of Home Builders Conference
■ "Impact Fees: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly," Continuing Legal Education International, Growth
Management Conference
■ "Do Impact Fees Fit Your Comprehensive Revenue Strategy ?" Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute
Conference
■ "Developing a Capital Improvements Program," Utah League of Cities & Towns Conference
PUBLICATIONS
Paul Tischler, Dwayne Guthrie and Nadejda Mishkovsky. 1999. `Introduction to Infrastructure Financing"
IQ Service Report, Vol. 31, No. 3. Washington, DC: International City /County Management Association.
GERALD A. DEBKOWSKI, P.E., OPERATIONS MANAGER, BAKER
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Dabkowski is responsible for assuring complete client satisfaction in all aspects of traffic, planning,
and civil engineering. Satisfaction means a very clear scope of service by all parties, assigned personnel
that are experts in the field of scope, a realistic schedule that will meet the clients' needs, reasonable
fees that follow the industry standards, a quality control process that is tailored to the scope, a finished
product that the client will be proud of and finally, a positive reply from clients that will be proud to
share.
SELECTED EXPERIENCE AT BAKER
■ Douglas Avenue Streetscape Rendering, Dunedin, Florida. City of Dunedin. Project Manager.
Responsible for Public Outreach, Commission presentations, and overall management of the project.
Baker developed a streetscape rendering for Douglas Avenue from Grant Street to Skinner
Boulevard. Baker conducted a field walk- through, identified issues, and developed two draft plan
alternatives and one street view rendering considering a trail connection, streetscape options,
benches, sidewalks, parking areas, intersection alignments, and a central pedestrian crossing.
■ John S. Burkes Memorial Park Traffic Impact Analysis, Pasco County, Florida. Pasco County, Florida
Parks and Recreation Department. Project Manager. Responsible for signing and sealing the final
traffic analysis report. Baker conducted a traffic impact study to determine traffic - related impacts to
the internal and adjacent street system that would result from proposed expansion of the John S.
Burkes Memorial Park. If needed, Baker will also compile a traffic impact statement, including an
access management analysis, a substandard road evaluation analysis, and a full access management
study.
■ One -Way Couplet Traffic Analysis, St. Pete Beach, Florida. City of St. Pete Beach. Project Manager.
Responsible for Public Outreach, Commission presentations, and overall management of the project.
Baker provided traffic analysis of a "one- way - couplet" concept for two streets in the city's
downtown business district to assist in encouraging economic growth. Baker conducted a traffic
analysis using Synchro software to determine the impacts of such an operational change for the
2015 build year and for the year 2035. The study also considered emergency evacuation routes,
Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD) issues, right -of -way identification of all roadways,
corner truck turning radii issues, business operating names on aerial maps, existing bicycle lanes and
pedestrian crossings, current and future roadway ownership issues, on- street parking opportunities,
and public outreach.
13
F
4:
K:
N.
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
■ Temporary Traffic Signal Design, Orlando, Florida. Family Dollar, Inc. Project Manager. Responsible
for signing and sealing the final traffic analysis report. Baker provided design services for a
temporary traffic signal control at the intersection of South Goldenrod Road and Sun Vista Way.
Baker conducted field surveys and prepared a one -sheet sketch from an aerial photograph with the
information required for the designated contractor, according to State District 5 and Orange County
standards. The signed and sealed version was required for completion within four days of a Notice
to Proceed and was delivered in three days.
■ County -wide Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, St. Johns County, Florida. St. Johns County,
Florida. Project Manager. Responsible for Public Outreach, Commission presentations, and overall
management of the project. Baker has been providing program management, public meeting
facilitation, planning, design, and construction inspection of the county's Neighborhood Traffic
Calming (NTC) program. Projects to date have included the Cypress Lakes and Captain's Pointe
Neighborhoods, Dondanville Road, and Reef Drive.
NON -BAKER PROJECT EXPERIENCE
■ Bayshore Boulevard Enhancements, City of Tampa, Florida. City of Tampa, Florida. Project Director.
Responsible for assuring complete satisfaction in all aspects of the project. The project entailed
meeting with the Mayors' staff, the public, special interest groups and other agencies for approval.
The final product was the acceptance of a new bike lane facility to the southbound lanes, enhance
pedestrian crossing safety throughout the corridor, upgrade traffic signals from span wire to steel
decorative mast arm structures and improve capacity at the major intersection. The project cost was
$2,000,000; design completed in 2009.
■ Berth 202 Car Consolidation Lot, City of Tampa, Florida. Port of Tampa, Florida. Project Director.
Responsible for assuring complete satisfaction in all aspects of the project. The project entailed
preparing construction plans, specifications and bid packages for the conversion of two existing
asphalt cargo yards to new /used car consolidation yards. The site is located on the east and west
sides of Guy Verger Boulevard and south of Eastport Drive. Phase I lot provides 1,261 parking spaces
and phase II lot provides 507 spaces with a truck staging area. Services provided included design for
pavement rehabilitation, lighting, signing and marking, fence layout, gate designs and trailer
design /specifications for permitting through FDEP. The project cost was $1,500,000; design
completed in 2000.
■ Westshore Boulevard at Gandy Boulevard, City of Tampa, Florida. City of Tampa, Florida. Project
Director. Responsible for assuring complete satisfaction in all aspects of the project. The project
entailed meeting with the Mayors' staff, the public, special interest groups and other agencies for
approval. The final product was the acceptance of new bike lanes north and south within the
intersection along Gandy Boulevard, enhancement of pedestrian crossing safety throughout the
intersection, upgrade of traffic signals to mast arm structures and improvement of capacity at the
major intersection. Cost of the project was $1,500,000.00; design completed in 2011.
■ Surveying and Engineering Services for a 15 -Mile Recreation Trail Design Project, Gainesville,
Florida. The project consisted of a 12- foot -wide, paved recreation trail connecting downtown
Gainesville to the Hawthorne rail trail. This trail also included equestrian amenities and a trail head
on the southern end. A beautiful steel arch bridge was designed and manufactured to fit the limits
of a water crossing, and the theme of the area. Design and environmental permitting were included
in this project. Complete construction plans and bid package was provided.
■ Depot Avenue Trail, Gainesville, Florida. Project Manager. The Depot Avenue Trail is in the heart of
downtown, and connects the highly successful Hawthorne rail trail to the downtown area. Several
state road crossings were required which allowed great cooperation with the state. Environmental
concerns from the previous rail usage were also contained and permitted with success. A
roundabout was also introduced into the design, and several high volume pedestrian crossings were
14
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
designed with safe access. The team provided survey and engineering services for this six - mile -long
design project. The project consisted of a 10- foot -wide urban paved trail. Special crosswalk markings
were approved by the state.
■ Traffic Signal Mast Arm Design, Gainesville, Florida. Created mast arm designs that met with the
City's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) standards and incorporated the latest Americans
With Disabilities Act requirements. Directed a team that provided three traffic signal mast arm
designs as part of a design -build contract which required replacement due to age.
EDUCATION
B.S.C.E., 1979, Traffic Engineering /Transportation Engineering, University of Florida
LICENSES /CERTIFICATIONS
Professional Engineer - Civil, Florida, 1985
MARY ANNE BOWIE, FAICP, SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER
EXPERIENCE
Ms. Bowie, Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners, is a comprehensive urban planner well
experienced in economic development, sustainability, military community planning, land and site
planning, transportation project impact analysis, community visioning and creating partnerships.
Bowie's first planning efforts included completing Environmental Impact Statements and initiating
transit oriented development planning while working for Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
(MARTA). She then moved to local government planning in Florida, working first for local government
and then as a planning consultant.
From 1994 until today, her sustainability advocacy continues to influence thousands of people through
national presentations and local sustainable economic development activities, including a seven year
pro -bono effort to grow Sarasota Florida's local green economy. Her "green economic development"
accomplishments were recognized by the Council for Sustainable Florida with a Promising Practice
Award; by the Florida American Planning Association with an Innovation award for the Venice Vision
Plan and by the American Society of Consulting Planners with the Sustainability /Smart Growth award.
She received honorary citizenship from the City of Mandeville Louisiana as a member of the select APA
post- Katrina team that created the "Redevelopment Plan for Old Mandeville." She co- authored
"Estimating Planning Services: An APA /AICP /ASCP Handbook" that received the APA National Divisions
Council award. She created a green building products retail store that was Green Spec certified, and was
a Green Home certifying agent. She continues to grow the green economy and in 2009 assisted St.
Petersburg College in establishing their Bachelor of Applied Science (BAS) in Sustainability Management
degree. In April 2012, she was awarded the Rik Wiant distinguished service and leadership award from
the Federal Planning Division of American Planning Association.
She qualified as an expert witness in various Circuit Courts of Florida in the areas of urban planning and
environmental planning. She serves as a member of the accreditation team for the Planning
Accreditation Board (PAB).
SELECTED EXPERIENCE AT BAKER
■ Strategic Redevelopment Plan, Naval Station Rota, Spain. U.S. Navy NAVFAC Washington, Senior
Planner. Responsibilities included analysis of the explosive safety quantity- distance (ESQD) arcs
emanating from the cargo ammunition ships based at the NS Rota piers and ship terminal facilities;
15
F.
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
*;:
City of South Miami, FL
developed parameters for bicycle and pedestrian complete street facilities for cost estimating
forecasting; produced redevelopment plan analysis for military community programming and
planning at the NS Rota installation; asset management of land use, transportation and general
community features; historical planning analysis of installation; and "Complete Street"
transportation planning for several streets aimed at serving specific destinations. Baker developed a
comprehensive strategic redevelopment plan for the installation to identify current and future
mission needs and to provide readily implementable solutions. 2012- 2013
NON -BAKER PROJECT EXPERIENCE
k
• Air Force Global Strike Command ( AFGSC) Community Planner, Shreveport, Louisiana. Established
Major Command (MAJCOM) Community Planning function at this new Air Force MAJCOM. She
guided comprehensive planning, airfield waiver and encroachment efforts for five Air Force bases.
Served on two Air Traffic System Evaluation Program (ATSEP) teams to evaluate and improve airfield
conditions, wrote AFGSC instruction for airfield waivers and served on the nationwide team to
rewrite the Air Force Instruction for Comprehensive Planning. She led formation of the working
group tasked with delivering sustainable installations and effective data stewardship, focused on
facility management use issues. 2011
• U.S. 17 Corridor Planning Study, Charlotte County, Florida. Produced plan to guide environmentally
sensitive rural area into emerging urbanizing form in a sustainable manner. Addressed low impact
design, ecotourism, conversion of mobile homes to conventional construction with density
retention, and alternative environmental and urban design solutions. 2009
■ FPL Corridor Analysis, Manatee /Sarasota, Florida. Studied ten alternatives to the Florida Power and
Light proposed Bobwhite — Manatee Power Line Corridor. Reviewed thousands of pages of impact
reports; analyzed conservation lands and parks; researched high power transmission line impacts on
residential property; researched approved development status of projects in the corridors;
conducted relevant research regarding airfield, park and residential impacts; conducted site and
area visits; researched Comprehensive Plan and land development parameters; and conducted an
analysis of impacted residential areas due to already in place high power transmission lines. Bowie
expert testimony helped lead to successful conclusion of "chosen" alternative decision. 2009
■ Englewood Interstate Connector Study, Sarasota /Charlotte, Florida. Project manager of planning
analysis efforts of all alternatives which included: 1) creating the property owner database for forty -
eight square mile area; 2) developing acquisition cost estimates; 3) determining primary, secondary
and cumulative impacts; 4) evaluating consistency with the comprehensive plan; 5) preparing the
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan; and 6) contributing as a member of the multidisciplinary team.
2007
■ Community Planner for Department of Defense installations. Various. Prepared portions of
comprehensive plans, general plans, area development plans (ADP) and BRAC reuse for military
installations (Westover, Stewart, Laughlin, Hill, Little Rock, Eglin) requiring on -site visits,
development of site plans, traffic circulation plans, and real property research for airfield expansion,
community centers, dormitory complexes, regional medical center and local government reuse.
2002 -2010
■ Venice Sustainable Vision Plan, Venice, Florida. Created a Sustainable Vision Plan for Business U.S.
41 on the Island of Venice, Florida. The plan creates sustainable solutions for the redevelopment
area; promotes multi -modal transportation alternatives; creates new zoning solutions to encourage
mixed uses and promotes reuse of underserved Inter - coastal waterway frontage. 2001
■ Transportation Planner /Expert Witness, Florida. Developed site - specific analysis of highway
construction impact on privately owned properties for over 1000 business - occupied properties in 65
cities and counties. Conducted original research based upon interviews, field surveys and historical
records; analyzed property surveys, appraisals, highway engineering documents, regulations and
16
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
real estate market conditions; provided highway and land use right -of -way analysis. Expert witness
court testimony provided as required. 1988 -2009
EDUCATION
M.C.P., 1973, Urban Planning /Environmental Planning, Georgia Institute of Technology
B.A., 1970, English /Secondary Education, Florida State University
LICENSES /CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Planner, 1985
Certified Planner, USA and Canada, 2006
CHRISTOPHER D. FRANK, TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY SPECIALIST, BAKER
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Frank has been involved in the construction and design of roadway projects of varying magnitude
for 12 years. His experience includes engineering of minor to major roadway projects that encompass a
range of multi - disciplined tasks. He has a solid background in the design of rural and urban roadways,
including geometrics, quantities computations, cost estimates, pavement design, and utility
coordination. His practical solutions to design challenges, technical approach to plans production, and
experience programming engineering software are a necessity for today's roadway engineering. He is
experienced in coordinating multi - disciplined transportation projects, from the initial PD &E study, to
design, and through final construction. He has substantial experience with preparing plans for FDOT-
compliant electronic submittals utilizing the latest CADD standards and production techniques. Mr.
Frank has provided roadway design / plans production for the Florida Department of Transportation,
Orlando- Orange County Expressway Authority, Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, the City of Deltona, and
Orange, Lake, Osceola, and Seminole Counties.
SELECTED EXPERIENCE AT BAKER
■ Commerce Parkway PD &E from U.S. 1 to S.R. 100, Florida. Florida Department of Transportation.
Senior Engineer. Responsible for performing a conceptual design analysis, preliminary engineering
report, and PD &E study.
S.R. 615 from Virginia Avenue (S.R. 70) to Orange County (S.R. 68), Florida. Florida Department of
Transportation Senior Engineer. Responsible for final constructibility construction plans, client
computations book, cost estimate, QA /QC, ERC comment /responses, cross -slope analysis, driveway
turnout design, and bus bay design. Provided post design CEI support.
■ TWO 5 -SR 45 Safety Improve. Florida Department of Transportation - District 1, Senior Engineer.
Responsible for providing design for lane widening, sidewalk addition, median widening, and
pavement design.
■ TWO 6- 4 Prescopes Reports. Florida Department of Transportation - District 1. Senior Engineer.
Responsible for providing QC for pavement design.
■ FDOT- C9416. Florida DOT - District 4. Senior Engineer. Responsible for pavement design, typical
section package, sidewalk feasibility study, ditch capacity calculations, and construction plans.
■ Suncoast Highway SR 589. Florida's Turnpike Enterprise. Senior Engineer. Served as engineer of
record for the construction plans, cross slope analysis report, existing roadway conditions
assessment report, median barrier report, typical section package, and pavement design.
■
ADM 129077. Superior Construction. Senior Engineer. Responsible for providing conceptual layout
and design during the project pursuit. Baker, along with Superior Construction, are teamed on this
17
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
City of South Miami, FL
Design -Build project to design and construct a Single Point Urban Intersection (SPUI) at Hurlburt
Field Entrance at the intersection of S.R. 30 (U.S. 98) and Cody Ave./ Champaign St. in Okaloosa
County, Florida. The interchange will elevate four lanes of S.R. 30 (U.S. 98) over Cody
Ave. /Champaign St. This interchange work will also include design and construction of all necessary
ramps to connect S.R. 30 (U.S. 98) to Cody Ave. /Champaign St., reconstructing Cody
Ave. /Champaign St. to accommodate the proposed improvements, connections to the existing four
lane rural typical section along S.R. 30 (U.S. 98) at both ends of the project, providing pedestrian
facilities along Cody Ave. /Champaign St., full signalization of the interchange including pedestrian
facilities, providing stormwater facilities that meet interchange drainage requirements and
permitting requirements, all signing and pavement markings required for the interchange, bridge
under deck lighting and interchange lighting.
NON -BAKER PROJECT EXPERIENCE
® Valencia College Lane, Orange County, Florida, Project Manager & Design engineer, $1.6M. Project
Manager. Responsible for two to four lane urban section in a mixed residential and commercial
zone, responsible for alignment design, R/W mapping including acquisition analysis and
recommendations, maintenance of traffic, drainage design integrating new and existing stormwater
conveyance, multiple permit agency coordination including FDOT /OOCEA /SJRWMD, bike lanes, ADA
sidewalks, and utility coordination.
® Boggy Creek Road, Osceola County, Florida, Project Manager & Design engineer, $1.OM. Project
Manager. Responsible for two to four lane urban section, responsible for alignment design, R/W
acquisition analysis and recommendations, triple storm main drainage design with aesthetically
shaped retention ponds, permit coordination including dewatering and federal mitigation, bike
lanes, meandering sidewalk alignment and profiles, and extensive utility coordination with a
dedicated easement.
EDUCATION
B.S.C.E., 1999, Transportation Engineering, University of Central Florida
LICENSES /CERTIFICATIONS
Professional Engineer - Civil, Florida, 2006
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No members of our proposed project team for the City's assignment have any relationship with any
member of the City Commission, his /her spouse, or family. No relationship exists between our firms and
any business or entity owned by a Commission member or their family or in which a Commission
member or their family has or has had an interest. There is no additional information concerning any
relationships between our firms and any Commission member which TischlerBise deems relevant to the
Commission's consideration. TischlerBise does not maintain a conflict list.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
The following scope of work provides detailed steps to ensure that the project is completed successfully.
We have designed this work plan to be responsive to the needs and specific circumstances of the City of
South Miami.
W'3
kk
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
k:
PHASE I: CONCURRENCY REVIEW
TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION
6+,
k
City of South Miami, FL
Description: The purpose of this task is to develop a complete understanding of the City's land use
planning issues as well as begin to identify relevant policy issues for consideration in
Concurrency Review and the Impact Fee Study. In addition, this task will serve as an
opportunity for the TischlerBise team to make contact with City staff and conduct
project "kick -off" activities. During this task, we will meet with City staff to establish
lines of communication, review and discuss project goals and City policies related to the
project, review the project schedule (and revise if necessary), and request additional
data and documentation related to the project. The specifics of this initial discussion are
outlined below:
■ Review and refine work plan and schedule, if appropriate.
■ Assess information needs and required staff support.
■ Discuss the City's current infrastructure needs.
■ Discuss overall capital facility financing issues.
in Identify and discuss trade -offs with different impact fee approaches including:
residential fees by house size; condensed nonresidential fee schedule; geographic
services areas.
■ Identify
and collect data and documents
relevant to the
analysis.
■ Become
familiar with the City's economic
development
goals.
■ Identify any major relevant policy issues, including issues related to annexation.
Meetings: One (1) meeting with City staff.
Deliverables: 1) Data request memorandum. 2) Revised project schedule, if necessary.
TASK 2: CONCURRENCY REVIEW KICKOFF
Description: The purpose of this task is to set the parameters for the Phase I Concurrency Review
analysis. During this task, our team will meet with City staff to gather and determine all
of the City's "adequate public facilities and services" requirements based on current
conditions, land development regulations, other current regulatory standards, the
comprehensive plan, and other City policies. There will be a discussion of
comprehensive plan policies and City policies related to the project. Additional data and
documentation needs related to the project will be identified during an on -site meeting
between our team and relevant City staff. City communication channels will be
established for data requests. We will also agree upon areas to be inventoried and
analyzed that are expected to include, at a minimum: streets, parks and recreation
facilities, open space, fire- rescue facilities and equipment, police facilities and
equipment and general government facilities. Other facilities may also be identified for
inventory and analysis. Potential growth areas and potential annexation areas will be
identified.
Meetings: One (1) working meeting with City staff. Three (3) conference calls to review and discuss
templates in process, make additions and corrections, and reach consensus on
19
4,;
k
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
�f:
41
City of South Miami, FL
templates to be used for Task 4, Inventory. One City -wide orientation field trip will be
held during same timeframe as the working meeting with City staff.
Deliverables: Memorandum I: Templates. Once all required data and documentation materials are
obtained and analyzed, templates will be developed and provided in Memorandum I
that will set the stage for Task 4, Inventory.
TASK 3: PREPARE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Description: The purpose of this task is to review and understand the City's current demographics as
they relate to growth and development and to determine the likely development future
for the City in terms on new population, housing units, employment and nonresidential
building area over the next 20 years. In this task, we will update current development
estimates and projections of future development to reflect recent Census and other
data.
Meetings: Discussions with the Planning Department will be held as part of Task 1 activities
discussed above.
Deliverable: TischlerBise will prepare a memorandum discussing land use factors projections.
TASK 4: INVENTORY FACILITIES AND DETERMINE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Description: Our team will inventory and evaluate existing facilities in accordance with "adequate
Public Facilities and services" templates established in Task 2. We will establish
development projections based upon agreed upon assumptions of redevelopment,
infill, undeveloped land, and annexation opportunities.
Meetings: Temporarily operating from base established at City of South Miami government
offices, our team will conduct five day on -site visits to inventory and obtain all
necessary data regarding facilities and development projections. During the on -site
field visits, it is anticipated that three or more short informal meetings will be held to
enhance the information gathering planning process. These meetings will include
interviews with City staff to gather relevant information.
Deliverables: Memorandum II City of South Miami Facilities and Memorandum III City of South
Miami Development Projections
TASK 5: DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING "ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILTIES AND SERVICES"
REQUIREMENTS
Description: Based upon the findings in Task 4 above, our team will develop a set of suggested
changes to existing "adequate public facilities and services" requirements. These
changes may address a variety of considerations, including both regulatory and policy
level recommendations. Our team will work closely with City staff, providing drafts for
review and responding to City review comments.
Meetings:
Deliverables:
Three (3) conference calls will be held between our team and City Staff during Task 5 to
discuss Draft suggestions, recommended changes, additions, and corrections.
Memorandum IV Suggested Changes to "adequate public facilities and services"
requirements for the City of South Miami.
20
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
PHASE 11: FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY AUDIT
TASK 1: REVIEW RELEVANT PUBLISHED MATERIAL AND INTERVIEW SERVICE PROVIDERS AND
PERSONNEL
Description: Prior to our onsite visit, TischlerBise will review relevant budgets, fiscal information,
planning documents, past studies and other material so that meaningful discussions can
be held.
TischlerBise will meet with appropriate staff from the City. These meetings will focus on
issues related to past development approvals, planning and development issues, future
growth projections, revenue structure and funding issues, levels of service for capital
facilities, financing and other items relevant to meeting the requirements of impact
fees. We will also address other issues related to fiscal sustainability as appropriate.
TischlerBise will meet with appropriate staff from the City.
Meetings: One (1) meeting with City staff.
Deliverables: See Task 3.
TASK 2: CONDUCT COST OF GROWTH SEMINAR
Description: As part of our onsite visit, TischlerBise will conduct a Cost of Growth Workshop with the
City Commission. This Workshop will focus on soliciting input from elected officials on
what they perceive are the most pressing needs the City will experience in the future, as
well as providing an overview of fiscal impact analysis and its uses for evaluating the
cost of growth as well discussing ways to finance growth without raising taxes. The
information presented in this seminar should lay the groundwork for the City to begin
discussing "fiscal sustainability" as it relates to annexation, redevelopment, the
comprehensive plan, and planning for long -term financial requirements.
Meetings: One (1) meeting with City Commission (We are aware of the Florida's Sunshine Law and
are amenable to several meetings with Commission members or a formal work session).
Deliverables: Presentation Materials as Appropriate.
TASK 3: PREPARE FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY AUDIT
Description: In this task, we will prepare a Report discussing the findings of the above tasks. This
Report will summarize the City's present situation as it relates to
development /redevelopment, annexation, and budgetary and level of service issues and
will present recommendations and prioritize the facilities for impact fees. It will also
provide direction and recommendations as to what other type of analyses should be
conducted given the City's situation (e.g. if our findings are that impact fees shouldn't
be pursued). The types of consultants and cost range to conduct a full study will be
noted. In summary, this report will be a road map that discusses the suggested facilities
and route to implementing new impact fees or other financing mechanisms.
Meetings: One (1) meeting with City staff and presentation to City Commission.
Deliverables: Draft and Final Fiscal Sustainability Audit.
21
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
PHASE III: IMPACT FEE STUDY (IF RECOMMENDED)
TASK 1: DETERMINE CAPITAL FACILITY NEEDS AND SERVICE LEVELS
.------------------------------------ --------....................... ------------------
Description: This task as well as tasks 4 -6 may vary somewhat depending on the methodology
applied to a particular development impact fee category. The impact fee analysis for
each facility type would be presented in a separate chapter in the impact fee report.
Identify Facilities /Costs Eligible for Impact Fee Funding. As an essential part of the
nexus analysis, TischlerBise will evaluate the impact of development on the need for
additional facilities, by type, and identify costs eligible for development impact fee
funding. Elements of the analysis include:
■ Review facility plans, fixed asset inventories, and other documents establishing the
relationship between development and facility needs by type.
■ Identify planned facilities, vehicles, equipment, and other capital components
eligible for development impact fee funding.
■ Prepare forecast of relevant capital facility needs.
■ Adjust costs as needed to reflect other funding sources.
As part of calculating the fee, the City may include the construction contract price; the
cost of acquiring land, improvements, materials, and fixtures; the cost for planning,
surveying, and engineering fees for services provided for and directly related to the
construction system improvement; and debt service charges, if the City might use
impact fees as a revenue stream to pay the principal and interest on bonds, notes or
other obligations issued to finance the cost of system improvements. All of these
components will be considered in developing an equitable allocation of costs.
Identify Appropriate Level of Service Standards. We will review needs analyses and
levels of service for each facility type. Activities related to this task include:
■ Apply defined service standards to data on future development to identify the
impacts of development on facility and other capital needs. This will include
discussions with staff of the existing versus adopted levels of service, as
appropriate.
■ Ascertain and evaluate the actual demand factors (measures of impact) that
generate the need for each type of facility to be addressed in the study.
■ Identify actual existing service levels for each facility type. This is typically expressed
in the number of demand units served.
■ Define service standards to be used in the impact fee analysis.
■ Determine appropriate geographic service areas for each fee category.
Meetings: One (1) to two (2) meetings with City staff to discuss capital facility needs and levels of
service.
Deliverables: See Task 5.
tW
41
C.
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
TASK 2: EVALUATE DIFFERENT ALLOCATION METHODOLOGIES
..................... --------------....... -----------------.............. ---------------.................... - -- - ---------------
Description: The purpose of this task is to determine the methodology most appropriate for each
impact fee category. As noted previously, the three basic methodologies that can be
applied in the calculation of development impact fees are the plan- based, incremental
expansion, and cost - recovery approaches. Selection of the particular methodology for
each component of the development impact fee category will depend on which is most
beneficial for the City of South Miami. In a number of cases, we will prepare the
development impact fees for a particular infrastructure category using several
methodologies and will discuss the trade -offs with the City. This allows us utilization of a
combination of methodologies within one fee category. For instance, a plan -based
approach may be appropriate for a new facility building while an incremental approach
may be appropriate for support vehicles and equipment. By testing all possible
methodologies, the client is assured that the maximum supportable impact fee will be
developed. Policy discussions will then be held at the staff level regarding the trade -offs
associated with each allocation method prior to proceeding to the next task.
Meetings: One (1) meeting City staff to discuss issues related to allocation methodologies.
Deliverable: See Task 5.
TASK 3: DETERMINE THE NEED FOR "CREDITS" TO BE APPLIED AGAINST CAPITAL COSTS
Description: A consideration of "credits" is integral to the development of a legally valid impact fee
methodology. There is considerable confusion among those who are not immersed in
impact fee law about the definition of a credit and why it may be required.
There are, in fact, two types of "credits" each with specific, distinct characteristics, but
both will be included in the calculation of impact fees. The first is a credit due to
possible double payment situations. This could occur when a property owner will make
future contributions toward the capital costs of a public facility covered by an impact
fee. The second is a credit toward the payment of an impact fee for the required
dedication of public sites and improvements provided by the developer and for which
the impact fee is imposed. Both types of credits will be considered and addressed in the
impact fee analysis.
Deliverable: See Task 5.
TASK 4: CONDUCT FUNDING AND CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
Description: In order to prepare a meaningful capital improvement plan, it is important to not only
understand the gross revenues, but also the capital facility costs and any deficits. In this
case, some consideration should be given to anticipated funding sources. This
calculation will allow the City to better understand the various revenue sources possible
and the amount that would be needed if the impact fees were discounted.
The initial cash flow analysis will indicate whether additional funds might be needed or
if the capital improvements plan might need to be changed to have new growth pay its
fair share of new capital facilities. This could also affect the total credits calculated in the
previous task. Therefore, it is likely that a number of iterations will be conducted in
order to refine the cash flow analysis reflecting the capital improvement needs.
Deliverable: See Task 5.
23
6:
4:
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
TASK 5: PREPARE IMPACT FEE REPORT, PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
Description: TischlerBise will prepare a draft report that for the City's review. The report will
summarize the need for all relevant categories of impact fees in the City and the
relevant methodologies employed in the calculation. It will also document all
assumptions and cost factors. The report will include at a minimum the following
information:
■ Executive Summary
® A detailed description of the methodologies used during the study
® A detailed description of all level of service standards and cost factors used and
accompanying rationale
■ A detailed schedule of all proposed fees listed by land use type and activity
® Other information which adequately explains and justifies the resulting
recommended fee schedule
® Cash Flow Analysis
® Implementation and Administration Procedures
Following the City's review of the draft report, we will make mutually agreed upon
changes to the Impact Fee Report.
TischlerBise's impact fee report will have flow diagrams clearly indicating the
methodology and approach, a series of tables for each activity showing all of the data
assumptions and figures, and a narrative explaining all of the data assumptions, sources,
and the methodologies. The report will be a stand -alone document clearly understood
by interested parties. Because of the firm's extensive experience in calculating impact
fees and preparing such reports, we have developed a very succinct written product
that leaves a well- understood paper trail.
Deliverable: Draft and final reports and presentation materials for meetings.
Meetings: One (1) meeting /presentation to present results.
TASK 6: MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS
Description: Meetings with various stakeholder groups will allow interested parties, designated by
the City, to understand assumptions and raise any questions about the technical
demographic, cost, revenue, credit, other data, and supporting documentation that is
being used in the calculation of impact fees. These meetings will not be forums to
discuss the political and /or philosophical use of fees; rather, they will be an opportunity
for interested parties to understand the soundness and the reasonableness of the
technical impact fee methodology. We anticipate two meetings with the development
community that coincide with our visits to the City of South Miami.
24
N.
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
k,
A
City of South Miami, Fl-
TischlerBise understands and accepts all restrictions on representation as outlined by the City in its RFP.
25
A"
6.
k
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
k; ko-
City of South Miami, FL
PROOF OF AUTHORIZATION
Proof of authorization to transact business in the state of Florida from the Florida Secretary of State is
provided for TischlerBise and Baker on the following pages.
we
41
Es
Detail by Entity Name
Horne Contact Us E- Filing Services Document Searches
Events Name History
wan
Detail by Entity Name
TISCHLER RISE, INC.
Filin Infc�rmatic�n
Document Number
F96000006127
FEI /EIN Number
521087538
Date Filed
11/22/1996
State or Country
DC
Status
ACTIVE
Last Event
CANCEL ADM DISS /REV
Event Date Filed
10/24/2008
Event Effective Date
NONE
Principal Address
4701 SANGAMORE RD
S240
BETHESDA, MD 20816
Changed: 03/22/2006
Mailing Address
4701 SANGAMORE RD
S240
BETHESDA, MD 20816
Changed: 03/22/2006
Re istered Aclent Na��e Address
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND
ROAD
PLANTATION, FL 33324
Officer /Director Detail
Name & Address
Title PRES
BISE, L. CARSON
4701 SANGAMORE RD, S240
BETHESDA, MD 20816
WWI>•
A
Forms
Page 1 of 2
Help
Entity Name Search
C Search _j
` --- ------- --
http: // search. sunbiz. org / Inquiry/ CorporationSearch/ SearchResultDetail /EntityName /forp -f.., 3/27/2013
61
Detail by Entity Name
Report Year
Filed Date
2010
02/11/2010
2011
04/15/2011
2012
03/20/2012
Document Imarips
03/20/2012
--
ANNUAL REPORT
PDF
04/15/2011 --
ANNUAL REPORT
02111/2010 --
ANNUAL REPORT
View
image
05/01/2009 --
ANNUAL REPORT
for
10/24/2008 --
REINSTATEMENT
03/13/2007 -
ANNUAL REPORT
View
01116/2007 -
Name Change
PDF
03/22/2006 -
ANNUAL REPORT
12/23/2005 --
REINSTATEMENT
10/12/2004 --
REINSTATEMENT
in
09/11/1997 --
ANNUAL REPORT
11/22/1996 -
DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO 1997
Events Name History
Return to Search Results
4:.
View
image
in
PDF
format
View
image
in
PDF
for
View
image
in
PDF
format
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF for
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF format
View
image
in
PDF
format
View
image
in
PDF
format
View
image
in
PDF
format
View
image
in
PDF
format
H, ._:. 1 Lonta =t us QOCOM,M)t .: i517e.:, c;F i� s eevires I morn t
t; opy�.c ic% €?I trjv Psol; cie.s
:idt n r IU ic.`ii t . j) i't�tl� Itl
(Al I— S.
Page 2 of 2
Entity Name Search
1 Search I
http: / /search. sunbiz. org/ Inquiry/ CorporationSearch/ SearchResultDetail /EntityName /forp -f... 3/27/2013
t:,
0:
Detail by Entity Name
Home Contact Us
Events No Name History
Return to Search Results
Detail by Entity Name
E•Filing Services Document Searches
Foreign E�rofit Corporation_
MICHAEL BAKER, JR., INC.
Filing Information
Document Number 829243
FEI/EIN Number 251228638
Date Filed 12/29/1972
State or Country PA
Status ACTIVE
Last Event AMENDMENT
Event Date Filed 03130/2012
Event Effective Date NONE
Principal Address
AIRSIDE BUSINESS PARK
100 AIRSIDE DRIVE
MOON TWP., PA 15108
Changed: 03/23/2004
Maifin�ess
AIRSIDE BUSINESS PARK
100 AIRSIDE DRIVE
MOON TWP., PA 15108
Changed: 03/23/2004
Registered Agent Plarne Address
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 S. PINE ISLAND ROAD
PLANTATION, FL 33324
Name Changed: 07/13/1992
Address Changed: 07/13/1992
Officer /Director Detail
Name & Address
Title EVPC
ZUGAY, MICHAEL J
k
Forms
Page 1 of 3
Help
Entity Name Search
Search
http: / /search. sunbiz.org/ Inquiry/ CorporationSearch /SearchResultDetail /EntityName /fore -8... 3/27/2013
C
0;
Detail by Entity Name
100 AIRSIDE DRIVE, AIRSIDE BUSINESS PARK
MOON TOWNSHIP, PA 15108
Title SEVC
MCKNIGHT, H. JAMES
100 AIRSIDE DRIVE, AIRSIDE BUSINESS PARK
MOON TOWNSHIP, PA 15108
Title EVCO
KURGAN, G. JOHN
100 AIRSIDE DRIVE, AIRSIDE BUSINESS PARK
MOON TOWNSHIP, PA 15108
Title SVP
HOLT, PAUL A
700 HUGER STREET
COLUMBIA, SC 29201
Title VP
WIEHL, DENNIS J
700 HUGER STREET
COLUMBIA, SC 29201
Emw
Report Year Filed Date
2011 01/05/2011
2012 01/03/2012
2013
image
01/11/2013
PDF
format 1
Document
Images
View
REPORT
01/11/2013 --ANNUAL
REPORT
View image in
PDF format
01/05/2010 --
03/30/2012 -- Amendment
REPORT
10/15/2009 —
ANNUAL
REPORT
View image in
PDF format
01/031201.2 == ANNUAL
REPORT
ANNUAL
REPORT
01/12/2007 -
F77
View image in
PDF format
REPORT
07/05/2005 --
ANNUAL
REPORT
03/23/2004,
ANNUAL
REPORT
04/25/2003 -
ANNUAL
11ll%i/f► I "TA 91asLLaS]M
01/05/2011
image
in
PDF
format 1
--
ANNUAL
View
REPORT
in
PDF
format
01/05/2010 --
ANNUAL
REPORT
10/15/2009 —
ANNUAL
REPORT
01/15/2009 -
ANNUAL
REPORT
01/07/2008 --
ANNUAL
REPORT
01/12/2007 -
ANNUAL
REPORT
07/0712006___ ANNUAL
REPORT
07/05/2005 --
ANNUAL
REPORT
03/23/2004,
ANNUAL
REPORT
04/25/2003 -
ANNUAL
REPORT
08/11/2002 --
ANNUAL
REPORT
09/05/2001 --ANNUAL
REPORT
01/29/2000 --
ANNUAL
REPORT
View
image
in
PDF
format 1
View
image
in
PDF
format
View
image
in
PDF
format
CView
image
in
PDF
format
View
image
in
PDF
format
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF format
View image in PDF format
Page 2 of 3
http: / /search.sunbiz. org/ Inquiry/ CorporationSearch /SearchResultDetaillEntityName /forp -8... 3/27/2013
61
Detail by Entity Name
k
02(13/1999
- ANNUAL
REPORT
View
image
in
PDF
format
03/04/1998
- ANNUAL
REPORT
F
View
image
in
PDF
format
08/20/1997
-- REFUND
REQUEST
View
image
in
PDF
format
07/29/1997
ANNUAL
REPORT
View
image
in
PDF
format
05/01/1996
ANNUAL
REPORT
View
image
in
PDF
format
My �
Return to Search Results
4;
}irEi� I (.l;�tir E,.. I Do <.IAili Cliy: N n. tHti ! f "i�inyni „yirfz r Q,,,
-tMfer L >
Page 3 of 3
Entity Name Search
Search
http +/ /search. sunbiz. org/ Inquiry/ CorporationSearch /SearchResultDetail/EntityNarne /fore -8... 3/27/2013
Principal -In- Charge
I101i .)NvlLauvli u1611icci
Project manager
4�.
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
4.
CLIENT LIST AND REFERENCES
CLIENT LISTS
City of South Miami, FL
An important factor to consider related to this work effort is our relevant impact fee experience in the
State of Florida, including for the City of Miami, the Cities of North and West Miami, and the adjacent
City of Coral Gables. A summary of TischlerBise's Florida impact fee experience is shown in the table
below.
Baker professionals have many success stories with similar contracts and municipalities similar in size to
the City of South Miami. In addition to historically providing professional services to Okaloosa, Walton,
Polk, Leon, and Osceola Counties via continuing service contracts, Baker is currently under contract to
provide multi -year engineering and planning services contracts to the following Florida counties and
cities:
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
k.
k
0.
City of South Miami, FL
City
of
Dunedin (2011)
City
of
Tampa( 2009)
City
of
Indian Rocks Beach (2012)
City
of
Temple Terrace (2011)
City
of
Ocala (2011)
City
of
Treasure Island (2011)
Polk
County (2012)
City
of
Zephyrhills (2008)
City
of
St Pete Beach (2010, 2013)
Services to be provided to the listed municipalities under these contracts vary somewhat by location but
include: general civil engineering, architectural, planning, transportation, construction management and
inspection services, water, wastewater, hydrogeologic, environmental, and miscellaneous services,
which can include forensic, legal, and expert witness support.
Additional information on Baker's Florida experience and work on projects with transportation planning
components can be found at the end of this section.
Our national impact fee consulting assignments are shown in the table below.
29
RFP
#PZ- 2013 -03 -01
City
of South Miami, FL
AZ
Glendale
AZ
Goodyear
AZ
Lake Havasu City
AZ
Maricopa
AZ
Navajo Co.
AZ
Northwest Fire District
AZ
Peoria
AZ
Final Co.
AZ
Pinetop- Lakeside
AZ
Prescott
AZ
Queen Creek
AZ
Safford
AZ
San Luis
AZ
Scottsdale
AZ
Sedona
AZ
Show Low
AZ
Sierra Vista
AZ
Somerton
AZ
Springerville
AZ
Surprise
AZ
Taylor
AZ
Tolleson
AZ
Wellton
AZ
Yuma
CA
Banning
CA
Butte Co.
CA
Chino Hills
CA
Clovis
CA
El Centro
CA
Grass Valley
CA
Half Moon Bay
CA
Hemet
CA
Imperial County
CA
Maywood
CA
National City
CA
Rancho Cucamonga
CA
Suisun City
CA
Visalia
CO
Arapahoe County
30
RFP
#PZ- 2013 -03 -01
City
of South
Miami,
FL
CO
Boulder
CO
Castle Rock
CO
Eaton
CO
Erie
CO
Evans
CO
Greeley
CO
Johnstown
CO
Louisville
CO
Pitkin Co.
CO
Pueblo
CO
Steamboat Springs
DE
Appoq. School District
DE
New Castle Co.
DE
State of Delaware
ID
Caldwell
ID
Canyon Co.
ID
Hailey
ID
Hayden
ID
Kellogg
ID
Nampa
ID
Post Falls
ID
Shoshone Fire District
ID
Victor
MD
Caroline Co.
MD
Carroll Co.
MD
Charles Co.
MD
Dorchester Co.
MD
Easton
MD
Frederick
MD
Frederick Co.
MD
Hagerstown
MD
Hampstead
MD
Ocean City
MD
Queen Anne's, Co.
MD
Salisbury
MD
Snow Hill
MD
Talbot
MD
Westminster
MD
Wicomico
31
41;
RFP
#PZ- 2013 -03 -01
City
of South
Miami,
FL
MD
Worcester
MN
Woodbury
MO
Nixa
MO
Nixa Fire Protection Dist.
MS
Madison
MT
Belgrade
MT
Corvallis School District
MT
Flathead County
MT
Florence School District
MT
Gallatin Co.
MT
Gallatin Co. Fire Districts
MT
Great Falls
MT
Madison
MT
Manhattan
MT
Missoula
MT
Missoula Co.
MT
Poison
MT
Ravalli
NC
Cabarrus Co.
NC
Camden Co.
NC
Catawba Co.
NC
Chatham Co.
NC
Creedmoor
NC
Currituck Co.
NC
Durham
NC
Greenville
NC
Nags Head
NC
Orange Co.
NC
Pasquotank
NM
Las Cruces
NV
North Las Vegas
NV
Nye County
NV
Washoe County
OH
Delaware
OH
Lebanon
OH
Pickerington
OH
Sunbury
RI
E. Greenwich
RI
Middletown
32
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
k
City of South Miami, FL
33
SC
Aiken
SC
Horry Co.
SC
Summerville
UT
American Fork
UT
Brigham City
UT
Clearfield
UT
Clinton City
UT
Draper
UT
Farmington
UT
Hyde Park
UT
Kaysville
UT
Logan
UT
Mapleton
UT
North Logan
UT
Pleasant Grove
UT
South Valley Sewer Dist.
UT
Salt Lake Co.
UT
Sandy City
UT
Spanish Fork
UT
Springville
UT
Wellsville
UT
West Jordan
UT
Woods Cross
VA
Chesterfield Co.
VA
Goochland Co.
VA
Henrico Co.
VA
Isle of Wright Co.
VA
Prince George Co.
VA
Prince William County
VA
Spotsylvania County
VA
Stafford County
VA
Suffolk
VA
Sussex Co.
WI
Eau Claire
WV
Jefferson Co.
WY
Casper
33
*: k & 41.
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01 City of South Miami, FL
REFERENCES
The following section illustrates our experience and expertise with similar impact fee studies and
funding strategies. Please note that all proposed members of our project team for the City of South
Miami have the capacity to complete the City's project in a timely and professional manner.
Orange County, FL — Law Enforcement Impact Fees
Contact: Glen Finnell, Director of Research and Development
Phone: (407) -254 -7470
E -Mail: glen.finnell @ocf1.net
TischlerBise is completing a law enforcement impact fee study for Orange County. As part of this study,
TischlerBise prepared two versions of the impact fee. The first version is consistent with the
methodology utilized in the County's current impact fee methodology. The second version presents an
alternative approach that we feel results in better proportionality for between residential and
nonresidential land uses.
City of Coral Gables, FL — Citywide Impact Fees
Contact: Maria Jimenez, Assistant City Manager
Phone: (305) 460 -5201
Email: cmo @coralgables.com
TischlerBise conducted impact and capacity fee studies for the City of Coral Gables, Florida. Four
categories of public capital facilities were included in the impact fee study, including police, general
government, parks and fire. Fee components included buildings, land and equipment. The incremental -
expansion methodology was used, documenting the City's current level of service and calculating impact
fees based on these level of service characteristics. A capacity fee study was prepared for sewer
facilities. TischlerBise also incorporated credits for two categories after an examination of existing debt
for capital facilities.
Upon completion of the Coral Gables impact fee schedule, the University of Miami, which is located in
Coral Gables, requested that the City consider developing unique impact fees. The University indicated
that its future buildings have demand characteristics different from other land use types considered in
the impact fee study. Additionally, the University asserted that it places reduced demand on the City for
certain capital facilities due to existing facilities on the University campus. TischlerBise worked with
University and City staff to review this information, conduct additional analyses, and develop an impact
fee schedule for the City that reflects the University's unique demand characteristics and capital
facilities.
District School Board of Pasco County, FL — School Impact Fee Study
Contact: Ray Gadd, (former) Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Phone: (813) 215 -9648
E -Mail: ray4857 @msn.com
TischlerBise recently completed our third engagement with the District School Board of Pasco County
calculating impact fees. In our most recent engagement, TischlerBise revised the impact fee
methodology to reflect more current pupil generation rates by type of housing unit, updated
construction and land costs, 2007 level of service standards and current revenue projections. In
addition, TischlerBise held several meetings with an advisory group made up of County and School
District representatives, citizen groups, and the development community.
34
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
6
City of South Miami, FL
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: BAKER'S FLORIDA AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
EXPERIENCE
FLORIDA EXPERIENCE - BAKER
Baker has six offices in Florida with over 75 professional
staff working on an array of projects ranging from the 4
planning and design of roads, airfields, Intelligent
Transportation Systems, (ITS), parking structures and
surface lots, to general planning, architectural,
environmental, and engineering services for clients
statewide. Baker has provided special studies, Master Plans
and complete project management services for utilities, low
impact design (LID) landscape architecture and stormwater`
solutions. Baker also provides bicycle /pedestrian oriented
trails and Complete Streets, parks, transportation and aviation projects from the earliest stages of
planning through construction management and project closeout, with extensive experience completing
transportation planning and design projects for major cities, counties, and Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT). For FDOT, Baker is developing U.S. 1 in Fort Lauderdale, and for the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Baker developed a new bicycle trail alignment in the
Florida Keys in Monroe County.
Baker provides professional services to Monroe County Aviation and Palm Beach Department of Airports
and to the City of Kissimmee in regard to their bike path and their airport. Recently Baker completed a
Fletcher Avenue pedestrian safety study for Hillsborough County MPO and supported City of Sebastian
with their roads and utilities. For the BluePrint 2000 Program (City of Tallahassee and Leon County),
Baker has been serving as the General Engineering Consultant since 2003 on the 15 -year sales tax
funded, transportation / floodway / greenway / park improvement program. One of its most recent and
visible projects is Cascade Park, in the process of becoming Tallahassee's central park.
www.cascadepark.org
SMALL URBAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLANS EXAMPLE - BAKER
Client: Virginia Department of Transportation, District 4
2430 Pine Forest Drive
P.O. Box 3402
Colonial Heights, Virginia 23834
Baker prepared 43 Transportation Plans for small areas (population less than 50,000) around the
Commonwealth of Virginia that were not part of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and also
developed travel demand models and initial MPO long range plans for two new MPOs. Baker updated
Transportation Plans for these areas and provided information for an interim year (2010) and a horizon
year (2020). Future traffic demand was developed through trend analyses for traffic and land use. The
Plans primarily focus was on roadways needs. However, multi -modal issues were incorporated when
considered an important issue by an area's elected officials or staff. The contract included a public
involvement program designed to solicit input for development of the Plans, and verification of the
VDOT roadway database for each area. Extensive local coordination was conducted in the development
of each plan. The final product included a GIS map depicting the roadway network, functional
classifications, volumes, color -coded improvement recommendations, short and long -range
37
x.
RFP #PZ- 2013 -03 -01
City of South Miami, FL
improvement listings that describe limits, features, and costs, typical cross - sections, plan adoption, and
multi -modal issues, and an interactive GIS map on the project website. The Blacksburg /Christiansburg
and Harrisonburg /Rockingham MPOs required new or updated travel demand models. Origin -
destination surveys, home interviews, and extensive traffic data collection were conducted for these
areas' plan development.
Project features included:
■ Updated Transportation Plans
■ Future Traffic Demand Analysis
■ Roadway and Multi -modal Issues
■ Public Involvement Program
■ GOS Map Representation Development
■ Development of Travel Demand models