Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCitygate Associates 10.22.12city of sAn Luis oaispo 990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on October 22, 2012, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and Citygate Associates, LLC, hereinafter referred to as Consultant. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on September 5, 2012, City requested proposals for conducting an organizational assessment for the Community Development Department per Specification No. 91179. WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal which was accepted by City for said project. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said project. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91179 (Exhibit A) and Consultant's proposal dated October 1, 2012 (Exhibit B), are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing the services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not to exceed $49,900. 4. CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements herein before mentioned to be made and performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to provide all specified services City of San Luis Obispo Specification No. 91179 as described in Exhibit B (Consultant's Proposal) attached hereto and incorporated in this Agreement by reference. Consultant may not amend the Scope of Work, either to modify provisions or to add or delete provisions, without the prior written consent of the City's Project Manager. 5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager of the City. 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Community Development Director 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Consultant Citygate Associates Attn: David DeRoos 2250 East Bidwell, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each parry is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Cftykclerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: rr ,- uz�,— {lam City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo Specification No. 91179 I City CONSULTANT j By: C ' 1=, t �II "ice 919 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Notice Requesting Proposals for ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PER SPECIFICATION NO. 91179 The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting from a qualified vendor proposals for conducting an organizational assessment for the Community Development Department per Specification No. 91179. All proposals must be received electronically via email by 3:00 P.M. on October 1, 2012, addressed rbetzna,slocity.org Proposals received after said time will not be considered. Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package. Specification packages and additional information may be obtained by for free on the City's Web site at www.slocity.org /fmanceibids.asp or by contacting Ryan Betz at rbetzna slocity.org or by phone at (805) 781 -7171. ®The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. No. 91179 A. Description of Work B. General Terms and Conditions Proposal Requirements Contract Award and Execution Contract Performance C. Special Terms and Conditions Contract Term Estimated Quantities Proposal Content Proposal Evaluation and Selection Proposal Review and Award Schedule Umestrictive Brand Names Start and Completion of Work Accuracy of Specifications 1 3 12 D. Agreement 18 E. Insurance Requirements 21 F. Proposal Submittal Forms 25 Proposal Submittal Summary References Section A BACKGROUND The City of San Luis Obispo is a charter city governed by a five- member City Council and is organized into Administration (the City Manager's Office) and City Attorney functions. Nine department heads report directly to the City Manager. The Community Development Department is comprised of 4 divisions: 1) Administration, 2) Development Review, 3) Long Range Planning, and 4) Building and Safety. The Department includes approximately 24.7 FTE (25 regular employees and 3 interns). A copy of the City's organizational chart is attached to this RFP. The Department performs its functions through both in -house employees and through various professional service contracts such as, environmental document preparation, housing studies, general plan technical studies, and other related services. The Administration Division provides support to the department. They provide clerical and administrative support to the Architectural Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee, Planning Commission, and Land Use and Circulation Element Resident Task Force. Supervision of the front counter, retention and supervision of planning interns, database and records management, and development and monitoring of the financial plan are also mission critical responsibilities. Response to request for public information and public outreach is a growing responsibility of this division. Building permitting is currently performed by in -house staff. On occasion, plan check and inspections will be performed by outside inspecting companies for unique projects. Outside plan check is infrequently used to expedite plan review. Code enforcement is managed out of the Building and Safety Division. The 2011 -2013 Financial Plan included a major goal to transition from a complaint driven to a proactive code enforcement program. In response, two neighborhood services specialists were hired, expanding the enforcement program to four full - time staff. Development Review evaluates projects for consistency with state and federal law, and the City's General Plan and municipal code. The City reviews and approves projects over the counter, through administrative actions/hearings, and as specified before the Cultural Heritage Committee, Architectural Review Committee, and the Planning Commission. The division also reviews projects required under state law, municipal code, or as directed are considered by the City Council. The City maintains a permitting database to track the number of permits reviewed and considered by each reviewing authority. Development review also takes on special projects and completes the annual review and update of the City's zoning ordinance. Responding to the public service counter for citizen information requests is another component of the Division. Program goals are to 1) assist in achieving desired development in conformance with established policies, guidelines, standards and acceptable timeframes; 2) provide timely processing of applications consistent with State and -1- local laws; 3) create and maintain an enjoyable place to live, work, and visit; 4) protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and 5) stimulate high public awareness of decisions on planning and environmental issues. The City's development review process crosses several departments. Long Range Planning oversees special studies and reports related to land use planning as well as implementation of General Plan programs. The division is currently working with an outside consultant to update the Land Use and Circulation Elements with secured state grant funding and updating the Airport Area Specific Plan. Additionally, this division oversees affordable housing policies and manages Community Development Block Grant funding, reporting, and oversight. This division also provides staff support for the public service counter for citizen information requests and project application intake. Staffs from Development Review and Long Range Divisions provide technical liaison support to the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, and Cultural Heritage Committee. The City is looking for a consultant interested in performing an organizational assessment and in developing a strategic plan to implement findings and chart a path for future success. Fundamental shifts in the economic and regulatory environment in recent years have impacted the department; ensuring the department is appropriately structured to continue to respond effectively to a changing environment is critical to its long -term success. The City is interested in knowing whether the department is appropriately staffed and structured with the number of trained personnel to efficiently carry out its duties as the City faces budget challenges. In particular, the City is interested in looking at best management practices and determining what changes to staffing, professional skills, and processes need adjustment to provide a continued high level of service to meet City Council and City residents' expectations. The last organizational assessment was completed in 1992. Many of the recommendations identified in the report were implemented; however, many other issues remain and need to be analyzed within the current organizational context and environment. Project Strategy and Scope of Services 1. Conduct Analysis The consultant will review the Community Development Department organization, structure, and work processes, including the development review process. The consultant will assess the Community Development Department to determine whether resources align with expectations and workload. Furthermore, the consultant will determine if resources are appropriately distributed to meet expectations and workload requirements and that technical and non - technical personnel competencies are properly organized to efficiently carry out responsibilities. The consultant will conduct interviews, review documents and processes make comparisons with accepted service delivery standards and organizations, and compiling the information into a final report with strategies for improvement. The last organizational structure assessment was done approximately 20 years ago. Many of the recommendations identified in this report were implemented; however, many other issues remain and need to be analyzed within the current organizational context and environment. -2- 2. Ensure Involvement of Internal and External Stakeholders The consultant shall use multiple communication methods, but predominately face to face interviews or meetings with City personnel identified from Administration, Community Development, Public Works, and Utilities. Outreach efforts to the Architectural Review Committee, Cultural Heritage Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. The scope of work must include outreach to the resident, development, business, and environmental community. Pre - meeting information via email or other means will likely be required to prepare interviewee. Sufficient time must be provided for internal and external stakeholders to review and offer input on preliminary findings and recommendations. Proposers are expected to propose their own scope of services as part of their proposal. The attached specifications provide greater detail on the requirements of all proposals. However, the City has identified certain issues of particular interest which should be viewed as a starting point for proposers' scopes of services. 1. Organizational and Management Structure from Top to Bottom a. Reporting relationships b. Span of control for both managers and line staff c. Staffing levels, including absent or redundant positions d. Ratio of administrative staff to professional staff 2. Outsourcing and Insourcing Opportunities a. Identification of key opportunities by function b. Industry comparison c. Inclusion of specific and comprehensive recommendations 3. _Operations a. Review allocation of City financial resources and Council- assigned priorities for the department and identify areas where the City should focus on increasing or decreasing financial resource allocation. This can be accomplished through benchmarking or other comparative analysis with best practices. Prepare recommendations for inclusion in the 2013 -2015 financial plan b. Review the City's service - delivery models and recommend alternative service - delivery models, as appropriate, that will maintain or increase service levels while lowering cost of service c. Develop criteria for eligibility and structure for "fast tracking" review of development projects. Investigate opportunities for expedited processing with varying fee structures d. Analyze planning and building permitting processes. Identify any inefficiencies and recommend opportunities to streamline project review and permit issuance. Incorporate consideration of: i. Improving communication with applicants, including requirements for complete applications ii. Establishing administrative review with clear and robust opportunities for public input when applications meet City policies and design guidelines -3- iii. Reviewing standard conditions and approval process. iv. Identifying resources to develop and maintain a portfolio of available properties ready for development as an advanced planning tool for property owners, developers and area residents. v. Evaluating efficiency of existing efforts to provide site selection assistance, business liaison services, pre - application meetings, quick response and fast track permitting and review. 4. Information Technology a. Identify opportunities to leverage technology to improve efficiencies and customer service b. Evaluate existing systems ( EnerGov, Project Management,) to examine their effectiveness c. Recommend new products or applications that match the Department's needs, especially for project management and public outreach d. Propose new equipment/technology that could increase productivity, replacing current equipment/technology or freeing staff to be utilized elsewhere in the organization 5. Best Management Practices (BMP's) and Performance Measures a. Identify level of activity and performance metrics for each division b. Assess organizational activity and include benchmarking against accepted standards 6. Customer Service a. Evaluate communications with internal and external customers b. Evaluate service request response system c. Assess cash management practices d. Identify cost recovery and revenue opportunities i. Current fee analysis is currently being conducted for engineering, planning and fire planning fees. A draft report is expected to be completed in January 2013. ii. Building fees were analyzed by NBS in 2010 and adopted by the City Council in October 2011. e. Review opportunities for cost reductions without reduction in service f. Consider opportunities for increased service levels despite marginal cost increases g. Develop metrics and evaluation of customer satisfaction h. Establish reasonable response times for service requested by the public 7. Trend Analysis a. Identify relevant opportunities to prepare the organization to meet future industry challenges b. Develop a management and resource approach to prepare and adjust for natural cycles in planning and building applications 8. Recommendations for Change a. Presentation of prioritized suggestions for change -4- b. Identification of current high value practices c. Suggested timeline for implementation d. Implementation (Strategic) plan Desired consultant Qualities The consultant must have experience with municipalities that includes the following: 1. A proven track record analyzing the operations of complex organizations resulting in the development and implementation of recommendations that have materially and demonstrably improved the long -term effectiveness and efficiency of operations. 2. Experience and expertise in identifying and assisting to implement recommendations in organizations where many or all employees are subject to employee collective bargaining agreements and civil service rules. 3. A demonstrated capability and commitment to assisting the implementation of identified recommendations. This commitment may include: a. An ability to identify and properly account for all constraints to implementation, including statutory, regulatory and organizational cultural. i. Professional references should reference these. -5- Section B GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (REP) specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the REP specifications. 2. Proposal Submittal. All proposals must be received electronically via email by 3:00 P.M. on October 1, 2012, addressed rbetz@slocity.org. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. No FAX submittals will be accepted. 3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing: a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating. b. Scope of coverage and limits. C. Deductibles and self - insured retention. The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the proposer's insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until contract award. The City's insurance requirements are detailed in Section E. 4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extensions. The extensions of unit prices for the quantities indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the proposer must be entered in figures in the spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount stated by any proposer for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the proposer's intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price. 5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the proposer unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Inviting Bids /Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals. 6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub - proposal to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such proposer, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub - proposal or from quoting prices to other proposers submitting proposals. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract, the successful proposer will extend all terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request. These in agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their place of business and will be directly billed by the successful proposer. 8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 9. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non - substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the "special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria. 10. Competency and Responsibility of Bidder. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of proposers. Bidders will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision. 11. Contract Requirement. The proposer to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications. 12. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution. 13. Business Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781 -7134. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE 14. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations. 15. Laws to be observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. 16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Contractor is required to pay. 17. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary. The Contractor shall obtain a City of San Luis Obispo Business License. -7- is. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety. 19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor's operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees. 20. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from the Contractor's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Contractor's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Contractor began work. 21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder. 22. Contractor Non - Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion of such persons. 23. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same. 24. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Contractor (Net 30). 25. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements. 26. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment to Contractor. 27. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest direct, indirect or otherwise —that would conflict in any manner or degree -8- with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. 28. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Contractor's employees, agents or officers that arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. 29. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City. 30. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any ;and all obligations of the Contractor's surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the termination thereof. In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work -in- progress in completing the overall scope of work. The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal. -9- Section C SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (General Terms and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 2. Sales Tax Reimbursement. For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City receives sales tax revenues. Therefore, for bids from retail firms located in the City at the time of proposal closing for which sales tax is allocated to the City, 1% of the taxable amount of the bid will be deducted from the proposal by the City in calculating and determining the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 3. Labor Actions. In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves the right to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to accept the next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action, and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 4. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the special terms and conditions if a proposer's bond or security is required; and an award may be made to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made. 5. Contract Term. The services identified in this specification will be provided to the City between October 2012 and March 2013. The prices quoted for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by the proposer in its proposal. 6. Contract Extension. The term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent for an additional 90 days. During this extended period, unit prices may not be increased by more than the percentage change in the US consumer price index for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U), from March to March. 7. Estimated Quantities. The quantities indicated in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form are estimates based on past purchasing experience, and will be used to determine the lowest overall proposal. Actual quantities purchased during the period of this contract may vary from these estimated amounts as required by the City. 8. Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful proposer during the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form. For these supplemental purchases, the proposer shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the amounts offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the proposer is willing to offer the City a standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or published price structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a percentage basis should be provided with the proposal submittal. -10- 9. Contractor Invoices. The Contractor shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by up to 20 cost centers, with attached copies of work order forms or detail invoices (standard color or copy to be agreed upon) as supporting detail. 10. Non - Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form, as well as any supplemental items, from other vendors during the contract term. 11. Unrestrictive Brand Names. Any manufacturer's names, trade names, brand names or catalog numbers used in the specifications are for the purpose of describing and establishing general quality levels. Such references are not intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for any brand that meets or exceeds the quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event an alternate brand name is proposed, supplemental documentation shall be provided demonstrating that the alternate brand name meets or exceeds the requirements specified herein. The burden of proof as to the suitability of any proposed alternatives is upon the proposer, and the City shall be the sole judge in making this determination. 12. Delivery. Prices quoted for all supplies or equipment to be provided under the terms and conditions of this IFB or RFP package shall include delivery charges, to be delivered F.O.B. San Luis Obispo by the successful proposer and received by the City within 30 days after authorization to proceed by the City. 13. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin within 15 calendar days after contract execution and shall be completed within 180 calendar days thereafter. 14. Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award. If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Contractor. 15. Recycled Products. A ten percent preference, not to exceed one thousand dollars per contract, will be given to recycled products. The fitness and quality of the recycled product must be at least equal to un- recycled products as determined by the City. The preference percentage shall be based on the lowest price quoted by the supplier or suppliers offering non - recycled products. Price preferences may be offered in excess of the ten percent ceiling established in this section if it can be shown that purchase of a recycled product or material will result in greater long -term savings to the City. 16. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form provided in the IFB /RFP package. 17. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the IFB/RFP package. 18. State Cooperative Purchasing Program. The City of San Luis Obispo participates in the State Cooperative Purchasing Program. As such, the City can purchase the items described in Section A through this program. Accordingly, the City will purchase from the State or the lowest responsible, responsive proposer, after allowing adjustments for the cost of pickup and/or delivery from the State, adjustments for after - market modifications, and adjustments for sales tax from local dealers, as it determines to be in its best interest. 19. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information: -11- Submittal Forms a. Acknowledgement b. Proposal submittal summary. C. Certificate of insurance. d. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services e. Proposed Services f. Statement of Past Disqualifications g. Certification of consultant Qualifications h. Experience of your firm in performing similar services for Community Development type organizations i. Experience of the staff to be assigned to the project in performing similar services j. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work k. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any known sub - consultants 1. Proximity and staffing levels of the nearest company office m. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project n. Detailed list of services available directly from the company o. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub - consultants. Work Program p. Description of your approach to completing the work. q: Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work. r. Estimated hours for your staff by name in performing each major phase of the work, including sub - consultants. S. Services or data to be provided by the City. t. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision. Compensation U. Proposed compensation and payment schedule tied to accomplishing key tasks Proposal Length and Copies a. Proposals should not exceed 35 pages, including attachments and supplemental materials. b. The minimum font size is 11 point, with minimum left and right margins of one -inch, and top and bottom margins of 0.7 inches. C. Charts and other short form approaches to convey information are encouraged. 2. Proposal Submittal a. Proposals must be submitted by 3:00 p.m., Monday, October 1, 2012, in the format described in the RFP specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. b. Proposal documents must be emailed to rbetz(i�slocity.ore as either a PDF (preferred) or Word document. No hard copies are required or will be accepted. -12- 3. Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee based on the following criteria: a. Understanding of the work required by the City. b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal. C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the work required by the City. d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services. e. Proposed approach in completing the work. f References. g. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project. h. Proposed compensation, broken down by staff with an estimate of supplies needed to provide the scope of services. Lump sum proposals will not be considered. As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them farther with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation. 4. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: a. Issue RFP 9/5/12 b. Receive proposals 10/1/12 C. Complete proposal evaluation 10/10/12 d. Conduct finalist interviews 10/13/12 e. Finalize staff recommendation 10/15/12 f Award contract 10/15/12 g. Execute contract 10/18/12 h. Start work 10/19/12 5. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. 6. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City. 7. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense. 8. Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide: a. 10 copies of organizational assessment and strategic plan addressing all elements of the scope of work. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the -13- Contractor and, where necessary, the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. b. One camera -ready original, unbound, each page printed on only one side, including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready for reproduction. C. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part of the scope of work, the Contractor must provide the corresponding computer files to the City, compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by the project manager: • Word Processing Word • Spreadsheets Excel • Desktop Publishing InDesign • Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) AutoCAD Computer files must be on 3 %z ", high- density, write- protected diskettes, formatted for use on IBM - compatible systems. Each diskette must be clearly labeled and have a printed copy of the directory. Alternatively, files may be emailed to the City. 9. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the scope of work and included in the contract price is attendance by the Contractor at up to 5 meetings to meet with stakeholders and to present and discuss its findings and recommendations. Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing scope of work tasks. These can be done through effective use of information technology. 10. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted. 11. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Bidders are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the proposer and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of proposer to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the proposer. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the proposer, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the proposer or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal. -14- To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for costs incurred by the successful proposer to achieve the project's objective or standard beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal. In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Contractor shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute. -15- Section D AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on October XX, 2012 by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and [VENDOR' &NAME', rCAPJTAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on October 15, 2012, City invited requested proposals for an organizational assessment per Specification No: 91179. WHEREAS, pursuant to said invitation, Contractor submitted a proposal for consulting services that was accepted by City for said the an organizational assessment and development of a strategic plan for the Community Development Department. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said services. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91179 and Contractor's proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. To the extent that there are any conflicts between the City's specification and this Agreement and the Contractor's proposal, the terms of the City's specification and this Agreement shall prevail, unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by both parties. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor a fixed fee compensation in a total sum not to exceed [$ .001. 4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specification and provide services as described in Exhibit [ ] attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement. -16- 5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager. 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contractor Name ,Addiess 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO City Clerk City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR City Attorney 17- Section E REQUIREMENTS INSURANCE Consultant Services The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). 2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). 3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self- Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self - insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self - insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers. 2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self - insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. -18- 3. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than ANII. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. -19- SUBMITTAL FORM The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91179, which is hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full: PROPOSAL ITEM: Organizational Assessment of the Community Development Department Total Base Price Sales tax @ 7.75% Other (provide detail below TOTAL $ ❑ Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company's A.M. Best raring: Firm Name and Address Contact Phone -20- Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the present business name: Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications. Reference No. 1 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Reference No. 2 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Reference No. 3 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone & FAX number Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome -21- TEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances. ■ Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes ❑ No ❑ ■ Ifyes, explain the circumstances. Executed on at of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature of Authorized Bidder Representative -22- under penalty ORGANIZATIONAL CHART limil TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Cover Letter Page 1 Section1— Qualifications ............................................................................... ..............................4 1.1 Citygate Qualifications ........................................................ ............................... 4 1.2 Citygate's Experience with Community Development Department Reviews ... 4 1.3 Project Team Experience ..................................................... ............................... 7 1.4 Staff Support and Redundancy ............................................ ............................... 9 1.5 Project Team Resumes ...................................................... ............................... 10 1.6 Citygate Office .................................................................. ............................... 10 1.7 Disqualification ................................................................... .............................10 1.8 Citygate Services ............................................................... ............................... 10 Section2—Work Program ............................................................................ .............................11 2.1 Project Approach ............................................................... ............................... 11 2.2 Work Plan .......................................................................... ............................... 15 2.3 Tentative Project Schedule ................................................ ............................... 24 2.4 Staff Hours ........................................................................ ......................:........ 25 2.5 Services or Data Required from City ................................ ............................... 25 2.6 Other Information .............................................................. ............................... 25 Section3 —Compensation ........................................................................... ............................... 26 3.1 Project Cost ......................................................................... .............................26 3.2 Standard Hourly Billing Rates .......................................... ............................... 27 3.3 Task Cost ........................................................................... ............................... 27 Appendix A— Project Team Resumes ........................................................ ............................... 28 Required RFP Forms (Including Insurance Certificate) ......................... ............................... 32 Table of Contents page i A S °ui,Rt Ir 2254 East Btdwslf Street, Suite 144 a Fo[sonr. CA 95634 e PH 416 -458 -5100 8 PAX 41/-883.2890 October 1. 2012 Ryan Betz Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo rbetz @slocity.org RE: ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - SPECIFICATION NO. 91179 Citygate Associates LLC, founded in 1990, is pleased to present this proposal to perform an organizational assessment for the City of San Luis Obispo's Community Development Department. Citygate is exclusively dedicated to providing organizational assessment and improvement services for public sector agencies. Our firm has conducted over 300 consulting reviews for over 245 government agencies primarily in the West, with a specialization in all aspects of community development. (Please visit our website at www.citygateassociates.com for further information.) We have also conducted over 30 organizational and management studies focused exclusively on community development, planning, building, code compliance, and development review permitting processes, including reviews of every type of community development function provided by San Luis Obispo. We are pleased to again have the opportunity to serve the City of San Luis Obispo; we completed a successful Fire Department Master Plan study in 2009 that was well received by the City Manager and City Council. Citygate has an outstanding track record with our clients. When Citygate commits to a client, we commit to that client's success, not just in the short term. This stems from our character- and cause -driven approach as a firm. We are not a profit- driven company. Our "cause" is the "Business of Better Government." This is why 70 percent of Citygate's revenue is from repeat clients and sole source procurements. We have been retained many times by repeat clients based on the successes of our prior work. Citygate believes that our qualifications to perform your study are exceptional, based on the following: ® We are unique in that our proposal relies on a team of practitioners with over one hundred years of combined experience as high -level managers in local government. Most importantly, we have recent and ongoing on-the-job experience with the existing state -of -the -art practices in community development and local government. ® We are committed to producing outcomes and results, not reports with recommendations that may never be implemented. We have unmatched experience in Mr. Betz October 1, 2012 Page 2 actually implementing the recommendations we will be making and we know and understand the many challenges that local governments will have to face as they try to make changes to current processes and procedures. Members on our team have worked for local governments where they managed employees working under collective bargaining agreements and civil service rules and know how to get employee participation and support for change. One of our team members wrote a "how to" book on Mastering Change with various case studies and examples of local governments that were successful in changing the culture of their organization to become more customer oriented. Citygate's team is knowledgeable about the use of information technology, e- government and social media to make permitting processes and procedures more efficient and effective, to promote civic engagement, and to improve customer service. One of our team members was responsible for developing one of the first internally developed IT -driven systems to manage and process building permits and complex development projects in high growth Orange, County (Orlando), Florida in the mid 1990s that enabled the county to process an average of 150,000 permits each year while reducing permit fees. We recently worked with San Diego County to improve the use of the existing Accela system to span boundaries between divisions and departments, to consolidate operations, and to improve communication with their customers. We have successfully conducted studies similar to what you are requesting in: Sacramento and San Diego Counties, California; Clark County, Washington, Ogden and Salt Lake City, Utah; Reno, Nevada; and Lee County, Florida. In working for these and other local governments we have developed an extensive data base of standards and best practices for benchmarking and comparing performance between jurisdictions. ® One of our team members is the country's leading authority on customer service in the public sector. He wrote the ground - breaking book Customer Service in Local Government in 1992 and since then has been conducting workshops and seminars, writing articles in Public Management (PM) magazine and Public Administration Review, and has been personally responsible for instituting customer service improvement initiatives in dozens of cities and counties. His latest book, CustomerService.gov: The Ten Principals of Customer - Centered Public Service will be published next year. ® Citygate's Project Manager, Bruce McClendon, has 30 years of experience as a Planning Director, previously served for two terms as the elected President of the American Planning Association (APA), and recently served as the Director of Planning for Los Angeles County. Citygate's Project Director, Jay Corey, has served at the executive level in local government for 30 years including roles as City Manager and Community Development Director for California cities. Citygate's Project Consultant, Keith Clarke, has over 30 years of experience as a Building Inspector and Chief Building Official and was honored by the California Building Officials association as Building Official of the Year in 2004 and received its highly coveted CALBO Hall of Fame Award in 2009. The Citygate team members identified above are the personnel with whom the City will work. At Citygate, we believe that a .est ilSSLi.. uC Mr. Betz October 1, 2012 Page 3 client is not only hiring a "firm" but professional individuals who have a set of qualifications matching the City's unique needs. As such, our team members are the practice specialists and leaders in their fields. ® Our Final Report will emphasize and focus on implementation. Our specific recommendations will be presented in tabular form beginning with a description of each proposal, followed by a priority ranking of their importance, a specific time line for implementation, the benefits that are anticipated from implementing the recommendations, and then the identification of the individual or the entity that is to be held responsible and accountable for implementing the recommendation. Finally, at no additional cost to the city, we are offering to provide unique, one -of -a- kind, supplemental aftermarket care and service. Citygate will provide a high quality report but then in six months or one -year, at your option, we would like to come back, meet with your staff and representatives from the community, and then re- evaluate each of the recommendations in the report. We would evaluate what is and is not working and what additional efforts may be necessary to produce the desired outcomes for the recommendations in the Final Report. We can provide this aftermarket service because we have a high degree of confidence in the quality and implementability of the recommendations that we will deliver and we have an outstanding track record for reliability with our past clients. However, sometimes there are unintended consequences or misunderstandings about a recommendation or conditions in the community may have changed. We believe that there is real value in monitoring the outcomes and results and making any needed mid - course corrections. As President of the firm, I am authorized to execute a binding contract on behalf of Citygate Associates, LLC. Please feel free to contact me at (916) 458 -5100, extension 101 or via e -mail at dderooskcitvgateassociates.co m. Sincerely, W,rc �/.�._. Daid C. DeRoos, MPA, CMC, President SECTION 1- QUALIFICATIONS 1.1 CITYGATE QUALIFICATIONS Citygate is dedicated to providing consulting and improvement services for public sector agencies. Citygate's mission is "The Business of Better Government." Citygate provides community development consulting, and through our "Virtual City Hall" model, also provides consulting services across the full array of municipal functions. Citygate Associates is staffed with seasoned consultant - practitioners, the vast majority of whom are recently retired city managers, community development directors, and department heads with 30+ years of municipal experience and a masters or doctorate degree. As indicated in our cover letter, Citygate has conducted over 300 consulting reviews for over 245 government agencies primarily in the West, with a specialization in all aspects of community development. We have also conducted over 30 organizational and management studies focused exclusively on community development functions, several of which are described below. Citygate Associates has an outstanding record in performance analysis and organization development with local government. Citygate has in -depth experience in both the theory and application of various management models. We have consulted on management structure and assisted in the implementation of change in community development and municipal departments ranging in size from 3 to more than 5,000 employees, and in agencies from 5,000 to 9 million in population. Rather than having. an exclusive focus on community development, Citygate specializes in community development and is involved in and has expertise in all of the other municipal functions affected by community development, including public safety, finance, parks, etc. 1.2 CITYGATE'S EXPERIENCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEWS Citygate has completed many projects that are similar to the organizational assessment work requested in this study. For purposes of this proposal, Citygate will only highlight a brief selection of related projects to demonstrate our experience. County of San Diego, CA — Organizational Analysis of the Dept. of Planning and Land Use Citygate was recently retained to develop and analyze reorganizational structures of the departments and functions involved in the County's development permit review process as they prepare for relocation into a new facility. Our review focused on identifying a customer - friendly and cost - effective approach to organizing the functions and departments around the development permit review process, rather than having the process adapt to the existing and historical multi- departnental operational silos. Previously, in 2008 Citygate performed an organizational and functional analysis of the Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) and associated land development services to: (1) ensure the most efficient use of staff time and resources; (2) improve customer service; (3) improve the quality and completeness of work; and (4) ensure that the land development process Section 1— Qualifications promotes safe and livable communities. To accomplish these objectives, Citygate analyzed the policies, procedures, management and operations of the programs, and designed improvements for the future. As part of Citygate's review, an employee survey was conducted as well as a customer survey, and recommendations were made for improving the Department's existing customer satisfaction survey forms. Many challenges affected DPLU, including a need to: streamline internal processes and provide seamless processing as permits moved between departments and agencies; create more reliable and predictable regulatory outcomes; improve staff productivity and accountability; and enhance relationships within the development community, local residents, and special interest stakeholders. Citygate provided nearly 80 recommendations to: improve organizational capacity and clarify strategic direction; provide appropriate performance measurements to monitor customer service delivery, organizational and individual staff productivity; reorganize the structure to better align reporting relationships, decision making, and streamline processes; and identify opportunities to generate more revenue to offset operating costs. Our recommendations enhanced organizational productivity and prepared the Department for significant downsizing. A copy of our Final Report for this engagement is available here: www. cio?gateassociates. com/sdcoun U Salt Lake City, UT – Planning Process Analysis and Other Management Audits Citygate completed a two- phased study which involved conducting extensive interviews regarding the effectiveness of Salt Lake City's planning program and processes, and based on issues identified in Phase I, performing a detailed analysis of the planning program in Phase H. At the time of Citygate's hiring, the existing planning issues in Salt Lake City reached crisis proportions, and were extensively described in the local press. Citygate was retained in a two - phase process to identify issues, stabilize the organization, address staff assignments and staff/workload balancing, communicate with the Community Councils, and provide a change - agent role for the Community Development Department. Phase II involved the extensive and detailed analysis of policies, procedures, staffing, and the other core elements of organizational capacity, and the formulation of recommendations and an Implementation Plan. Citygate has also separately conducted the following studies: a Management Audit of the Salt Lake City Engineering Division; a review of Salt Lake City's general fund Capital Improvement Program; a Management and Performance Audit of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency; and several other engagements. Each departmental review focused on organizational restructuring as needed, improved allocation of resources and staffing based on workload and the priority of services provided, improved customer, business and resident services, productivity and cost reduction measures, process streamlining, revenue generation, and comparison of operations to best practices. City of Ogden, UT – Rotating Management Audits including Community Development Citygate has performed general management and operations studies for eight City of Ogden departments, including: Community Development, Public Works, Code Enforcement, Community Services, Redevelopment Agency, Police Department, Animal Services, and Fire. Section I— Qualifications Each study analyzed the performance measurement, policies, procedures, management and operations of the departments. We examined issues related to the philosophy and mission; organizational structure and management systems; organizational relationships; relationships with citizens; allocation of employees and other resources; personnel management and training; data management; records management, communications and information systems; facilities and equipment; management methodologies; maintenance functions; and fiscal management of each Department. Sacramento County, CA – Performance Audit ofPlannin¢ and DERA Citygate completed a performance audit of Sacramento County's Planning and Environmental Review and Assessment departments. This study provided an independent, objective, rigorously analytical analysis of the policies, procedures, management and operations of the programs, and designed a constructive, forward - looking, and creative strategy for improvement. This project involved a standard performance audit, including how to support the Municipal Services Agency's goal to decentralize planning functions and empower neighborhood involvement through the expanded use of community planning councils and other methods. Extensive stakeholder, resident, applicant, and employee contact was achieved through interviews, focus groups, and internet -based surveys. We also identified "best practices" in other communities, reviewed performance indicators, and developed recommendations for improvement. In addition to enhancing applicant and residential services, the streamlining, improved leveraging of available technology, and staff productivity enhancements prepared the departments for improved staff accountability, performance metrics, and reliably /predictably enhancing the quality of customer service goals. City of Modesto, CA– Management Audit of the Community Development Department, Interim Planninv, Director Citygate conducted a comprehensive review of the Community Development Department of this rapidly growing Central Valley city. The Department consists of the Planning Division, Building and Development Services and Business Development. The Planning Division was hit by a "perfect storm" of challenges including: budget reductions, unstable leadership, red -hot housing market, shortage of planners, and organizational setting. As part of its review, Citygate conducted separate surveys of Building customers and Planning Department customers. Citygate focused on the dynamics of rapid growth that can cause the workload of a community development department to increase dramatically, thereby challenging the existing departmental resources, management systems, and service levels. The City Council enthusiastically embraced the findings and recommendations in Citygate's report. The City formed a dynamic Development Review Team. This resulted in increased interdepartmental cooperation and coordination. Duties were re- assigned so that planners could focus on planning rather than administrative tasks. The City fully implemented their electronic permit tracking system (Accela) in both the Building Division and Planning Division. Citygate also provided an Interim Planning Director for the City of Modesto and prepared an organizational assessment report. Section 1— Qualifications page 6 _ Citygate has also performed the following community development related studies: ® City of Beaverton, OR – Business Process Audit and Re- Engineering, Development Services and Building Inspection Services Calaveras County, CA – Performance Review of Planning and Building Departments ® City of San Clemente, CA – Management Review of Community Development Department Solano County, CA – Operational Review of the Development Permitting Process ® City of Carlsbad, CA – Performance Audit of the Development Services Review Process ® City of Vista, CA – Performance Audit of the Development Review Process City of Pittsburg, CA – Efficiency Review of Development Permitting Programs ® Lee County, FL – Technology Review of the Community Development Department ® City of Dana Point, CA – Management Review of the Planning, Building, and Public Works Counter Operations, Strategic and Tactical Guidance for Technology Support ® City of West Linn, OR – Analysis of Building Revenues and Expenditures City of Atwater, CA – Interim Community Development Director and Organizational Assessment City of Santa Rosa, CA – Comparative Research on the Economic Development Departments in Eight California Cities City of Reno, NV – Performance Audit of Community Development Department ® Placer County, CA – Review of Major Development Agreement Orders ♦- City of Fresno, CA – Assistance to Fresno Redevelopment Agency to Provide Project Management Services City of Los Altos – Performance Audit of Community Development Department ® City of Corona, CA – Performance Review of Planning, Building, Housing, and Development Departments ® City of Dana Point, CA – Management Review of Planning, Building, and Public Works Operation Counter ® County of Madera, CA – Fee Assessment Study for New Development. 1.3 PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE pa ce W.- . h il fi assrgrted Ilse rod c er10 „rmzng �+crtzt r crvz.,ees. The proposed Project Team consists of consultants with the necessary local government, functional, and technical skills to perform this study. Bruce W. McClendon, FAICP, Project Director Mr. McClendon has been a part-time consultant with Citygate since the mid 1990s. He was the Planning Director for Los Angeles County, California from 2006 to 2009. Previously, Bruce served at the director level in Orange (Orlando) and Hillsborough (Tampa) counties in Florida. Additionally, he has served as the director of planning for the following cities in Texas: Galveston, Beaumont, Arlington, and Forth Worth. Bruce has a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Missouri and a Master of Regional and City Planning (Emphasis on Economic Development) from the University of Oklahoma. Bruce has served two terms as the elected national President Section 1— Qualifications page 7 of the American Planning Association, is a charter member and fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Bruce is an accomplished author with over one hundred articles currently in print in over fifty different publications. Bruce has worked with Citygate on a number of community development consulting engagements including Sacramento County and San Diego County, as well as jointly presenting "Performance Auditing of Community Development Departments" at an APA conference. As Project Director, Mr. McClendon will be responsible for ensuring the review process and implementation plan rigorously covers all aspects of community development management consistent with the highest standards of the profession. He will ensure Citygate achieves a deliverable product that will establish a road map for the City to achieve "best practices" and improved customer service. Jay Corey, MPA, Project Manager Mr. Corey holds a Master's degree in public administration (MPA) from the University of Southern California. He received his undergraduate education from the University of California, Davis, with a Bachelor's degree in political science. Mr. Corey has successfully served as a Citygate lead consultant on Community Development/Planning/Building studies for client agencies serving populations ranging from 200,000 to 4 million, including Sacramento and San Diego Counties, Modesto, CA and Salt Lake City, UT. As Project Manager, Mr. Corey will provide day -to -day management of the project, including detailed planning and scheduling of tasks, preparation of work products, delegation of activities to project consultants, and preparation of work products. Keith Clarke, CBO, Project Consultant Mr. Clarke has over thirty years of experience in Building Department administration. Mr. Clarke retired on March 31, 2009 as the Building Department Director for the City of Corona, after serving that city for over 27 years. Since his retirement, Mr. Clarke has been the Building Official for the City of Norco, City of Costa Mesa and the City of Eastvale. Mr. Clarke is a Certified Building Official and was an instructor for California Building Officials (Calbo) for 10 years where he also served on the Board of Directors from 2005 to 2009. Mr. Clarke is currently a code instructor for the Orange Empire chapter of the International Code Council (ICC). Mr. Clarke earned an A.S. Degree in Engineering from Cypress College and studied Civil Section 1— Qualifications page 8 Engineering for 1.5 years at UCLA and 1.5 years at California State University at Long Beach. In 2004, Mr. Clarke received the Building Official of the Year Award. In 2003, his department received the Building Department of the Year Award and in 2009 he received the Hall of Fame Award from the Calbo organization. As Project Consultant, Mr. Clarke will be responsible for bringing Chief Building Official leadership, management, and technical "best practice" expertise to the project and for formulating strategic and tactical recommendations that can be implemented. David C. DeRoos, MPA, CMC, Citygate President 1.4 STAFF SUPPORT AND REDUNDANCY It�ltdanctzn €/ie enmpat)? ojtajexpereerrted itts Cype awntk- r _ The Citygate team has a multi - disciplinary approach that includes the full range of skills required to execute this challenging project. The diverse group of specialists comprising Citygate's proposed Project Team has worked together many times before to integrate their respective expertise into comprehensive, compelling, and creative strategies to accomplish a municipality's objectives. Citygate's team is available to perform these services in accordance with the description of tasks, responsibilities, deliverables, and schedule as outlined in this proposal. Citygate also employs an extensive network of community development consultant specialists who are available to provide project support when required. For every member of our proposed team, there is a qualified back -up person available from a city manager expert to a community development director. With over 40 senior practitioner- consultants on Citygate's payroll, we have a "deep bench" to back up our Project Team! Section 1.5 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES Each member of the Project Team adheres to the Code of Ethics adopted by the Institute of Management Consultants (IMC). The resume of each Project Team member can be found in Appendix A. 1.6 CITYGATE OFFICE I' rP�f± �r�dslaifrPgtevelso�ihe ,rreaYes�coatfP�J'�.���� = n:. _.._�..�_. _..�. With our headquarter office in Folsom, CA, Citygate Associates provides services throughout the western United States. Citygate predominantly hires consultants who have greater than 25 years of executive public sector experience and a master- or doctoral -level degree. The firm presently has over 40 persons on its payroll, with expertise across the full array of local government functions, particularly community development. Our headquarter office has five staff members. The lead consultants on our Project Team reside in the SF Bay Area and in the Los Angeles area. 1.7 DISQUALIFICATION Citygate has never been removed from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project. 1.8 CITYGATE SERVICES Citygate Associates, LLC is a professional consultancy that provides services to the public sector in the areas of community development, general management consulting, fire protection and emergency medical services, strategic planning, organizational development, animal care and control, leadership development and ethics training, and executive search. With our headquarter office in Folsom, CA, Citygate Associates provides services throughout the western United States. Citygate Associates was established on January 1, 1990 as a sole proprietorship. The company incorporated in May 1991 as a Chapter S Corporation and was reincorporated as a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) in January 2000. David C. DeRoos is Citygate's President and sole owner. Citygate's mission is the "Business of Better Government" by providing the highest quality innovation and efficiency studies to governmental agencies in many specific areas. Citygate has conducted hundreds of successful engagements for a wide range of clients including cities, counties, special districts and state government agencies throughout the United States. Section 1— Qualifications page 10 SECTION 2 —WORK PROGRAM 2.1 PROJECT APPROACH 2.1.1 Project Overview and Objectives The scope of the proposed study includes all Community Development functions in San Luis Obispo, including: 1) Administration; 2) Development Review; 3) Long Range Planning; and 4) Building and Safety. The Department includes approximately 24.7 FTE (25 regular employees and 3 interns). The objective of the study is to review current conditions, evaluate future service demands, analyze opportunities for organizational changes and process improvements that can further enhance customer service, and development of a Strategic Action Plan with a prioritized implementation schedule. Central to our approach will be an emphasis on the following: Customer Relations First As public servants, everything we think, say, and do starts with the customer in mind. Community Development has an array of customers and stakeholders, all of whom have different needs. It is important that the services to all customer groups are recognized, constantly monitored, and continuously improved. To best serve these customers, the credibility, timeliness, predictability and sensitivity of the development, special studies, and environmental review processes must be keenly managed. Early assistance and rapid problem solving techniques can be institutionalized to ensure applications and projects are not unnecessarily delayed. All of this can be achieved within a highly transparent process. Involvement of Stakeholders The involvement of stakeholders, both internal and external, is essential for the study to have a successful outcome and to produce tailored recommendations that will address the real issues in the community and in the Department. We have found that there is often a disconnect between what the jurisdiction's elected officials and staff perceive to be major issues, and what the broader stakeholders and public believe to be their important issues and needs. The fast principle of customer centered - public service is the essential prerequisite of listening to customers, really hearing them, and then aggressively responding to what you hear, see and learn. In the private sector, successful companies get close to their customers, overspend on learning what their customers want and value, and involve their customers in almost every aspect of their operations. This same principle works in the public sector. Listening is the first and most important step that local governments can take to become more relevant and more valued by their citizen/customers. We have designed our Work Plan using a combination of face -to -face interviews, online surveys and focus groups so we will be able to really listen and learn how people feel about the Department's permitting processes and procedures and various products and services and, most importantly, why they hold those feelings. Our Work Plan will ensure that stakeholders will have the opportunity to participate in the review process in a constructive and confidential Section 2 —Work Program page 11 manner; not only in the early phases of the study, but also once our preliminary findings and recommendations have been formed. Citygate Associates has conducted hundreds of surveys and focus groups for local government agencies since our establishment in 1990. This lengthy organizational experience has given us the unique ability to understand our client's needs in terms of employee, customer and stakeholder feedback, and to provide them with meaningful answers that can be acted upon. Through collecting data from various sources on our previous projects, Citygate has been able to make findings and recommendations with a broad -based view of how the study impacts all stakeholders and other departments in the City, and design solutions that are in alignment with national best practices. Our recommendations, which will be developed through our highly iterative, transparent, and collaborative approach to analysis, will lay the groundwork for interdepartmental efficiency, effectiveness, and esprit de corps. 2.1.2 Study Design We will first analyze the goals of the City's process and overall philosophy of Community Development, and assess the congruence of these critical guidelines with the orientation of the City Council as well as the needs of the public and development community. Once this important step is complete, we will evaluate current service needs and historical workload, including assessing overall service levels, workload trends, and ability of staff to meet customer service demands and regulatory requirements. We will also review current operations, including organizational structure and management systems, scope of operations within each department and division, organizational relationships, allocation of employees and other resources, performance variables, budgeting and funding sources, interdepartmental coordination, training, communications, information systems, relationships with citizens, public service inquiries, administration and supervision, job duties, new programs and/or initiatives being considered, opportunities for outsourcing or insourcing, comparability to other cities and related aspects to determine if these are in alignment with Community Development's mission and policies. Our review will next focus on assessing future service demand and determining the most appropriate strategies for enhancing customer service, permit processing standards, interdepartmental coordination, work flow, staffing allocation, technology and overall organizational design. We will conclude our review with recommendations that address opportunities for more efficient, timelier, and more accurate processes. Since our assessment is balanced, we will also describe in detail where Community Development functions are currently operating at peak performance. If our recommendations include restructuring and re- engineering of functions, Citygate will develop a Strategic Action Plan, with an implementation strategy for change. This strategy will include an appropriate organizational structure and recommended steps to implement changes. A profile of our major assessment factors is depicted on the following page. Section 2 —Work Program page 12 5 A it_ K 2.1.3 Mission Statement and Detailed Assessment Factors Based on our understanding of your environment, Citygate Associates has developed its own mission- oriented questions to guide our efforts in conducting the engagement, as follows: How best can Citygate Associates deploy the City's investment in this assessment to enhance the Community Development processes, when measured by the criteria of efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, predictability, and transparency? How can the Community Development functions maximize organizational performance within a finite resource base? How can Citygate Associates monitor its own performance so that San Luis Obispo receives an independent, objective, rigorous, and compelling review, while respecting unique local conditions and needs? Citygate Associates has given considerable thought to these crucial questions, and has organized our response accordingly. Our detailed assessment factors are presented on the following page. Section 2 —Work Program page 13 Examples of Potential Detailed Assessment Issues - Clear definition - Current goals & objectives - Priorities - Decision - making process - Relationship to operational policies and procedures - Current service level vs. City/Customer needs - Effectiveness - Assignment of functional responsibilitie: - Decision making authority - Spans of control - Coordination with other divisions / departments, offices, etc. - Coordination with external departments and agencies - Budget - Cost recovery - Fee setting methods - Effectiveness of accounting system - Accuracy and effectiveness financial information and reports - Vendor selection and contr. management - Liability exposure - Clarity of internal commun- ications between management and staff - Clarity of communications between departments - Communications between employees - Communications between external entities and agencies - Communications with public - Efficiency of processes - Opportunities for streamlining processes - Coordination with other Divisions /Departments - Long -term workload forerasti i - Flexibility of procedures - Definition of procedures - Internal security - Effective recruitment and selection - Appropriate promotion policies and procedures - Recruitment and in- service training - Turnover - Position vacancy rate - Background check - In -house technical skills - Appropriate staffing levels - Appropriate allocation of management, supervisors and other personnel - Adequate clerical and support staff - Full -time, temporary, and contract staff - Relevance and adequacy of current performance indicators - New, innovative performance indicators - Timeliness of current performance indicators - Relationship of current performance indicators to mission, goals and objectives - Efficiency of method of collecting performance data - Efficiency of workload distribution - Accuracy and consistency of information provided to public - Timeliness of responses to public inquiries - Service responsiveness and accessibility - Management controls - Health and safety systems - Automation of process, project management, and other programs such as records management - Necessity and cost - effectiveness of specialized automated systems - Conversion strategies - Customization - Management's role and responsibilities - Management and supervisory control mechanisms - Establishment of service level objectives - Accomplishment of strati and operational planninc - Effectiveness of budget planning and control - Meeting deadlines Section 3 —Work Program page 14 8 8 2.2 WORK PLAN Citygate's Work Plan to address the scope of work identified above is comprised of eight tasks, each with clear task objectives, detailed sub - tasks, and key milestones /deliverables. This Work Plan was designed specifically to address the scope of work outlined in the City's RFP. Our Work Plan has been developed consistent with our experience in conducting hundreds of organizational assessment studies and is based on a proven approach used in many similar studies. Task Objectives: ♦ To verify the study's scope and objectives. ♦ To finalize the project schedule and work plan. ® To orient employees to our study efforts. ® To identify key staff and stakeholders who will be involved in the study. ® To obtain and review documentation to develop an overview of the Community Development Department functions. ® To maintain ongoing communications and reporting with the City. 1.1 Meet With the City to Initiate Study: A key to a successful review is a mutual understanding of the project's scope and - objectives. The members of our team will meet with the City representatives to correlate our understanding of the study's scope, and ensure that our Work Plan and project schedule are mutually agreeable. This early effort to clearly define expectations, roles and lines of communication should result in better focus on substantive issues as the engagement progresses. For us to be most effective, we will continuously communicate throughout the duration of the study, beginning with our first contact with City staff. Our key message must be that our role is not an adversarial one. Our role is to provide an independent review of the Community Development Department. We believe our ability to initiate and maintain positive, two -way communication as the study proceeds will result in not only well- supported findings but also a consensus and buy -in among City personnel and community stakeholders concerning the acceptance of our work and the benefit of implementing our recommendations. It is crucial that the project be viewed by the City as a valuable and worthwhile endeavor. 1.2 Interview Policy Makers and City Management: To enhance our understanding of the issues at stake in this review, we will meet with and interview the Mayor, City Council members, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Director, and other City representatives as necessary. A goal of the interviews is to orient the consultant team to the history and current context in which the study is taking place. These meetings will also enable us to identify key staff and San Luis Obispo stakeholders in order to gain their insights in subsequent tasks. Section 2 —Work Program page 15 1.3 Conduct Employee Orientation Meeting: To formally introduce the consultant team to Community Development Department employees, we will conduct an Employee Orientation Meeting so that they understand the purpose of the study, and how we will accomplish that purpose. We will summarize this information in an Employee Orientation Brochure that will be distributed to all employees. This meeting will occur during our first week on -site. We believe our initial meetings with City officials and employees will further reinforce a clear understanding of the project and minimize misconceptions concerning our role, how we plan to accomplish this study, and the potential outcomes of our work. Overall, this approach will help ensure that both the consultant and the City are performing their work in an open, unencumbered and positive environment. 1.4 Obtain and Review Documentation: To fully understand San Luis Obispo's Community Development operations, we need to obtain and review a number of documents, including: the mission statement; overall work plan; departmental goals related to staff and applicants; organization charts; process flowcharts; Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Ordinance; performance targets and measures; position descriptions; plan check procedures; staff training data; inspection scheduling; occupancy permits; staff reports and minutes; applications and forms; operating and work load statistics; fees and charges; expansion design plans; contracts; specialized maintenance services reports such as work order system and pavement management reports; specialized engineering reports; other policies and procedures; and pertinent City, State and Federal legislation and guidelines. The initial interviews and document review will help us understand the core workflow processes and procedures of the Department. We will also conduct unit walk-throughs and document where the Department's processes are functioning well, and where opportunities for improvement exist. 1.5 Monitor Engagement Progress and Completion of Tasks: We have combined the initial task of starting the project with the ongoing task of monitoring, directing and administering the project. In addition to ongoing oral progress reports with assigned City staff, we will provide monthly written status reports. Key Milestones/Deliverables: ® Employee Orientation Brochure. ® Monthly written status reports. Task Objectives: ® To involve all appropriate employees in the study and provide an opportunity for input. ® To meet with the key individuals involved in the study, to identify key issues, broad trends and service delivery goals relevant to the process. Section 2 —Work Program page 16 ® To obtain perspective on functions and operations from the Department/Division heads and key employees. ® To obtain overall employee perspectives through an employee survey. 2.1 Conduct Interviews with Key City Personnel: We will conduct on -site meetings with City personnel identified from Administration, Community Development, Public Works, and Utilities. 2.2 Conduct Interviews with Committee/Commission Members: We will also meet with members from the Architectural Review Committee, Cultural Heritage Commission, and Planning Commission. Meeting with these key City personnel and committee /commission members will permit us to gain their insights at the start of the review process and provide direction regarding specific issues needing focus. As necessary, pre - meeting information will be provided to interviewees by email or hard - copy to allow for sufficient preparation. Assistance from City staff will be required in scheduling these meetings and providing interview /meeting rooms. 2.3 Conduct Employee Surveys: Citygate has found that soliciting the thoughts and opinions of the affected employees early in the study can uncover issues that may need to be explored further in the one -on- one interviews. Citygate will conduct a confidential Internet -based employee survey, designed in coordination with Community Development management, to allow all employees involved in Community Development the opportunity to participate in Citygate Associates' review process in a constructive, confidential manner. The survey will provide opinions and perceptions about mission, goals, objectives, workload, staffing, customer service, training, supervision, technology, etc. Key Milestones/Deliverables: ® Employee survey instrument. ♦ Employee survey findings and analysis (for inclusion in Draft Report). Task Objectives: ® To engage external stakeholders early in the assessment and promote buy -in and co- ownership of the final recommendations. ® To obtain perceptions of the Community Development Department from customers and community stakeholders. The employee survey will be Intemet- based. The City will be responsible for photocopying, distribution, and any other charges relating to hard copy versions of the survey, should that be needed. We assume that the survey will be created and launched in English only. If the City desires the survey to be available in other languages, the extra time necessary to build the additional surveys would be an additional cost. 2 The customer survey is limited to 200 respondents. The customer survey will be Intemet -based and Citygate assumes the City will pay for any necessary postage, photocopying, or data entry. We would require the assistance of the City in providing email Section 2 —Work Program page 17 ® To develop findings and conclusions on service levels. 3.1 Conduct Three Focus Groups of Customer Types: Citygate will facilitate three focus groups of customers to obtain their concerns and suggestions. The composition of the focus groups will be established in consultation with the City. Focus groups are especially useful in identifying basic issues that can then be asked as part of the broader customer survey process (sub -task 3.2 below). We have found that there is often a disconnect between what the jurisdiction's elected officials and staff perceive to be major issues, and what the broader stakeholders and public believe to be the real issues. Up to two Citygate consultants will facilitate each focus group. Citygate will require the assistance of City staff to schedule focus groups in coordination with planned on -site trips and to generate address lists and prepare and mail letters of invitation to randomly selected applicants and stakeholders. 3.2 Conduct Customer Survey2: Citygate will conduct a customer survey to provide us with perspectives from the residents and businesses that have used the services provided by Community Development. Through this survey we will gain an understanding about what services are priorities to the public, what services are meeting expectations, and if there are any gaps between citizen expectations and the delivery of services. The survey will be developed in coordination with the City. This survey does not require specialized knowledge and can be completed at the convenience of the participant taking the survey. Citygate routinely designs survey instruments and deploys an internet -based survey tool to cost - effectively obtain, analyze, report and present customer, stakeholder, and public perceptions. Key Milestones/Deliverables: ® Summary of focus group comments (for inclusion in Draft Report). ® Customer survey instrument. ♦ Customer survey findings and analysis (for inclusion in Draft Report). Task Objectives: ® To analyze the Department's core business processes. ® To develop an initial understanding of the Community Development - related operations, functions and services. ® To focus the study on areas where additional analysis is merited. 2 The customer survey is limited to 200 respondents. The customer survey will be Internet -based and Citygate assumes the City will pay for any necessary postage, photocopying, or data entry. We would require the assistance of the City in providing email addresses (if possible) and developing and mailing invitation letters/postcards and other survey - related materials that may be necessary to encourage survey participation. We assume that the survey will be created and launched in English only. If the City desires the survey to be available in other languages, the extra time necessary to build the additional surveys would be an additional cost. Section 2 —Work Program page 18 4.1 Conduct Walk - Throughs and In -Depth Face -to -Face Interviews: This step includes conducting extensive face -to -face interviews with employees performing the work of the relevant service areas to determine where processes originate and terminate, the lead employees involved, what is done and the work methods employed at each step, how information is routed between and among work units, existing control mechanisms, what forms are used, and the physical layout of the Department and all related support offices. 4.2 Inventory Primary Inputs, Outputs, and Processes: We will determine where processes originate and terminate, what is done and the work methods employed at each step. We will look at how information is routed between and among work units, the existing control mechanisms, and the paper documents that support the processes. 4.3 Analyze Case Processing Systems: Once each major system or case process is identified, an inventory of planning, environmental, building code, and code enforcement case processing system inputs, outputs and processes used will be developed. This inventory, combined with process flow charts, will enable us to identify bottlenecks, redundant systems, inadequate controls, inefficient procedures and opportunities for streamlining. 4.4 Assess Operational Issues: In the course of our process analysis and focus groups, surveys, and interviews, we anticipate developing findings and conclusions on: 1) the amount of focus needed foi each phase of the development process; 2) the responsiveness and assistance of City staff, 3) the completeness and accuracy of application review; 4) tum- around times; 5) the helpfulness of staff in describing needed changes in plans; 6) consistency of information and interpretations by staff; 7) scheduling of plan checks and inspections; and 8) the knowledge level and accuracy of plan checks and inspections. 4.5 Identify Focus for Additional Analysis: At the conclusion of Task 4, we will have developed our initial understanding of the Community Development - related operations, functions and services provided by the City. In addition, Tasks 2 through 4 serve as our diagnostic effort so that we identify the areas where additional analysis is merited and will offer future returns on the City's investment in the study. This will determine the depth of our focus on operational issues in Task 5. Key Milestones/Deliverables: ® Initial operational findings and conclusions. Task Objectives: ® To perform detailed operational analyses where the investment appears to have merit. Section 2 —Work Program page 19 a 0. ® To identify areas where organizational performance and service levels can be enhanced, across each requested functional area identified in the RFP. ® To assess how technology is currently used and how it might be better utilized. 5.1 Review Organizational and Management Structure from Top to Bottom a. Reporting relationships. b. Span of control for both managers and line staff. c. Staffing levels, including absent or redundant positions. d. Ratio of administrative staff to professional staff. 5.2 Review Outsourcing and Insourcing Opportunities a. Identification of key opportunities by function. b. Industry comparison. c. Inclusion of specific and comprehensive recommendations. 5.3 Review Operations a. Review allocation of City financial resources and Council- assigned priorities for the Department and identify areas where the City should focus on increasing or decreasing financial resource allocation. This can be accomplished through benchmarking or other comparative analysis with best practices. Prepare recommendations for inclusion in the 2013 -2015 financial plan. b. Review the City's service - delivery models and recommend alternative service delivery models, as appropriate, that will maintain or increase service levels while lowering cost of service. c. Develop criteria for eligibility and structure for "fast tracking" review of development projects. Investigate opportunities for expedited processing with varying fee structures. d. Analyze planning and building permitting processes. Identify any inefficiencies and recommend opportunities to streamline project review and permit issuance. Incorporate consideration of: i. Improving communication with applicants, including requirements for complete applications. ii. Establishing administrative review with clear and robust opportunities for public input when applications meet City policies and design guidelines. iii. Reviewing standard conditions and approval process. iv. Identifying resources to develop and maintain a portfolio of available properties ready for development as an advanced planning tool for property owners, developers and area residents. v. Evaluating efficiency of existing efforts to provide site selection assistance, business liaison services, pre - application meetings, quick response and fast track permitting and review. 5.4 Evaluate Information Technology a. Identify opportunities to leverage technology to improve efficiencies and customer service. Section 2 —Work Program page 20 l� b. Evaluate existing systems (EnerGov, Project Management) to examine their efficiency and effectiveness. The general evaluations will be conducted from the perspectives of internal staff and external users along with our own knowledge and expertise. We will assess the level at which staff have been trained on EnerGov, given its recent implementation as a replacement to FoxPro. Also, Citygate will evaluate the potential to utilize other e- government technologies and apps for possible use by the City to improve customer service. c. Recommend new products or applications that match the Department's needs, especially for project management and public outreach. d. Propose new equipment/technology that could increase productivity, replacing current equipment/technology or freeing staff to be utilized elsewhere in the organization. 5.5 Identify Best Management Practices (BMP's) and Performance Measures a. Identify level of activity and performance metrics for each division. b. Assess organizational activity and include benchmarking against accepted standards. 5.6 Evaluate Customer Service a. Evaluate communications with internal and external customers, considering the responses to the customer survey and the comments and opinions expressed through focus groups. b. Evaluate service request response system. c. Assess cash management practices. d. Identify cost recovery and revenue opportunities, considering the current fee analysis being conducted for engineering, planning and fire planning fees and the building fees adopted in 2011. e. Review opportunities for cost reductions without reduction in service. f. Consider opportunities for increased service levels despite marginal cost increases. g. Develop metrics and evaluation of customer satisfaction. h. Establish reasonable response rimes for service requested by the public. 5.7 Evaluate Trend Analysis a. Identify relevant opportunities to prepare the organization to meet future industry challenges. b. Develop a management and resource approach to prepare and adjust for natural cycles in planning and building applications. Key Milestones/Deliverables: ® Findings and recommendations on each Scope of Work area identified by the City. Task Objectives: ® To review preliminary findings and recommendations with City staff and stakeholders. Section 2 —Work Program page 21 S ® To review Draft Report and proposed implementation (strategic) plan with City staff. 6.1 Review Preliminary Findings With the Staff: We will present a summary of preliminary findings and recommendations to the City before preparing the Draft Report. Since our recommendations may include changes to support and maintain new processes and procedures, it is important to create mutual understanding before writing the Draft Report. 6.2 Present Preliminary Findings to Stakeholders in Two Focus Group Meetings: We will present a summary of preliminary findings and recommendations to select external stakeholders, allowing them sufficient time to provide input on our preliminary conclusions before we prepare the Draft Report. 6.3 Prepare Draft Report and Review With City: We will then prepare a Draft Report including recommendations and proposed implementation strategy. This report will be provided to appropriate City personnel, as needed, to allow sufficient time for review and discussion of any areas that require further clarification or amplification. The written report will detail organizational capabilities and challenges, goals and objectives for maintaining and improving services and development of performance measures to quantify progress. The report will outline a Strategic Plan for implementation that addresses each of the areas discussed in our Work Plan, including: ® Development of departmental/f nictional goals and target objectives for moving forward ® Description of recommended actions to achieve goals and objectives including, organizational changes, relocation or co- location of functions, investments and new or modified laws or regulations • Cost or savings of proposed changes and enhancements to the current system • Establishment of performance measures relative to goals and objectives ® Identification of the process needed to implement recommendations including actions needed by the City Council. Our report will emphasize and focus on implementation. Our specific recommendations will be presented as a summarized Strategic Action Plan in tabular form beginning with a description of each proposed recommendation, followed by a priority ranking of their importance, a specific timeline for implementation, the benefits that are anticipated from implementing the recommendations, and then the identification of the individual or the entity that is to be held responsible and accountable for implementing the recommendation. Citygate Associates does not work off a long list of preconceived recommendations that are recycled from project to project. Each project is unique and approached with a clean slate. Citygate emphasizes the quality and implementability of its recommendations and the ability of our clients to use the recommendations in the report to improve their efficiency and effectiveness and satisfy their customers and citizens and outcomes. Section 2 —Work Program page 22 A m Key Milestones/Deliverables: ♦ Preliminary Findings and Recommendations Report. ® Draft Report. Task Objectives: ® To obtain written feedback on the Draft Report from the City. To produce and present the Final Report. 7.1 Make Revisions to Draft, As Necessary. Once we receive feedback on the Draft Report from the City (in the form of one compiled document with the City's written comments), we will make the necessary changes to finalize the report. 7.2 Produce and Present Final Report: We will present the Final Report to the City in a public meeting, identifying proposed process improvements, appropriate organizational structures and recommended steps to implement change. Key Milestones/Deliverables: ® Final Report. Task Objectives: ♦ Offer unique, one -of -a -kind aftermarket care and service. ® Re- evaluate recommendations in Final Report. ♦ Monitor the outcomes and results and recommend any needed mid- course corrections. 8.1 Proposal for No -Cost Aftermarket Service: In six months or one year, at your option, Citygate would like to meet with the City's staff and appropriate representatives from the community and then re- evaluate each of the recommendations in the report. We can provide this aftermarket service because we have a high degree of confidence in the quality and implementability of the recommendations that we will deliver and we have an outstanding track record for quality, reliability and dependability with our past clients. However, sometimes there are unintended consequences or misunderstandings about a recommendation or conditions in the community may have changed. We believe that there is real value in monitoring the outcomes and results and making any needed mid - course corrections. If the City is not interested in Citygate's proposal for a no -cost aftermarket service, then all the objectives and sub -tasks in Task 8 will be removed from our proposal. Section 2 -Work Program page 23 S 8.2 Determine What is Working; Provide Solutions for What in Not: At no additional cost, we will evaluate what is and in not working, and what additional efforts may be necessary to produce the desired outcomes for our original recommendations. 8.3 Provide Follow -up Report: With staff assistance, Citygate will review and evaluate the City's implementation efforts and then prepare a concise written report summarizing the status and progress which has been and is being made toward implementing the recommendations along with the recommended remedial adjustments that we believe to be warranted. Key Milestones/Deliverables: ® Follow -up report on recommended mid - course corrections. 2.3 TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE Citygate is prepared to start this engagement in October. Based on our experience with similar reviews, we expect this study to take approximately four months to complete, with the delivery of a Final Report in January 2013. Below, Citygate presents a sample four -month schedule. Sample Project Schedule Months from Start of Project Month Month Mnnth3 Month a q Month10 r Tasks 1. Initiate and Manage the Project 2. Communicate with and Involve Internal Stakeholders 3. Communicate with and Involve External Stakeholders 4. Initial Operational and Process Review 5. In -depth Operational Analysis 6. Present Draft Findings and Recommendations; Draft Report 7. Prepare & Present Final Report 8. Six -Month Implementation Follow -up Section 2 —Work Program page 24 2.4 STAFF HOURS *The hourly fees for Bruce McClendon and administration in Task 8 will be provided at no additional cost to the City. The City will be charged only the reimbursable travel costs associated with Bruce McClendon's on -site visit. * *Of the hours shown for Bruce McClendon in Tasks 1 -7, 40 of those hours will not be charged to the City. 2.5 SERVICES OR DATA REQUIRED FROM CITY SexYt�BS Ur [lata t© be provrded by tote Cad We assume the City support staff will assist with obtaining documents (sub -task 1.4), scheduling interviews, obtaining necessary contact addresses, and providing office space for on -site meetings. Citygate will require the assistance of City staff to schedule focus groups (sub -tasks 3.2 and 6.1) in coordination with planned on -site trips and to generate address lists and prepare and mail letters of invitation to randomly selected applicants and stakeholders. We would also require the assistance of the City with both the employee and customer surveys (sub -tasks 2.3 and 3.2), in providing email addresses and developing and mailing invitation letters /postcards and other survey- related materials that may be necessary to encourage survey participation (for customer survey). 2.6 OTHER INFORMATION qty otheratrttaaunt that wnu7rasstst r_ln mtt�rizg thrs contwrrct ntY�rrtt[ecture We invite to you learn more about Citygate Associates by viewing our website at www.citygateassociates.com. This web page offers a list of former clients in addition to a description of our services, links to publications, video clips of our Final Report presentations to elected officials (including two community development presentations), as well as several Cornerstone articles authored by Jay Corey which further demonstrate our experience and familiarity with community development. Section 2 —Work Program page 25 6 3.1 PROJECT COST Our charges are based on actual time spent by our consultants at their established billing rates, plus reimbursable expenses incurred in conjunction with travel, printing, clerical, and support services related to the engagement. For this study, we are proposing a "not -to- exceed" total cost based on our core Work Plan and scope of work as follows: The City may find that our proposed Work Plan consists of tasks that are not desired. Citygate will work with the City to achieve desired levels of service within a fixed budget. 3.1.1 Cost Parameters The price quoted above is effective for 60 days and includes one (1) draft cycle as described in Task 6 of our Work Plan. The Draft Report will be delivered to the City in electronic format for review and comment. The City will have two (2) weeks after receipt of the draft to review and suggest changes for the Final Report. When changes are agreed upon, Citygate will provide up to ten (10) bound copies of the Final Report document, an unbound original copy, and a reproducible master copy on CD. The Draft Report will be considered to be the Final Report if there are no suggested changes within thirty (30) days of the delivery of the Draft Report. If the City decides to delay the final presentation in Task 7 after acceptance of the final work product, Citygate will accommodate such a request, but will charge two administrative hours per month to keep the project in suspense until the presentation is delivered. If this causes the billing to exceed the contracted amount, the City will be billed for the additional hours above the contracted amount. Our budget includes up to the following number of on -site trips: Bruce McClendon (3 trips for seven consulting days on- site); Jay Corey (four trips for seven consulting days on- site); Keith Clarke (one trip for two consulting days on- site); Dave DeRoos (two trips for three consulting days on- site). Section 3— Compensation page 26 A I 1w asw:rr.:; 3.2 STANDARD HOURLY BILLING RATES Hourly rates to be charged are as follows: 3.3 TASK COST F�'�r�,�s`ed e�1�+tr�%¢n kn��r�,ncrrz"sch��"It��� tb �crorrr�3rsFiing�iey ws�CS . . Per the City's requirements, shown below is the estimated cost per task, inclusive of hourly fees, reimbursable expenses, and a five percent administration charge. Our proposed billing schedule is presented immediately following the table. It is our policy to bill monthly for professional fees, which will include a five percent (5 %) administration charge in lieu of individual charges for copies, phone, etc. Our invoices are payable within thirty (30) days. Citygate's billing terms are net thirty (30) days plus two percent (2 %) for day thirty-one (3 1) and two percent (2 %) per month thereafter. We request that twenty percent (20 %) of the project cost be advanced at the execution of the contract, to be used to offset our start-up costs. This advance would be credited to our last invoice. Section 3— Compensation page 27 ,. 1. " Initiate and Manage the Project $11,005 2. Communicate with and Involve Internal Stakeholders $8,018 3. Communicate with and Involve External Stakeholders $4,368 4. Initial Operational and Process Review $3,215 5. In -depth Operational Analysis $7,854 6. Present Draft Findings and Recommendations; Draft Report $10,425 7. Prepare and Present Final Report $5,015 8. Six -Month Implementation Follow -up $0 Work Plan Total., $49,900 It is our policy to bill monthly for professional fees, which will include a five percent (5 %) administration charge in lieu of individual charges for copies, phone, etc. Our invoices are payable within thirty (30) days. Citygate's billing terms are net thirty (30) days plus two percent (2 %) for day thirty-one (3 1) and two percent (2 %) per month thereafter. We request that twenty percent (20 %) of the project cost be advanced at the execution of the contract, to be used to offset our start-up costs. This advance would be credited to our last invoice. Section 3— Compensation page 27 Mr. McClendon has been a part-time consultant with Citygate since the mid 1990s. He was the Planning Director for Los Angeles County, California from 2006 to 2009. Previously, Bruce served at the director level in Orange (Orlando) and Hillsborough (Tampa) counties in Florida. Additionally, he has served as the director of planning for the following cities in Texas: Galveston, Beaumont, Arlington, and Forth Worth. Bruce has a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Missouri and a Master of Regional and City Planning (Emphasis on Economic Development) from the University of Oklahoma. Bruce has served two terms as the elected national President of the American Planning Association and is a charter member and fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Bruce is an accomplished author with over one hundred articles currently in print in over fifty different publications. His book on Customer Service in Local Government is the definitive book on the subject, and his newest book, CustomerService.gov is due to be published in the spring of 2013. Bruce has worked with Citygate on a number of community development consulting engagements including Sacramento County and San Diego County, as well as jointly presenting "Performance Auditing of Community Development Departments" at an APA conference. Relevant Experience Includes: ♦ Served as Project Director for Citygate's organizational and functional analysis of the Department of Planning and Land Use and associated land development services for San Diego County. ♦ Served as Project Director for Citygate's performance audit of the Planning and Environmental Review and Assessment departments for the County of Sacramento, CA. ♦ Served as the Project Director for a management review of the Community Development Department for the City of San Clemente. ♦ Served as Project Consultant for Citygate's performance audit of the City of Ogden, Utah's Community Development Department. Served as Lead Consultant for Citygate's performance audit of the Community Development Department for Clark County, Washington. Los Angeles County, CA — Director of Planning (2006 -2009) ♦ Mr. McClendon was responsible for planning and directing all operations of the County's Department of Regional Planning. Hillsborough County (Tampa) FL — Director of Planning and Growth Management (2003 -2006) Mr. McClendon was responsible for managing the following divisions: Building Services; Planning and Zoning Services; Administrative Services; and Transportation and Land Development Review. Orange County (Orlando), FA — Director of Growth Management (1992 -2003) Mr. McClendon was responsible for directing the performance of the divisions of Planning, Zoning, Building, and Housing and Community Development.. Other Related Experience Mr. McClendon has had over one hundred articles published in various planning and public administration publications and written and edited five books including Customer Service in Local Government, Planners on Planning, Mastering Change and Revolutionary Ideas in Planning. His newest book, CustomerService.gov, will be published in the spring of 2013. Attachment A— Project Team Resumes page 28 CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC JAY M. COREY, MPA Mr. Corey is a Principal with Citygate Associates. He has served at the senior executive level in cities for over 30 years. Mr. Corey specializes in customer service delivery, organizational structure and staffing issues, financial stabilization plans, municipal wealth creation, and performance management. He began his association with Citygate in 1999, taking leave in 2002 to be of service to the City of Richmond as Assistant City Manager, Acting Finance Director and Interim City Manager. He has had oversight responsibility for all municipal functions, including Community Development, Public Works, City Clerk, Finance, Recreation and Community Services, and City Manager's Office. As such, Jay has had leadership responsibility for day -to -day management and operations, project management, budgeting, scheduling, work load balancing, costing, contracting out, coordination with private sector and internal department /customers, and delivery of complex infrastructure projects. Mr. Corey holds a Master's degree in public administration (MPA) from the University of Southern California. He received his undergraduate education from the University of California, Davis, with a Bachelor's degree in political science. Mr. Corey has successfully served as a Citygate lead consultant on Community Development/Planning/Building studies for client agencies serving populations ranging from 200,000 to 4 million, including Sacramento and San Diego Counties, Modesto, CA and Salt Lake City, UT. Related Experience Includes: Mr. Corey has served as Project Manager or Lead Consultant for the following studies: ♦ San Diego County, CA – Organizational Analysis of the Dept. of Planning and Land Use ♦ Salt Lake City, UT – Planning Process Analysis and Other Management Audits ♦ Sacramento County, CA – Performance Audit of the Planning and Environmental Review and Assessment departments ♦ Modesto, CA – Performance Review of the Community Development Department and Redevelopment and Economic Development technical assistance services ♦ Clark County, WA – Performance Audit of the Community Development Department, and Permit Counter Study ♦ Jackson County, OR – Performance Audit of the Development Permitting Process ♦ San Clemente, CA – Management Review of Community Development Department ♦ Pittsburg, CA – Efficiency Review of Development Permitting Programs Los Altos, CA – Performance Review of the Community Development Department Beaverton, OR Business Process Audit and Re- Engineering of the Development Services and Building Inspection Services. Other Professional Experience ♦ Served as team leader in developing an award winning, comprehensive five -year capital improvement program (CIP) for the fastest growing city in California (Brentwood). ♦ Served as team leader for development of five -year capital and operating plans for municipal water, wastewater, and solid waste operations. ♦ Assembled and led the team of experts that developed the City of Richmond (CA) Financial Recovery Plan which set the course for the City's financial recovery. ♦ Developed a Three -year Extraordinary Financial Plan for a municipality (Fontana, CA) that was facing a $13.9 million operating deficit in its $44 million general fund. Attachment A— Project Team Resumes page 29 CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC KEITH M. CLARKE, CBO Mr. Clarke has over thirty years of experience in Building Department administration. Mr. Clarke retired on March 31, 2009 as the Building Department Director for the City of Corona, after serving that city for over 27 years. Since his retirement, Mr. Clarke has been the Building Official for the City of Norco, City of Costa Mesa and the City of Eastvale. Mr. Clarke is a Certified Building Official and was an instructor for California Building Officials (Calbo) for 10 years where he also served on the Board of Directors from 2005 to 2009. Mr. Clarke is currently a code instructor for the Orange Empire chapter of the International Code Council (ICC). Mr. Clarke earned an A.S. Degree in Engineering from Cypress College and studied Civil Engineering for 1.5 years at UCLA and 1.5 years at California State University at Long Beach. In 2004, Mr. Clarke received the Buildins Official of the Year Award. In 2003, his department received the Building Department of the Year Award and in 2009 he received the Hall of Fame Award from the Calbo organization. Related Experience Includes: City of Costa Mesa, California — Building Official (June 2011— Present) ♦ Mr. Clarke was responsible for the administration of the Building Division and the Code Enforcement Division. These divisions had a combined operating budget of approximately $2 million and had 20 employees. Mr. Clarke's duties included budget preparation, training, updating related technology, resolving code enforcement complaints and managing the plan check and inspection sections. City of La Habra Heights, California — Project Manager (June 1, 2009 — Nov. 10, 2010) ♦ Mr. Clarke was responsible for preparing the Request for Proposal (RFP), selecting the General Contractor and Managing the construction of a new Fire Station. The project was completed 2 months before the deadline and was constructed approximately $20,000 under budget. City of Norco, California — Building Official (April 1, 2009 — December 22, 1012) ♦ Mr. Clarke was responsible for the administration of the Building Division. This division had an operating budget of approximately $250,000. Mr. Clarke's duties included budget preparation, training, updating related technology, resolving code enforcement complaints and managing the plan check and inspection sections. City of Corona, California — Building Off cial /Building Dept. Director (Feb. 1982 —April 16, 2009) ♦ Mr. Clarke was responsible for the administration of the Building Department, Code Enforcement Division and Park Ranger Division. These divisions had a combined operating budget of approximately $3 million and had 32 employees. Mr. Clarke's duties included budget preparation, training, updating related technology, resolving code enforcement complaints and managing the plan check and inspection sections. Mr. Clarke also managed the Park Ranger section which was responsible for the patrol and enforcement of 22 City Parks. Attachment A— Project Team Resumes page 30 CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC DAVID C. DERoos, MPA, CMC Mr. DeRoos is the President of Citygate Associates, LLC and former Deputy Director of the California Redevelopment Association. He earned his undergraduate degree in Political Science/Public Service (Phi Beta Kappa) from the University of California, Davis and holds a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Southern California. Mr. DeRoos has over five years of operational experience as a local government administrator in land use planning, budgeting, and personnel, and nearly 30 years of consulting experience performing operations and management reviews of local government functions. Prior to joining Citygate in 1991, he was a Senior Manager in the State and Local government consulting division of Ernst & Young. Relevant Experience Includes: Mr. DeRoos has served as Project Director or in an oversight capacity for the following studies: ♦ San Diego County, CA – Organizational Analysis of the Dept. of Planning and Land Use; Follow -up Study for Implementation Support ♦ Salt Lake City, UT – Planning Process Analysis and Other Management Audits ♦ Sacramento County, CA – Performance Audit of the Planning and Environmental Review and Assessment Departments ♦ San Luis Obispo, CA – Fire Department Master Plan ♦ Modesto, CA – Performance Review of the Community Development Department and Redevelopment and Economic Development Technical Assistance Services ♦ City of Atwater, CA – Organizational Assessment of Community Development Department ♦ City of Carlsbad, CA – Development Review Process Performance Audit ♦ City of Vista, CA – Development Review Process Performance Audit ♦ City of Dana Point, CA – Management Review of the Planning, Building, and Public Works Counter Operations ♦ City of Corona, CA – Eight General Management and Operations Studies for the City's Building and Planning Departments and other City departments Clark County, WA – Performance Audit of the Community Development Department, and Permit Counter Study ♦ Jackson County, OR – Performance Audit of the Development Permitting Process ♦ San Clemente, CA – Management Review of Community Development Department ♦ Pittsburg, CA – Efficiency Review of Development Permitting Programs ♦ Beaverton, OR – Business Process Audit and Re- Engineering of the Development Services and Building Inspection Services ♦ Calaveras County, CA – Performance Review of Planning and Building Departments ♦ City of Ogden, UT – Eight General Management and Operations Studies for the City's Community Development Department and other City departments. Mr. DeRoos is a member of several professional and civic associations. He has taught for the U.C. Davis Extension College and for graduate classes in Public Administration, Administrative Theory and Labor Relations for Golden Gate University, and Non Profit and Association Management for the University of Southern California. He speaks and trains frequently on the topic of Leadership, Character and Values, and has also been a speaker for the American Planning Association (APA), written for the California APA Newsletter and the California Redevelopment Journal, and has been a speaker on redevelopment, Base Closures, and related issues across the US. Mr. DeRoos holds a certificate in Public Sector Labor Management Relations from U.C. Davis, and is a Certified Management Consultant (CMC). Attachment A— Project Team Resumes page 31 The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91179, which is hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full: PROPOSAL ITEM: Organizational Assessment of the Community Development Department Total Base Price $49,900 Sales tax @ 7.75% Other (provide detail below TOTAL $ 49,900 0 Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company's A.M. Best rating: Firth Name and Address Citygate Associates LLC 2250 East Bidwell Street, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Contact David C.DeRoos Phone (916) 458 -5100 Date 10 ) I / )L -20- REFERENCES Customer Name County of San Diego Contact Individual Sarah Aghassi, General Manager, Deputy CAO Telephone & FAX number (619) 531 -6256; Fax: (619) 531 -5476 Street Address 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 212 City, State, Zip Code San Diego, CA 92101 -2422 Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Organizational Analysis of Department of Planning and Land Use; Assistance to Development Review Process; Contract amount for initial DPLU Organizational Analysis: $300,222 from 01/2008 to 09/2008* Reference No. 2 Customer Name Salt Lake City, UT Contact Individual Cindy Gust - Jensen, Office of City Council Telephone & FAX number (801) 535 -6209; Fax: (801) 535 -7651 Street Address 451 S, State St., Room 304 City, State, Zip Code Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Planning Process Analysis and Other Management Audits. Contract amount for Planning Process study: $167,590 from 08/2007- 04/2008* Refe Yenre No 'i Customer Name City of Ogden, UT Contact Individual Bill Cook, Executive Director, City Council Telephone & FAX number (801) 629 -8153; Fax: (801) 629 -8733 Street Address 2549 Washington Blvd., Ste. 320 City, State, Zip Code Ogden, UT 84401 Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Eight Management Audits including Community Development since 1993. Contract amount for Community Development project: $39,900. -21- The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances. a Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes ❑ No a Ifyes, explain the circumstances Executed on Or i Av i Z a I Z. at Folsom cA under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. C. fLe/-L Sgignature of Authorized Bidder Representative -22- CITYGAT -01 SAHSHI ,,r C—COM Y 411% ---, CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DDNYYY) 10/112012 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Owen -Dunn Insurance Services 1455 Response Road, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95815 CONTACT NAME: PHONE FAX ac No Est: (916) 993 -2700 ac N. ]I: (916) 993 -2683 E -MAIL ADDRESS: INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# INSURERA: Sentinel Insurance Company LTD 11000 INSURED Citygate Associates, LLC David DeRoos 2250 E. Bidwell St. #100 Folsom, CA 95630 INSURER B: Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 22357 INSURERC : Landmark American Insurance Company 33138 - INSURER D: 711512013 INSURERS: BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ INSURERF: PROPERTY DAMAGE $ Per accident _COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: _ REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADD( BUBR POLICY EFF POLICY EXP Lm TYPE OF INSURANCE IN WVD POLICY NUMBER MMIDD/YYYY_ (MMIDDYYYY1 LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2,000,000 A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY �LIABILITY 57SBAAZ1255 711512012 711512013 PREMISES Ea occunence $ 300,000 CLAIMS -MADE I ^ I OCCUR MED EXP(Artyonepmsan) $ 10,000 GENERALAGGREGATE $ -- AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNEWEXECUTIVE YIN OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ (Mandatory in NH) D VesS 6Rdescnice under N OF OPERATIONS below GEM( AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: X POLICY PEA LOG 57WECEU6620 1011/2012 101112013 "- ivm umi w to E.L. EACH ACCIDENT PRODUCTS - COMPIOPAGG $ $ " —' A AUTOMOBILE _ X LIABILITY ANV AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS AUTOS HIRED AUTOS X NON -OWNED AUTOS Prof. Liab. - E&O 57SBAAZ1255 7/1512012 711512013 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ BODILY INJURY Per accident) $ ( ) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ Per accident A X UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB OCCUR CLAIMS-MADE1 57SBAAZ1255 711512612 7/1512013 EACH OCCURRENCE $ ArrRFGATP s B AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNEWEXECUTIVE YIN OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ (Mandatory in NH) D VesS 6Rdescnice under N OF OPERATIONS below NIA 57WECEU6620 1011/2012 101112013 "- ivm umi w to E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,DDD,00t E.L. DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,00( E.L. DISEASE- POLIGV LIMIT $ 1,000,00C C Prof. Liab. - E&O _ LHR817866 _ 2/14/2012 2/14/2013 Each Claim 1,000,00( DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. ©1988 -2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2010/05) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved City Administration Katie Lichtig 10/28/12 ReviewerRoutingList Reviewer Name„ ,:; `, . DafeReviewed' City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara October 24, 2012 Finance & Information Technology Charles Bourbeau October 24, 2012 October 22, 2012 FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Ryan Betz, Supervising Administrative Assistant Agreement with Citygate Associates, not to exceed $50,000, to prepare an SUBJECT: Organizational Assessment and Strategic Plan for the Community Development Department. RECOMMENDATION 1) As authorized by Council on September 4, 2012 sign the attached contract agreement between Citygate Associates and the City of San Luis Obispo to prepare an Organizational Assessment and Strategic Plan for the Community Development Department. 2) Authorize the use of $12,500 from General Carryover funds to pay for the difference between the $37,500 allocated in the 2011 -13 financial plan for the assessment and the project's budget of $50,000 approved by the City Council on September 4, 2012, DISCUSSION Background On September 4, 2012, the City Council approved the issuance of a Request For Proposal (RFP) work scope for consulting services to prepare an organizational assessment and related strategic plan for the Community Development Department. In addition, Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to a qualified consulting firm for consultant services provided the proposal was within the budgeted amount of $50,000. Process Availability of the RFP was advertised through several channels. In addition to the typical advertisement in the Tribune and posting on the City's web site, staff provided email notification of RFP availability to thirteen firms who had previously expressed interest along with email Community Development Organizational Assessment Contract Page 2 notification to a consultant network group that distributes information to a wide group of qualified firms. Eight proposals were received by the October I" deadline. The following is a summary of the firm proposals and associated costs. LEAD FIRM Citygate Associates, LLC $49,900 Management Partners $49,990 Matrix Consulting $46,000 Moss Adams, LLP $39,270 The Novak Consulting Group $82,500 Performance Consulting $44,160 Performance Works $92,000 Zucker Systems $50,000 An internal cross - departmental team screened the proposals to determine which firm to invite to a subsequent interview. After careful consideration of the written proposals, a cross departmental team determined that three firms would be invited for interviews. These firms were 1) Zucker Systems, 2) Management Partners, and 3) Citygate Associates. The interview team included staff from the Community Development, Utilities, and Human Resources departments and a community member. At the interview, each firm was afforded an opportunity to highlight their proposed project approach, team qualifications, and respond to questions. Each firm was rated on the following: a. Understanding of the work required by the City. b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the work required by the City. d. Recent team experience in successfully performing similar services. C. Proposed approach in completing the work. f. References g. Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project. h. Intangible Factors Each firm was requested to provide references that included three current and three recently completed projects. At the conclusion of the interviews, the City interview team discussed each of the firms' proposed project approach, qualifications, and response to the interview questions. Staff contacted references for each firm to gauge the consultants' performance; project management skills; and to discuss both community and agency satisfaction with the firm's performance. The project manager has requested copies of team members' respective rating sheets to retain on file. Community Development Organizational Assessment Contract Page 3 Recommendation Based upon the internal cross - departmental interview team's recommendation and response to references, staff is recommending the City Manager sign a contract with Citygate Associates. Citygate Associates is based in Folsom with a satellite office in Washington. The firm has twenty-two years of experience providing organizational assessments and improvement services for public sector agencies. The firm has conducted over 300 consulting reviews for over 245 government agencies primarily in the West, specializing in the assessment of planning, building, code compliance, and development review permitting processes. They have done previous work for the City of San Luis Obispo and have demonstrated competence and sensitivity while working with departments, stakeholders and elected officials. FISCAL IMPACT The contract has been reviewed to ensure that the costs ($49,900) are within the amount authorized by Council. The attached agreement is required in order to begin work with the firm. If the agreement is not endorsed, staff will be unable to proceed with the organizational assessment and strategic plan for the Community Development Department. Though the total cost of the project is $49,900 there will be no adverse impact on the budget because the Department is requesting use of $12,500 in General Carryover funds from the 2011 -12 budget. There is $70,900 in general carryover funds from the Department's 2011 -2012 fiscal year. Fiscal Impact Summary Costs Current Proposed Change Consultant Services (40100 -7227) 50,000 50,000 Total 50,000 50,000 Funding By Current Proposed Change Contract Services (Administration) 37,500 37,500 General Carryover (CDD) 12,500 12,500 Total - 50,000 50,000 Community Development Organizational Assessment Contract Page 4 ALTERNATIVES The City Manager could choose to deny or defer the agreement to conduct an Organizational Assessment and Strategic Plan for the Community Development Department. Staff does not recommend this alternative as this activity was requested by the Council to assess City Departments and provide recommendations to determine if the delivery of services is being done as effectively and efficiently as possible. In addition, the organizational assessment will support strategies identified in the Economic Development Strategic Plan to reduce barriers for job creation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Contract agreement with Citygate Associates including work scope 2. Budget Amendment Request TACity Manager Reports \Community Development\2012\CDD Assessment - Consultant Agreement.docx