The URL can be used to link to this page

4South Miami bOd CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ifITr' To: The Honorable Mayor Stoddard and Members of the City Commission Via: Steven Alexander, City Manager 15:'4--- From: Christopher Brimo, AICP of1 /' Planning Director / ITEMNO.~ 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, Incorporated. Z:\Commission Itcms\20 13\4-16-13\ConclirrencLlmpact Fee RFP\Conclirrency _Impact Fees contract_ CM Report 4-1 0-13.docx 2001 1 RESOLUTION NO. ____ _ 2 3 A Resolution relating to soliciting request for proposals for concurrency and 4 impact fee studies for the City of South Miami; authorizing the City 5 Manager to enter into a contract not to exceed one (1) year from the date of 6 award for professional services with Tischler Bise, Incorporated. 7 8 9 WHEREAS, in conjunction with the Public Works, Finance and City's Purchasing 10 Division, the Planning Department solicited requests for quotations for concurrency and impact 11 fee studies for the City; and 12 13 WHEREAS, in response to the changes in the Florida Statures Chapter 163.3180, to the 14 way a municipality evaluates concurrency, it is vital that the City evaluates its methodology and 15 established levels of service deficiencies based on current regulatory standards; and 16 17 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami does not currently collect impact fees for 18 development; and 19 20 WHEREAS, the City desires to develop a comprehensive impact fee program that meets 21 the requirements of the Florida Impact Fee Act; and 22 23 WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to engage a firm that can provide 24 all services related to the scope of services with positive, dependable and accurate results to the 25 end users; and on March 8, 2013 a request for proposal [RFP #PZ 2013-03-01] was released by 26 the City for these studies; and 27 28 WHEREAS, on March 27,2013 the City received and opened three sealed proposals for 29 concurrency and impact fee studies[RFP #PZ 2013-03-01], of which Tischler Bise, Incorporated 30 provided the City with the responsive and responsible proposal, within the City's adopted budget. 31 32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY 33 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: 34 35 Section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a contract not to exceed 36 one (1) year from the date of award and expend funds to Tischler Bise, Incorporated for the 37 goods and services set forth in the City's Scope of Services, in an amount not to exceed 38 $70,000.00, which shall be charged to account No. 001-1620-524-3450 with a current balance of 39 $125,800.00. A copy ofRFP #PZ 2013-03-01 and the proposal made by Tischler Bise, 40 Incorporated is attached and made part hereof by reference. 41 42 Section 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon being approved. 43 44 PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ , day of ___ , 2013. page 1 Z:\Col11l11ission ltel11s\20 13\4-16-13\ConclirrellcLll11pact Fcc RFP\CollclirrellcLll11pact Fee RFP 2013 _resollilioll_lllll11bered.dOCX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM, LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND EXECUTION THEREOF CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: MAYOR COMMISSION VOTE: Mayor Stoddard: Vice Mayor Liebman: Commissioner Newman: Commissioner Harris: Commissioner Welsh: Z:\Commissioll Itcms\20 13\4-16-13\Collcurrcllcy _Impact Fee RFP\Collcurrcllcy_Impact Fee RFP 2013 _resolutioll_llul11bcrcd.dOCx page 2 ATTACHMENT "A" PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES SCOPE OF SERVICES Purpose The purpose of the study is to I) review and evaluate the City of South Miami's (CSM) eXlstmg 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 42 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. Pt"esentation 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. 43 DELIVERABLES The consultant will be responsible for preparation of all documentation, including documents required by the Florida Impact Fee Act, as well as other State, County and Local requirements. It is anticipated that the consultant will provide the following services and work products: I. Administrative draft document for staff review -10 hard copies, I electronic copy 2. Draft document for public distribution -10 hard copies, 2 electronic (CD/DVD) copies 4. Final document for City Commission and public distribution -20 hard copies, 2 electronic (CD/DVD) copies. 5. Attendance at public hearings and meetings. At least two public hearings are anticipated. Additional public hearings or meetings with stakeholder groups may be necessary. 6. Display materials (slideshows, multimedia, free-standing, etc.) and copies of necessary documents for all presentations and public hearings. 44 EXHIBIT I: CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CONCURRENCY AND IMPACT FEE STUDIES RFP #PZ-20 13-03-0 I Consultant Services for Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies TH IS CONTRACT is made between , 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 this day of _____________ , 20 __ . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe mutual promises and agreements hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: I. 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 (I) year unless this contract had been approved by the City Manager. 32 5. Renewal Option. This Contract may be renewed, at the sole discretion of the City Commission 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", 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. Due 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 33 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. I I. 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 with holdings 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 34 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. 35 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 "B - 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. 36 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 ofthe 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 Laws. CONSULTANT agrees to provide its services during the term of 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 offederal, 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 37 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 38 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. 3 I. 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. 35. 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 39 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 40 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. Witness: ____________________ _ By: ____________ _ ATTESTED: By: Maria M. Menendez, CMC City Clerk Read and Approved as to Form, Language, Legality and Execution thereof: By: Thomas F. Pepe, Esq. City Attorney Consultant: --------------------- Dated: ________________ _ OWNER: CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI By: Dated: Steven Alexander City Manager ----------------- 41 · . .. 4701 Sangamore Road, Suite 5240 Bethesda, MD 20816 Contact: L Carson Bise, II, AICP Phone: (800) 424-4318 Ext. 12 E-Mail: carson@tischlerbise.com Project Name: RFP NO. Date: Sent: ADDENDUM No. #1 Request for Proposals, Consultant Services for Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies PZ 2013-03-0 I March 19, 20 13 FaxlE-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. Question #1: 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)? Answer to Question # 1 : 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. Question #2: 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 of2 Answer to Question #2 A printout from Sun biz will be sufficient to comply with Page 9, section f. i. IT SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BIDDER TO SECURE ADDENDUMS THAT MAY BE ISSUED FOR A SPECIFIC SOLICITATION. Page 2 of2 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL TaBle of Contents ' Letter of Interest ••••..•...•••.•••••.••••••••.•••••••••.•....••••••••••.••...••.•..•••••••.••••...•••..•••••••••••••••••...••••••...••••••.•••••• 1 Qualifications and Experience ............................................................................................................ 3 Project Understanding and Approach ............................................................................................. 3 Project Understanding ......................................................................................................................... 3 Project Approach .................................................................................................................................. 3 Team Resumes ..••••.•..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•..••.....••••••••.....•••...•••...•.••...•••••••.••••..•••.•.•••••••••••••..•..••• 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 Disclosure Statement ••••.•••.•.••••.•......•••.••••••••••••••••.•••••..•..••••••.•••••..••••••••••••......•••.•.••••••••....•••••..•.•• 18 Additional Information: Proposed Scope of Work ......................................................................... 18 Phase I: Concurrency Review ............................................................................................................. 19 Task 1: 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 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 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 Restriction on Representation .•...•...••...••..•....••................................................................................. 25 Documentation ................................................................................................................................ 26 Proof of Authorization .......•.••..•............•••..........•......................................................................... 26 Proposed Organization Chart ...................................•......................•.........................................•.. 27 Client list and References .....•.........................................................................................•............ 28 Client Lists .......................................................................................................................................... 28 References .......................................................................................................................................... 34 Attachments 1-5 .......................................................................................................................... 35 Price Proposal 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 tetter of Interest ' March 29, 2013 Ms. Maria M. Menendez, CMC, 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 {BakerL 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. As a 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 S240 Bethesda, MD 20816 Phone: (800) 424-4318 Ext. 12 E-mail: carson@tischlerbise.com 2 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL , Qualifications and EXRerience PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH PROJEc;T 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 Sustain ability 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 4 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. Anyone 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 5 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 differentl each fee category is differentl 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 ofthe 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 6 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 7 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 II 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 II 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 " 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 -Schoo/Impact Fee Study II Polk County, Florida -Impact Fee Study • Seminole County, Florida -Schoo/Impact Fee and Infrastructure Financing Study ., City of Hailey, Idaho -Impact Fee Study ,. City of Hailey, Idaho -Annexation Fee Study II City of Nampa, Idaho -Impact Fee Study II City of Post Falls, Idaho -Impact Fee Study II Calvert County, Maryland -Impact Fee Study " Carroll County, Maryland -Impact Fee Study .. Charles County, Maryland -Impact Fee Study II Hagerstown, Maryland -Impact Fee Study .. Town of Hampstead, Maryland -Impact Fee Study II Washington County, Maryland -Impact Fee Study II Gallatin Canyon/Big Sky, Montana -Capita/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 8 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 II 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 9 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 mega regions 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 II City of Foley, Alabama -Development Impact Fees II Baldwin County, Alabama -Development Impact Fees " Apache Junction Water Company, Arizona -Water System Connection Fees II City of Avondale, Arizona -Development Impact Fees II City of Casa Grande, Arizona -Development Impact Fees " City of Glendale, Arizona -Development Impact Fees II City of Goodyear, Arizona -Development Impact Fees II City of Goodyear, Arizona -Water Resources Fee .. City of Peoria, Arizona -Development Impact Fees II City of Prescott, Arizona -Feasibility of Development Impact Fees for Roads '" Town of Queen Creek, Arizona -Development Impact Fees II City of Scottsdale, Arizona -Development Impact Fees II Cityof Show Low, Arizona -Development Impact Fees II City of Surprise, Arizona -Development Impact Fees II City of Tolleson, Arizona -Development Impact Fees " Cityof Bentonville, Arkansas -Development Impact Fees II City of Chino Hills, California -Development Impact Fees II City of Clovis, California -Sewer Impact Fee II 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 II Montezuma County, Colorado -Development Impact Fee " Town of Erie, Colorado -Development Impact Fees " City of Evans, Colorado -Development Impact Fees II Town of Johnstown, Colorado -Drainage Financing Alternatives, Development Impact Fees, and Water Rate Study II Arapahoe County, Colorado -Rural Road Funding Strategy " City of Louisville, Colorado -Development Impact Fees II City of Pueblo, Colorado -Development Impact Fee 10 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL ,. Town of Vail, Colorado -Development Impact Fee II State of Delaware -Transportation Impact Fee II New Castle County, Delaware -Development Impact Fees, Sewer Policies and Capacity Fees II DeSoto County, Florida -Development Impact Fees II DeSoto School District, Florida -School Impact Fees II Manatee County, Florida -Development Impact Fees II City of Lake Wales, Florida -Development Impact Fees II 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 II Cityof Punta Gorda, Florida -Development Impact Fees II City of Sunny Isles Beach, Florida -Development Impact Fees .. Gordon County, Georgia -ClE and Development Impact Fees " City of Douglasville, Georgia -ClE and Development Impact Fees • Douglas County, Georgia -ClE and Development Impact Fees • City of Garden City, Georgia -ClE and Development Impact Fees • Henry County, Georgia -ClE and Transportation Impact Fee II Effingham County, Georgia -ClE and Development Impact Fees II Town of Hailey, Idaho -Annexation Study and Development Impact Fees II City of Nampa, Idaho -Development Impact Fees II 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 II Charles County, Maryland -School Impact Fees ,. Worcester County, Maryland -Development Impact Fees " Queen Anne's County, Maryland -Development Impact Fees II Carroll County, Maryland -Development Impact Fees " City of Westminster, Maryland -Capital Improvements Plan " City of Madison, Mississippi -Development Impact Fees II 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 II Douglas County, Nevada -Road Impact Fees " NAOIP & HBA of Albuquerque, New Mexico -Evaluation of Impact Fees II City of Las Cruces, New Mexico -Development Fees " Currituck County, North Carolina -School Impact Fee .. Orange County, North Carolina -School Impact Fee 11 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL II City of Jacksonville, North Carolina -Water and Sewer Facilities Charges " Home Builders Association of Beavercreek, Ohio -Review of Transportation Fees II City of Delaware, Ohio -Development Impact Fees " City of Green, Ohio -Development Impact Fees II 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 II Township of Wellesley, Ontario -Development Charges " Aiken County, South Carolina -Development Impact Fees II Anderson County, South Carolina -Development Impact Fees II Georgetown County, South Carolina -Development Impact Fees " City of Sherman, Texas -Development Impact Fees .. City of American Fork, Utah -Development Impact Fees II City of Clearfield, Utah -Development Impact Fees " City of Clinton, Utah -Development Impact Fees II City of Draper, Utah -Development Impact Fees " City of Farmington, Utah -Development Impact Fees II City of Hooper, Utah -Sewer Impact Fee II City of Hyde Park, Utah -Development Impact Fees " City of Kaysville, Utah -Development Impact Fees II City of North Logan, Utah -Development Impact Fees II Cityof Pleasant Grove, Utah -Development Impact Fees II Salt Lake County, Utah -Stormwater and Park Impact Fees " South Valley Sewer District, Utah -Sewer Impact Fees II 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 II Isle of Wight County, Virginia -Cash Proffer Study II Graham Companies (Loudoun County, Virginia) -Evaluation of Dulles Sewer District II City of Suffolk, Virginia -Water and Sewer Availability Charges .. Jefferson County, West Virginia -Development Fees II City of Eau Claire, Wisconsin -Public Facilities Needs Assessment II City of Kenosha, Wisconsin -Evaluation of CIP Process II City of Casper, Wyoming -Development Impact Fees II 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 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" 10 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 II 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 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL II 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. II Surveying and Engineering Services for a 1S-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. II 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-Iong design project. The project consisted of a lO-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, FAlep, 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 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 II Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSq 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 LlCENSES/CERTI FICATIONS 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. II 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, $1.0M. 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. 18 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL PHASE I: CONCURRENCY REVIEW TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION 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: Meetings: " Review and refine work plan and schedule, if appropriate. " Assess information needs and required staff support. II Discuss the City's current infrastructure needs. " Discuss overall capital facility financing issues. " 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. II Identify any major relevant policy issues, including issues related to annexation. One (1) meeting with City staff. DeJiverables: 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 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 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: 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. Deliverables: 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 II: 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 (l) 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 (l) 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 (l) 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. Meetings: 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. II Identify planned facilities, vehicles, equipment, and other capital components eligible for development impact fee funding. II Prepare forecast of relevant capital facility needs. II Adjust costs as needed to reflect otherfunding 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: II 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. to Identify actual existing service levels for each facility type. This is typica lIy expressed in the number of demand units served. II Define service standards to be used in the impact fee analysis. " Determine appropriate geographic service areas for each fee category. One (1) to two (2) meetings with City staff to discuss capital facility needs and levels of service. Deliverables: See Task 5. 22 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 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: II Executive Summary II A detailed description of the methodologies used during the study II 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 ofthe 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 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL Restriction on Representation , TischlerBise understands and accepts all restrictions on representation as outlined by the City in its RFP. 25 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL Documentation> " 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. 26 Detail by Entity Name Name History Return to Search Results Detail by Entity Name Foreign Profit Corporation TISCHLER BISE, INC. Filing Information Document Number FEIIEIN Number Date Filed State or Country Status Last Event Event Date Filed Event Effective Date 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 F96000006127 521087538 11/2211996 DC ACTIVE CANCEL ADM DISS/REV 10/24/2008 NONE Registered Agent Name & Address C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD PLANTATION, FL 33324 OfficerlDirector Detail Name & Address Title PRES BISE, L. CARSON 4701 SANGAMORE RD, S240 BETHESDA, MD 20816 Annual Reports Page 1 of2 Entity Name Search [}earC"h] http://search.sunbiz.orgllnquiry ICorporationSearchiSearchResultDetaillEntityName/forp-f... 3/27/2013 Detail by Entity Name Report Year 2010 2011 2012 Document Images Filed Date 02111/2010 04/15/2011 03/20/2012 03/20/2012 --ANNUAL REPORT 04/15/2011 --ANNUAL REPORT 02/11/2010--ANNUAL REPORT 05/01/2009 --ANNUAL REPORT 10/24/2008 --REINSTATEMENT 03/13/2007 --ANNUAL REPORT 01/16/2007 --Name Change 03/22/2006 --ANNUAL REPORT 12/23/2005 --REINSTATEMENT 10/12/2004 --REINSTATEMENT I View image in PDF format I View image in PDF format I View image in PDF format I View image in PDF format I View image in PDF format I View image in PDF format I View image in PDF format I View image in PDF format I View image in PDF format I View Image in PDF format 09/11/1997 --ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format ~==============~ 11122/1996 --DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO 1997 ... 1 __ V_ie_w_i_m_ag;;.e_i_n_p_D_F_fo_r_m_a_t_--, Name History Return to Search Results ~ © and Priv",x Polldes State of florida. Department of State Page 2 of2 Entity Name Search [}~~!22J http://search.sunbiz.orglInquiry ICorporationSearchiSearchResultDetaillEntity N ame/forp-f... 3/27/2013 Detail by Entity N arne Home Contact Us Events No Name History Return to Search Results Detail by Entity Name Foreign Profit Corporation MICHAEL BAKER, JR., INC. Filing Information E-Fillng Services Document Number .FEIIEIN Number Date Filed State or Country Status 829243 251228638 12/29/1972 PA Last Event Event Date Filed Event Effective Date Principal Address AIRSIDE BUSINESS PARK 100 AIRSIDE DRIVE MOON TWP., PA 15108 Changed: 03/23/2004 Mailing Address AIRSIDE BUSINESS PARK 100 AIRSIDE DRIVE MOON TWP., PA 15108 Changed: 03/23/2004 ACTIVE AMENDMENT 03/30/2012 NONE Registered Agent Name & Address CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 1200 S. PINE ISLAND ROAD PLANTATION, FL 33324 Name Changed: 07/13/1992 Address Changed: 07/13/1992 OfficerfDirector Detail Name & Address Title EVPC ZUGAY, MICHAELJ Page 1 of3 Document Searches Forms Help Entity Name Search (Search! '.,.",..N • .......,~~""'''':~:,J http://search.sunbiz.orglinquiry ICorporationSearchlSearchResultDetaillEntity N arne/forp-8... 3/27/2013 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 100AIRSIDE DRIVE, AIRSIDE BUSINESS PARK MOON TOWNSHIP, PA 15108 Title SVP HOLT, PAUL A 700 HUGER STREET COLUMBIA, SC 29201 TitleVP WIEHL, DENNIS J 700 HUGER STREET COLUMBIA, SC 29201 Annual Reports Report Year 2011 2012 2013 Filed Date 01/05/2011 01/03/2012 01/11/2013 Document Images 01/11/2013 --ANNUAL REPORT [- ,03/30/2012 --Amendment I 01103/2012 --ANNUAL REPORT I 11/17/2011--ANNUALREPORT I 01/05/2011 --ANNUAL REPORT I 01/05/2010 --ANNUAL REPORT I 10/15/2009 --ANNUAL REPORT I 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 01/15/2009 --ANNUAL REPORT L_. __ View ~~e in PDF format] 01/07/2008 --ANNUAL REPORT r----View image in PDF format I 01/12/2007 --ANNUAL REPORT r-" -View image in PDF format --J 07/07/2006 --ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format I 07/05/2005 --ANt~LLL6.b REPORT r--. View image in PDF format I 03/23/2004 --ANNUAL REPORT [ View image in PDF format I 04/25/2003 --ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format I 08111/2002 --ANNUAL REPORT C=View image in PDF format I 99/05/2001 --ANNUAL REPORT [ View image in PDF format-] 91129/200Q.=.=-ANNUAlREPORT I View image in PDF formac=J Page 2 of3 http://search.sunbiz.orglinquiry ICorporationSearchiSearchResultDetailJEntity N ame/forp-8... 3127/2013 Detail by Entity Name 02/13/1999 --ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 03/04/1998 --ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 08/20/1997 --REFUND REQUEST I View image in PDF format ~============~ 07/29/1997 --ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format ~============~ 05/01/1996 --ANNUAL REPORT L-1 __ V_ie_w_im---,ag::...e_i_n_P_D_F_fo_r_m_a_t_--, Events No Name History Return to Search Results kllQl!i1!i!'S <? and E!:lYiln(J?.!l!!ggfl. State of Fbrida, Department of State Page 3 of3 Entity Name Search Search O-~-J· -::.~...,;.o...<: .. ~ ... ,,, ... ~, http://search.sunbiz.org/lnquiry ICorporationSearchiSearchResultDetaillEntity N ame/forp-8... 3/27/2013 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL PROPOSED ORGANIZATION CHART The organizational chart provided below illustrates the proposed members of our project team and each team member's responsibilities. 27 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL CLIENT LIST AND REFERENCES CLIENT LISTS 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: City of Arcadia (2008) City of St Petersburg (2009) Charlotte County (2011) City of Tallahassee (2008) 28 .> RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 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 30 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL 31 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL 32 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL 33 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@ocfl.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 -Schoo/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 City of Naples, Fl-Citywide Impact Fee Study Contact: Ann Marie S. Ricardi, Finance Director Phone: (239) 213-1820 E-Mail: aricardi@naplesgov.com City of South Miami, FL Like many coastal cities in Florida, Naples originally imposed impact fees in the late 1980's. Because the 2006 Florida Impact Fee Act requires local governments to base their fees on "most recent and localized data", the City hired TischlerBise to update their fees for parks, fire, and police facilities. As part of the update process, the City repealed its General Government impact fee and adopted fee schedules that vary by type of development. Current and proposed maximum fees are compared in the chart below. ATIACHMENTS 1-5 Type of Development Current Fees Maximum Fees (rounded) . (January 2008) Single Family Detached (per HU) All Other Housing (per HU) 100,000 Sq Ft Connnercial (per 1,000 SF) Medical-Dental Office (per 1,000 SF) Light Industtial (per 1,000 SF) $443 $443 $735 $735 $735 ..... -.~---.;=== [City ofNapl~; Impact Feesl $2,000 -,-,------,~-_ ____:~___:_:__-::------,----,rl $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 $1,826 $1,404 $1,690 $1,370 $260 Single Family Detached (per HU) All Other 100,000 Sq Ft Medical-Dental Ligl1t Industrial Housing(per Commercial Office (per (per 1,000 SF) HU) (per 1,000 SF) 1,000 SF) Attachments 1-5 are provided on the following pages. 35 ATTACHMENT #1 PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST RFP #PZ-20 13-03-0 I Consultant Services for Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies Pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph (2) (a) of Section 287.133, Florida State Statutes -"A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a Bid on a Contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a Bid on a Contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on leases of real property to a public entity, may not be awarded to perform work as a Contractor, supplier. Subcontractor. or Consultant under a Contract with any public entity. and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount Category Two of Section 287.017. Florida Statutes. for thirty six (36) months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list". The award of any contract hereunder is subject to the provisions of Chapter I 12, Florida State Statutes. BIDDERS must disclose with their Bids. the name of any officer. director. partner, associate or agent who is also an officer or employee of the City of South Miami or it's agencies. SWORN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 287.133 (3)(a). FLORIDA STATUTES. ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND SWORN TO IN THE PRESENCE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATHS. I. This sworn statement is submitted to the City of South Miami, Florida by l. Carson Bise, II, AICP [print individual's name and title] for TischlerBise, Inc. [print name of the public entity] [print name of entity submitting sworn statement] whose business address is 4701 Sangamore Road, 5240 Bethesda, MD 20816 and (if applicable) its Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) is 52-1087538 (If the entity has no FEIN. include the Social Security Number of the individual signing this sworn statement: --------------.) 2. I understand that a "public entity crime" as defined in Paragraph 287.133 (I )(g). Florida Statutes. means a violation of any state or federal law by a person with respect to and directly related to the transaction of business with any public entity or with an agency or political subdivision of any other state or of the United States. including. but not limited to • any bid or contract for goods or services to be provided to any public entity or an agency or political subdivision of any other 19 state or of the United States and involving antitrust, fraud, theft. bribery, collusion, racketeering, conspiracy, or material misrepresentation. 3, I understand that "convicted" or "conviction" as defined in Paragraph 287.133 (I )(b), Florida Statutes, means a finding of gUilt or a conviction of a public entity crime. with or without an adjudication of guilt, in any federal or state trial court of record relating to charges brought by indictment or information after July I. 1989, as a result of a jury verdict, non-jury trial, or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. 4; I understand that an "affiliate" as defined in Paragraph 287.133 (I )(a), Florida Statutes, means: (a) A predecessor or successor of a person convicted of a public entity crime; or (b) An entity under the control of any natural person who is active in the management of the entity and who has been convicted of a public entity crime. The term "affiliate" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners. shareholders, employees. members. and agents who are active in the management of an affiliate. The ownership by one person of shares constituting a controlling interest in any person, or a pooling of eqUipment or income among persons when not for fair market value under an arm's length agreement, shall be a prima facie case that one person controls another person. A person who knowingly enters into a joint venture with a person who has been convicted of a public entity crime in Florida during the preceding 36 months shall be considered an affiliate. ~; I understand that a "person" as defined in Paragraph 287.133 (I )(e), Florida Statutes, means any natural person or entity organized under the laws of any state or of the United States with the legal power to enter into a binding contract and which bids or applies to bid on contracts for the provision of goods or services led by a public entity, or which otherwise transacts or applies to transact business with a public entity. The term "person" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners. shareholders, employees, members. and agents who are active in management of an entity. 6. Based on information and belief, the statement which I have marked below is true in relation to the entity submitting this sworn statement. [Indicate which statement applies.] _X __ Neither the entity submitting this sworn statement. nor any of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members. or agents who are active in the management of the entity, nor any affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July I, 1989. ___ The entity submitting this sworn statement. or one or more of its officers. directors, executives, partners, shareholders. employees. members, or agents who are active in the management of the entity, or an affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July I, 1989. ___ The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of its officers. directors. executives, partners. shareholders, employees, members. or agents who are active in the management of the entity. or an affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent of July I. 1989. However. there has been a subsequent proceeding before a Hearing Officer of the State of Florida. Division of Administrative Hearings 20 and the Final Order entered by the Hearing Officer determined that it was not in the public interest to place the entity submitting this sworn statement on the convicted vendor list. {attach a copy of the final order.) Continuation of Attachment #2 Public Entity Crimes and Conflicts I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THIS FORM TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR THE PUBLIC ENTITY INDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH I (ONE) ABOVE IS FOR THAT PUBLIC ENTITY ONLY, AND THAT THIS FORM IS VALID THROUGH DECEMBER 31 OF THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH IT IS FILED. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ENTITY PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT PROVIDED IN SECTION 287.017, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR CATEGORY TWO OF ANY CHANGE IN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FORM. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2~ 11 day of ,20 I~ / Personally known or Produced identification (Type of identification) Form PUR 7068 (Rev.06/11192) Notary Public -State of Mo~ 1~Y\cJ... thu ,ory of f\A0/\ lpa/) Nt f~ 'I My commission expires ' 62-0fo-20} 7 (p . d d d r; lJ//6/1i d (lL . ~ J2:n I • ')/ Ul\1' rmte ,type or stampe comml~tc;r;e na';;~utlP't%lif51 f';v TAily PUBLiC MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND tl'( COMMISSION exPIRES 2.a.201 21 ATTACHMENT #2 DRUG FREE WORKPLACE L. J:dJL RFP #PZ-20 13-03-0 I Consultant Services for Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies Whenever two or more Bids which are equal with respect to price, quality and service are received by the State or by any political subdivisions for the procurement of commodities or contractual services, a Bid received from a business that certifies that it has implemented a drug-free workplace program shall be given preference in the award process. Established procedures for processing tie Bids will be followed if none of the tied vendors have a drug-free workplace program. In order to have a drug-free workplace program, a business shall: I. Publish a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violations of such prohibition. 2. Inform employees about the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace, the business' policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace, any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs, and the penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. 3. Give each employee engaged in providing the commodities or contractual services that are under Bid a copy of the statement specified in Subsection (I). 4. In the statement specified in Subsection (I), notify the employees, that, as a condition of working on the commodities or contractual services that are under Bid, the employee will abide by the terms of the statement and will notify the employer of any conviction of, or plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, any violation of Chapter 893 or of any controlled substance law of the United States or any state, for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction. 5. Impose a sanction on, or require the satisfactory participation in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program, if such is available in the employee's community, by any employee who is so convicted. 6. Make a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of this section. As the person authorized to sign the statement, I certify that this firm complies fully with the above requirements. PROPOSER's Signature: Print Name: Date: L. Carson Bise. II, AICP. President _~}(2-$ (_"2..~v-L\> ____ _ 22 ATTACHMENT #3 No CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NoN-COLLUSION CERTIFICATION .m .................. } ... J ... " RFP #pZ-20 13-03-0 I Consultant Services for Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies Submitted this ~day of ____ M_a_rc_h _____ --'. 20_1_3 ___ . The undersigned, as Bidder/Proposer. declares that the only persons interested in this RFP are named herein; that no other person has any interest in this RFP or in the Contract to which this RFP pertains; that this response is made without connection or arrangement with any other person; and that this response is in every respect fair and made in good faith. without collusion or fraud. The Bidder/Proposer agrees if this response/submission is accepted. to execute an appropriate CSM document for the purpose of establishing a formal contractual relationship between the Bidder/Proposer and the CSM. for the performance of all requirements to which the response/submission pertains. The Bidder/Proposer states that this response is based upon the documents identified by the following number: Bid/RFP #PZ 2013-03-01 The full-names and residences of persons and firms interested in the foregoing bid/proposal. as principals. are as follows: Name Street IXddress eity State Zip \ TischierBise, Inc. 4701 Sangamore Road, 5240 Bethesda MD 20816 '--_.--",," The Bidder/Proposer further certifies that this response/submission complies with section 4(c) of the Charter of the City of Miami. Florida. that. to the best of its knowledge and belief. no Commissioner. Mayor. or other officer or employee of the CSM has an interest directly or indirectly in the profits or emoluments of the Contract. job. work or service to which the response/submission pertains. Signature: Printed Name: L. Carson Bise, II, AICP Title: President Telephone: (800) 424-4318 Ext. 12 23 Company Name TischlerBise, Inc. NOTARY PUBLIC: STATE OF COUNTY OF 7A The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 25 day of Mat/th ,20 (3 by L. (1 rsO() 6,'&R (name of person whose signature is being notarized) who is SEAL EliZABETH roOKIE GEN1;LCORE NOTARY PUBUC MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYlAND MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 2-6-20, 2rsonallY known to me, or Personal identification: Type of Identification Produced Did take an oath, or Did Not take an oath. or type as commissioned.) FAILURE TO COMPLETE. SIGN, & RETURN THIS FORM MAY DISOUALIFY YOUR RESPONSE 24 ATTACHMENT #4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CONFORMANCE WITH OSHA STANDARDS RFP #PZ-10 13-03-0 I Consultant Services for Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies TO THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI We. TischlerBise, Inc. • (Name of Contractor). hereby acknowledge and agree that as Contractors for the Concurrency Analysis and Impact Fee Study RFP. as specified have the sole responsibility for compliance with all the requirements of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. and all State and local safety and health regulations. and agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of South Miami against any and all liability. claims. damages. losses and expenses they may incur due to the failure of (subcontractor's names): Michael Baker Jr., Inc, to comply with such act or regulation. CONTRACTOR &~ BY: L. Carson Bise, II, AICP Name President Title ~4~ Witness FAILURE TO COMPLETE. SIGN. & RETURN THIS FORM MAY DISQUALIFY YOUR RESPONSE 25 ATTACHMENT #5 RELATED PARTIES TRANSACTION VERIFICATION FORM RFP #PZ-20 13-03-0 I Consultant Services for Concurrency and Impact Fee Studies _c_a_rs_o..,nr-rB_is_e,:...A.."I"'C...,P_,--,--,--______ • individually and on behalf of TischlerBise, Inc. Name o(Representative CompanylVendor/Eiitity ("Firm") have read the City of South Miami ("CSM")'s Code of Ethics. Section SA-I of the CSM's Code of Ordinances and I hereby certify. under penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge. information and belief: (I) neither I nor the Firm have any conflict of interest (as defined in section SA-I) with regard to the contract or business that I. andlor the Firm. am (are) about to perform for. or to transact with. the CSM. and (2) neither I nor any employees. officers. directors of the Firm. nor anyone who has a financial interest greater than 5% in the Firm. has any relative(s). as defined in section SA-I. who is an employee of the CSM or who is(are) an appointed or elected official of the CSM. or who is(are) a member of any public body created by the City Commission. i.e.. a board or committee of the CSM. and (3) neither I nor the Firm. nor anyone who has a financial interest greater than 5% in the Firm. nor any member of those persons' immediate family (Le .. spouse. parents. children. brothers and sisters) has transacted or entered into any contract(s) with the CSM or has a financial interest. direct or indirect. in any business being transacted with the CSM, or with any person or agency acting for the CSM. other than as follows: --Not Applicable --(use a separate sheet to supply additional information that will not fit on this line but make reference to the additional sheet which must be signed under oath). (4) no elected and/or appointed official or employee of the City of South Miami. or any of their immediate family members (Le .. spouse. parents. children. brothers and sisters) has a financially interest. directly or indirectly. in the contract between you and/or your Firm and the CSM other than the following individuals whose interest is set forth following their names: --Not Applicable --(use a separate sheet to supply additional information that will not fit on this line but make reference to the additional sheet which must be signed under oath). The names of all CSM employees and that of all elected andlor appointed CSM officials or board members. who own. directly or indirectly. an interest of five percent (5%) or more of the total assets of capital stock in the firm are as follows: --Not Applicable -(use a separate sheet to supply additional information that will not fit on this line but make reference to the additional sheet which must be signed under oath). (5) I and the Firm further agree not to use or attempt to use any knowledge. property or resource which may come to us through our position of trust, or through our performance of our duties under the terms of the contract with the CSM. to secure a special privilege. benefit, or exemption for ourselves. or others. We agree that we may not disclose or use information. not available to members of the general public. for our personal gain or benefit or for the personal gain. or benefit of any other person or business entity. outside of the normal gain or benefit anticipated through the performance of the contract. 26 (6) I and the Firm hereby acknowledge that we have not contracted or transacted any business with the CSM or any person or agency acting for the CSM. and that we have not appeared in representation of any third party before any board. commission or agency of the CSM within the past two years other than as follows: --Not Applicable --(use a separate sheet to supply additional information that will not fit on this line but make reference to the additional sheet which must be signed under oath). Neither I nor any employees. officers, or directors of the Firm, nor any of their immediate family (Le .• as a spouse, son, daughter. parent, brother or sister) is related by blood or marriage to: (i) any member of the City Commission; (ii) any city empl~yee; or (iii) any member of any board or agency of the CSM other than as follows: --lIIot Applicable --(use a separate sheet to supply additional information that will not fit on this line but make reference to the additional sheet which must be signed under oath). (7) No Other Firm, nor any officers or directors of that Other Firm or anyone who has a financial interest greater than 5% in that Other Firm, nor any member of those persons' immediate family (i.e., spouse, parents, children, brothers and sisters) nor any of my immediate family members (hereinafter referred to as "Related Parties") has responded to a solicitation by the CSM in which I or the Firm that I represent or anyone who has a financial interest greater than 5% in the Firm. or any member of those persons' immediate family (i.e. spouse. parents, children. brothers and sisters) have also responded, other than the following: --Not Applicable -- --------------------~~---:-____ :--_-,---:_-:-__ :---_~.(use a separate sheet to supply additional information that will not fit on this line but make reference to the additional sheet which must be signed under oath). (8) I and the Firm agree that we are obligated to supplement this Verification Form and inform the City of any change in circumstances that would change our answers to this document. Specifically. after the opening of any responses to a solicitation, I and the Firm have an obligation to supplement this Verification Form with the name of all Related Parties who have also responded to the same solicitation and to disclose the relationship of those parties to me and the Firm. (9) A violation of the CSM's Ethics Code, the giving of any false information or the failure to supplement this Verification Form. may subject me or the Firm to immediate termination of any agreement with the CSM, and the imposition of the maximum fine and/or any penalties allowed by law. Additionally, violations may be considered by and subject to action by the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics. Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have made a diligent effort to investigate the matters to which I am attesting hereinabove and that the statements made hereinabove are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. ~~'~L __ Signature: ~ .~M_'_.'" _____ .. ~ __ __ Print Name & Title: L Carson Bise, AICP, President Date:S { 2 $ (2\::; t:> ATTACHED: Sec. 8A-1 -Conflict of interest and code of ethics ordinance. 27 RFP #PZ-2013-03-01 City of South Miami, FL PRICE PROPOSAL SHEET The table below provides our proposed cost for the City's assignment. This cost is broken down by proposed task and personnel hours. Please note that this is a fixed price proposal and includes all tasks, meetings, and deliverables outlined in our proposed scope of work, with no overhead mark-up. Our Price Proposal Sheet for the City's assignment is provided on the following page. 36 PRICE PROPOSAL SHEET h '.4MBJ¥. RFP #PZ-20 /3-03-0 / 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 $32,000.00 $36,000.00 $68,000.00 18 RFP #PZ-2013-03-0i 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 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 FOOT, 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 is-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 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 38