Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESPONSE - RFP - 7607 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEE & COST TO BUILD STUDY12835 E. Arapahoe Road Tower II, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80112 www.raftelis.com April Ms. Jessica 18, 2014 Ping-Small City 215 Fort Subject: Dear Raftelis N. of Collins, Ms. Fort Mason Financial Development Ping-Collins CO Street Small: 80522 Consultants, Review Inc. Fee (Study RFC) is Proposal pleased to submit this letter proposal to complete a Development the items required Review in the Fee City’s Study April (Study) 4, 2014 for the proposal City of request. Fort Collins (City). Our proposal addresses RFC assigning 2010 is Development committed Mr. John to Gallagher, Review meet the Fee RFC’s May Study Principal 31, while 2014 at Consultant, study Red Oak completion Consulting. to manage deadline. the This Study. relevant This He is managed experience evidenced the by causes City’s RFC us A. RFC to Executive • understands believe Analyze that Summary the RFC that City’s is the the development City’s most goals qualified for review this consultant study and capital are to to: update expansion the 2010 fee structure study. and • methodology Survey development review fees and practices of surrounding communities The analyzed. Development We Annexation Re-Overall zoning will Development also Review Petition Petition analyze List Fee of and Development Plan additional Schedule Map fees below Review that includes the Fee Major Non-Vacation surveyed Structures conforming Amendment the of ROW City’s communities to Use or Review fees Easement Review whose may structure have. will be Project without Development a subdivision Plan plat) (with or Street Name Change Final plat) Plan (with or without a subdivision Extension of Final Approval Modification Amendment of Standards/Text and Map Sign Posting Fee Basic MinorUse Small Development Project Amendment Development Review Review Fee Addition Capital Expansion of Permitted Fees (Impact Fees) Schedule Residential Permits and Commercial Building Ms. Jessica Ping-Small City of Fort Collins April 18, 2014 Page 2 RFC willthere a mutually be uses a project a developed collaborative kick off work workshop approach plan, and with in to each outline City of staff its the engagements. to project further deliverable. define For study this This Study, objectives, will this ensure means to clearly that that this lay one out month RFC will engagement compare development will be completed related in fees a timely and structures manner and of meet the City the with City’s 10 objectives. of the City’s Colorado Benchmark andresidential other commercial fees related entities. building to developments. These permits, entities plan Fees will review, be will specified be capital compared by expansion, City on staff. a fee development by The fee fees basis. will review, The include aggregate utility and of all all fees RFC will will be provide also be compared.one version of a draft report summarizing the Study’s findings and recommendations staff’s B. Consultant comments Information on for the review draft by report and City Experience and staff. will RFC present will provide Study a findings final Study to City report staff. that incorporates the 1. Primary RFC’s information primary Contact is shown contacts Information below. are Mr. John Gallagher and Mr. Rick Giardina. Their contact John Principal 12835 Gallagher E. Arapahoe Consultant Road Rick Executive 12835 Giardina E. Arapahoe Vice President Road Tower Centennial, Office phone: II, Suite CO 80112 600 720.638.3791 Tower Centennial, Office phone: II, Suite CO 80112 600 720.638.3791 2. Mobile E-Qualifications RFC sustainable and Mail: most was phone: jgallagher@respected founded organizations. of 303.Firm in raftelis.847.utility 1993 and 1688 financial With com Experience to this provide and goal management of in services Project mind, Mobile E-Mail: RFC that Team consulting phone: rgiardina@has help grown municipal 303.practices to raftelis.808.become 3389 entities com in one the of nation. function the largest RFC as has abroad, thatrecommendations experience are allowing founded providing on us industry to provide these best our services practices. clients to with Our hundreds innovative practice of has utilities and grown insightful across to over the 50 professionals country and located Our Project in 8 offices Team professionals across the nation. are located in our Centennial, CO office. The breadth and depth proven thattrends  Rick overmanaged development will of record be our Giardina, 300 useful Project utility of fee innovative in CPA, Team our and rate Project development process and and solutions the Director. capital reviews full fee complement from expansion for structure During clients the City his around of review. fee 35-and RFC year studies. County resources the Our career, country team of Denver These provide Mr. members and Giardina and studies industry the the include: City Town include with of a Ms. Jessica Ping-Small City of Fort Collins April 18, 2014 Page 3  Erie. practices John inexperience municipal Gallagher, Many of of comparable development the PE, clients Project entities. that fees, Manager. he utility has served Mr. rates Gallagher request and expansion he has provide over fee four benchmark studies. decades While surveys of at Red of Oak the Consulting, Mr. Gallagher managed the City’s 2010 Development Review Fee Study which culminated Mr. consulting Gallagher in services presenting left Red to nearly study Oak Consulting findings 80 Colorado to the and City municipal joined Council RFC. Finance clients He Committee. has including provided In Fort mid-financial Collins, 2013, 3. 4.  Availability RFC important fully Recent Longmont, Rob analysis. servicesconsulting recognizes available Similar Wadsworth, engagement to of Mr. during Front Loveland Project that Projects Wadsworth it CPA, Range the must Team by and next Consultant, May assign municipalities, Greeley. has month 31, provided staff 2014. to will to complete the Our assist financial, including Study project our this that rate Project Greeley, manager study. have and Manager capital the Longmont and availability other expansion in the and team development to Thornton. fee complete members this are fee Fort evaluationan Range Collins, cities. of CO the This Development City’s study development was Review managed Fee review by Study. RFC fee project structure In 2010, manager, and Red a Oak comparison Mr. Consulting John Gallagher, with completed other prior Front to his The Englewood, managed development joining      2014 Review Review Review Recommendations calculations Survey Study this RFC CO connection of Mixed-innovative in of of of essentially development 2013. methods current relevant Use The fee City Development City and study is for structure. 2010 an fees fees policies assumptions changes update for study and the Historically, Connection practices of included in the City methods, used 2010 of of the in Fee Englewood such study. surrounding fee following procedures Study. calculations fees were In items: to communities 2012, based to change update Mr. on their the John fees, water mixed-Gallagher and meter use fee size. units connectionthe The and the new fee number structure to the capacity of is commercial based required on a fixture combination by the units. development. of This the allows number The a City closer of multifamily Council correlation adopted dwelling of the study Greeley, annual recommendations. water CO Rate and and wastewater Development rate and Plant fee Investment updates for Fee the City Studies. of Greeley Mr. John over Gallagher the past has decade. managed The City services a variety of retail and wholesale customers. A recent study included designing a Ms. Jessica Ping-Small City of Fort Collins April 18, 2014 Page 4 5. development duala References The City Ms. (aturnquist@970) Ann of following system. 224-Fort Turnquist 6094 Collins, fcgov.Study plant references com investment findings CO are from fee provided these for connection studies for the are to above routinely a non-clients: potable adopted water by the system City.which was part of City Mr. (Sfonda@303) Stu of 762-Englewood, Fonda englewoodgov.2636 CO org City Mr. (Erik.970) Erik Dial@of 350-Greeley, Dial Greeleygov.9893 CO com C. Fees RFC development is proposing of our a fee. not-to-exceed fee of $24,680. The following tabulation shows the Task Hours Related Salary Director Project Cost Hourly Kick-Survey Analysis off Billing Workshop of Fee Rates Structures $290 - - - Manager Project $10 20 250 6 Consultant $10 40 12 150 Total 20 60 18 11,$4,3,000 000 300 Reports Presentation Total 2 2 - 44 4 4 16 82 4 128 22 8 $23,3,1,980 600 880 Mileage Total Expense Cost $24,800 680 D. Additional Our and wastewater firm the American is the Information rate leader survey. Water in surveying This Works survey Association general has been government used (AWWA) extensively practices. have produced by For numerous example, a biennial utilities since water 2004, and other RFC and industry financialother and stakeholders rate related in benchmarking data. The City is utility a participant rates, rate in methodologies, this survey. rate trends, and Ms. Jessica Ping-Small City of Fort Collins April 18, 2014 Page 5 Additionally, Our reliable professionals and current RFC routinely are information. meticulous surveys in numerous conducting industry such surveys benchmarks to ensure as a service that each for survey its clients.has Finally, determine mightbenefitthat we if will there the query City. are other the professionals effective approaches in our other to the regional development offices review around fee the process country to We Citythe you are have on this proud any engagement. questions, of the resources please We greatly we do not can appreciate hesitate offer and to this welcome contact opportunity Mr. the Gallagher opportunity to be of or service me. to be of to assistance the City. Should to Sincerely, RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Richard Executive and Project D. Vice Giardina Director President