HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2013 c2 rfp impact fee structure study sessioncounci lacjenba aepont
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :
Michael Codron, Assistant City Manage r
Prepared By :Claire Clark, Economic Development Manage r
SUBJECT :ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION :
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING ANALYSI S
RECOMMENDATIO N
1.Authorize the issuance of a Request For Proposal (RFP) for consulting services to undertak e
an infrastructure financing analysis, to include a series of study sessions with the Cit y
Council on available financing options and the City's current impact fee program ; and
2.Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement of up to $60,000 designated fo r
appropriation from the 2012-13 budget to perform the study .
DISCUSSIO N
Backgroun d
• The 2011-13 Major City Goal for Economic Development seeks to "Increase focus on economi c
development . Support creation of head-of-household jobs through developing strategies fo r
infrastructure, focusing on promising growth sectors, and expediting desired economic activity ."
The work program includes direction to "develop an infrastructure phasing and financing strategy i n
the expansion areas to support growth sectors and businesses that create head of household jobs ."
Since setting this goal, the Council adopted the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP)
which sets forth several strategies for addressing barriers to job creation including key strategie s
that begin to peel back the layers associated with infrastructure costs, fees, standards and financin g
strategies . Implementation of these strategies must be considered in the context of state law
governing how development impact fees may be imposed and requiring certain studies ("nexu s
studies") and reports to support the calculation and imposition of such fees on new development t o
defray infrastructure costs (the governing statutes are commonly referred to as "AB 1600" or th e
"Mitigation Fee Act").
This RFP addresses the three EDSP Strategies set forth below and lays the groundwork for future
investigation of infrastructure needs, costs and allocations related to job creation in the City .
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the study sessions is to provide Council and the community with an opportunity t o
better understand the relationship between the City's infrastructure financing tools, in particular it s
impact fee program, as it relates to delivery of infrastructure needed to support policy an d
regulatory requirements . The EDSP Strategies addressed by this consultant work will be :
Meeting Date4-16-201 3
C 2
•
C2-1
Infrastructure Financing Analysis Page 2
Strategy 1 .4 : Ensure that the fair-share structure includes appropriate percentages for each party •
bearing a portion of the infrastructure costs . New development shall be responsibl e
for City infrastructure costs only to the extent there is a nexus between the costs an d
project impacts . Utilize a consultant to lead a series of study sessions with the Cit y
Council on the City's impact fee structure, guided by existing policies and option s
for the City to consider related to how impact fees are determined, calculated, an d
applied .
Strategy 1 .5 : Incentivize the creation of head-of-household jobs through use of the followin g
tools :
b.Explore financing strategies for infrastructure that address timing and/or th e
cost burden of infrastructure, including development agreements ,
reimbursement agreements, infrastructure financing districts, busines s
improvement districts, the property-based financing mechanisms identified i n
the City's specific plans, and the City's existing program for financing fees .
c.Evaluate existing infrastructure impact fees applied in the City and determine i f
City policy supports increased cost sharing for projects that provide City-wid e
benefits . Where appropriate, conduct an economic benefit analysis as part o f
development review to identify potential economic benefits .
Strategy 1 .6 : Monitor changes in State infrastructure finance law that increase financing options as •
a way to fund new investments in infrastructure (new bills are being introduced i n
response to the elimination of redevelopment agencies).
The consultant will lead a series of study sessions with the Council on the infrastructure financin g
options available to the City, including discussion of the City's current impact fee structure . Th e
study sessions should develop an understanding among staff, the City Council and the communit y
about whether or not the current impact fee program can be expected to deliver the infrastructur e
required for build-out of the General Plan, in the context of existing City policy and applicable stat e
law .
The analysis will be guided by existing City policies and service levels . It should identify policy
options and alternatives for the City Council to consider regarding how impact fees are determine d
and collected in the future . It is important to understand that the City is currently updating the Lan d
Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan and that a new AB1600 nexus study will b e
conducted in 2015 based on the infrastructure projects identified as part of the LUCE Update . The
proposed consultant work will help inform staff, the City Council and the community about th e
options and alternatives available for financing important infrastructure projects in anticipation o f
this fee program update .
Central to this discussion is a review of alternative financing mechanisms not currently used by the
City such as Mello-Roos, other types of Community Financing Districts, infrastructure bank loans ,
voluntary improvement programs, and any new ways to fund investment in infrastructure which are
currently supported by policy but not implemented in the City .
•
C2-2
Infrastructure Financing Analysis Page 3
•The study will answer questions such as :
•How are the City's development impact fees calculated and allocated to new development ?
•Do stakeholders understand the purpose and proportionality of the fees ?
•How does the City's framework for development impact fees compare with other jurisdictions ?
•Are development impact fees designed to enable the City to meet required infrastructure needs ?
In other words, is it realistic to assume that the City's development impact fee program wil l
deliver the infrastructure needed to serve build-out of the City ?
•Are there new financing mechanisms available to the City following the elimination o f
redevelopment that should be considered for the purpose of delivering important infrastructur e
as part of build-out ?
Other outcomes include :
•Enhancing awareness and understanding of existing infrastructure financing tools to mitigate th e
costs of infrastructure improvements .
•Providing better community-wide understanding about the City's infrastructure fee program s
and allocation of costs .
•Identify ways to measure the extent to which infrastructure costs inhibit job growth in the City's
key expansion areas .
CONCURRENCE S
Community Development, City Attorney, Public Works and Utilities all concur that this RFP wil l
result in a body of work that provides the basis for decisions critical to the LUCE Update and fee -
related policy choices .
FISCAL IMPAC T
Funding in the amount of $60,000 was allocated in the 2011-2013 financial plan for this study .
Pro'ect Schedul e
May 14, 2013 Receive Proposals
June 28, 201 3
August - September Study Sessions Consultant/Admin
201 3
•
C2-3
Infrastructure Financing Analysis Page 4
ALTERNATIVE S
The City Council could choose to deny moving forward or defer the Infrastructure Financing Study .
Staff does not recommend this alternative as this activity was requested by the Council as a part o f
the Economic Development Strategic Plan strategy to reduce barriers to job creation, and as part o f
funding for the Major City Goal in Economic Development in the 2011-13 Financial Plan .
ATTACHMEN T
1 . Request for Proposal for Infrastructure Financing Analysi s
a ~c<err !
\\cM1Slae4\Team\COUntlI Apentla Reooris\2013\2 013-04-16\RFP Impact Fee SVUtlure Study Section ICotlmn-CIaMI
•
•
•
C2-4
Attachment IIMPSCltyof
•san Luis ornsp o
990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
Notice Requesting Proposals fo r
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING ANALYSI S
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for an Infrastructure Financing Analysi s
pursuant to Specification No. 91188 . All proposals must be received by the Finance Division by 2 :0 0
p .m . on Tuesday,May 7,2013 when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers ,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 .
Proposals received after said time will not be considered . To ensure that there is fair and objectiv e
evaluation of each proposal, proposals shall be submitted to the Finance Division in a sealed envelop e
plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and time and date of th e
proposal opening . Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package .
• A pre-proposal conference will be held in the Council Hearing Room at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obisp o
at 9 :00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 to answer any questions that the prospective proposers may hav e
regarding the City's request for proposals .
Additional information may be obtained by contacting Claire Clark at cclark(1l slocity .org or
(805) 781-7164 .
•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 .
C2-5
Attachment 1
A .
B .
C .
Description of Wor k
General Terms and Condition s
Proposal Requirement s
Contract Award and Executio n
Contract Performance
Special Terms and Condition s
Proposal Content
Proposal Evaluation and Selectio n
Proposal Review and Award Schedul e
Pre-Proposal Conferenc e
Required Deliverable Product s
Accuracy of Specifications
1
5
9
D.Agreement 1 3
E .Insurance Requirements 1 5
F .Proposal Submittal Forms
Proposal Submittal For m
References
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
1 7
G .Exhibit 1 – City of San Luis Obispo Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees 20 •
S . ecification No . 9118 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS •
•
C2-6
Attachment 1
Section A
•SCOPE OF WOR K
SCOPE OF WOR K
The City of San Luis Obispo is seeking a consultant to review and analyze the City's variou s
impact fees and conduct a series of study sessions with the City Council to establish th e
relationship between the City's impact fee structure, as it relates to the delivery of infrastructure ,
and existing policy and regulatory requirements . The work will be guided by existing Cit y
policies and will review how impact fees are determined, calculated and applied throughout th e
City . This effort represents implementation of Strategy 1 .4, 1 .5 (b) and (c) and 1 .6 of the City's
recently adopted five-year Economic Development Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND
In 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP )
in response to City Council direction . The Plan was the first step in achieving the Council's
2011-2013 Major City Goal to "increase the focus on economic development and suppor t
creation of head-of-household jobs through strategies for infrastructure development, focusin g
on promising growth sectors, and expediting desired economic activity."
The primary focus of the EDSP is creating a system that supports and sustains industrie s
generating head-of-household jobs . It provides a prioritized list of clear, measurable strategie s
aimed at fostering the conditions, relationships and resources that enable and encourage the
•private sector to create well-paid, career-oriented jobs on a consistent basis .
Through the EDSP project, major barriers to job creation in San Luis Obispo were identifie d
including the development review process and the need for backbone infrastructure in th e
expansion areas of the City l . The interplay between available land for business expansion, an d
the infrastructure requirements associated with such expansion, means that infrastructure play s
an important role for job creation in the City .
Key findings from the EDSP include :
•Within the City's expansion areas, there are limited "shovel ready" sites for new constructio n
due to the scale and cost of required public infrastructure .
•Key opportunity sites need to be subdivided and/or lack infrastructure . These constraints ad d
to the time and complexity to bring projects online .
•There are limited built office and business park space large enough to accommodate th e
expansion of some companies currently in the City and companies looking to relocate to th e
area .
•The City has done a good job of identifying the infrastructure needed to suppor t
development. It has, in addition, developed a fee program to pay for infrastructure so tha t
new development pays its share of the costs per the City's General Plan policies .2 However,
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP); Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP); Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP )
•2 General Plan Policy 1 .13 Costs of Growth . The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall b e
borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtai n
]_C2-7
Attachment 1
the burden of installing this infrastructure often falls on private development and in mos t
cases new development is looked to as a means of building more infrastructure than i s
needed to serve that particular project . The ability of private development to be the "bank "
for new City infrastructure is limited by tighter lending policies as a result of the recent
recession .
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE S
The City of San Luis Obispo currently imposes the following citywide development impact fee s
and in-lieu fees on a case-by-case basis : transportation, water, wastewater, affordable housing ,
public art, park in-lieu, open space in-lieu, and parking in-lieu . Additionally, there are add-o n
transportation impact fees imposed in areas of the City as identified on the fee program maps .
Transportation impact fee schedules and maps can be found online at Transportation Impact Fee s
and Fee Maps .Links to information on other fee programs can be found here .
Within the community there may be a lack of understanding regarding the purpose o f
development impact fees . In the case of the City's water and wastewater utilities, the fees may b e
more accurately identified as connection and capacity fees .
In addition to these city impact fees, there are other governmental fees that apply to project s
within the City that can impact the financial feasibility of projects . One example would be fee s
assessed by the Air Pollution Control District to mitigate project related air-quality impacts .
Successful completion of the project will include an assessment of other governmental fees tha t
apply to projects within the City .
PROJECT SCOP E
The first category of priorities stemming from the EDSP is "Strategies to Break Down Barrier s
to Job Creation ." These strategies identify actions/commitments that will improve the economi c
climate by being more responsive to business and bringing more certainty to the permittin g
process and City fees . This analysis addresses the following EDSP strategies :
Strategy 1 .4 : Ensure that the fair-share structure includes appropriate percentages for each part y
bearing a portion of the infrastructure costs . New development shall b e
responsible for City infrastructure costs only to the extent there is a nexu s
between the costs and project impacts . Utilize a consultant to lead a series o f
study sessions with the City Council on the City's impact fee structure guided b y
existing policies and options for the City to consider related to how impact fee s
are determined, calculated, and applied .
Strategy 1 .5 : Incentivize the creation of head-of-household jobs through use of the followin g
tools :
b .
Explore financing strategies for infrastructure that address timing and/or th e
cost burden of infrastructure, including development agreements ,
reimbursement agreements, infrastructure financing districts, busines s
community-wide benefits . The City will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new
development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it .
•
•
•
-2-
C2-8
Attachment 1
improvement districts, the property-based financing mechanisms identifie d
in the City's specific plans, and the City's existing program for financin g
fees .
c .Evaluate existing infrastructure impact fees applied in the City an d
determine if City policy supports increased cost sharing for projects tha t
provide City-wide benefits . Where appropriate, conduct an economic benefi t
analysis as part of development review to identify potential economi c
benefits .
Strategy 1 .6 : Monitor changes in State infrastructure finance law that increase financin g
options as a way to fund new investments in infrastructure (new bills are bein g
introduced in response to the elimination of redevelopment agencies).
One component of this strategy is a comprehensive explanation of the infrastructure financin g
methods available to the City. The consultant will lead a series of study sessions with th e
Council on the infrastructure financing options available to the City, including discussion of th e
City's impact fee structure . The study sessions should develop an understanding among staff, th e
City Council and the community about whether or not the current impact fee program can b e
expected to deliver the infrastructure required for build-out of the General Plan, in the context o f
existing City policy and applicable state law .
The analysis will be guided by existing City policies and service levels . It should identify polic y
options and alternatives for the City Council to consider regarding how impact fees ar e
• determined and collected . It is important to understand that the City is currently updating th e
Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan and that a new AB 1600 nexus study wil l
be conducted in 2015 based on the infrastructure projects identified as part of the LUCE Update .
The proposed consultant work will help inform staff, the City Council and the community abou t
the options and alternatives available for financing important infrastructure projects i n
anticipation of this fee program update .
Central to this discussion is a review of alternative financing mechanisms not currently used b y
the City such as Mello-Roos, other types of Community Financing Districts, infrastructure ban k
loans, voluntary improvement programs, and any new ways to fund investment in infrastructur e
which are currently supported by policy but not implemented in the City .
The analysis will answer questions such as :
1.How are the City's development impact fees calculated and allocated to new development ?
2.Do stakeholders understand the purpose and proportionality of the fees ?
3.How does the City's framework for development impact fees compare with othe r
jurisdictions ?
4.Are development impact fees designed to enable the City to meet required infrastructur e
needs? In other words, is it realistic to assume that the City's development impact fe e
program will deliver the infrastructure needed to serve build-out of the City ?
5.Are there new financing mechanisms available to the City following the elimination o f
redevelopment that should be considered for the purpose of delivering importan t
•infrastructure as part of build-out ?
Other outcomes include :
•
C2-9
Attachment 1
•Enhancing awareness and understanding of existing infrastructure financing tools to mitigat e
the costs of infrastructure improvements .
•Providing better community-wide understanding about the City's infrastructure fee program s
and allocation of costs .
•Evaluation and assessment of the extent to which infrastructure costs inhibit job growth i n
the City's key expansion areas .
To convey the analysis and concepts to Council and the community, the proposed consultant
work will include a technical memorandum that answers, at a minimum, bullet number 1, 3,4
and 5, above . The memorandum will precede a minimum of three study sessions, approximatel y
one with the Planning Commission and two with City Council . In preparation for these study
sessions, the Consultant will meet with staff to review the analysis, prepare for presentations and
discuss findings, as necessary .
SUPPORTING DAT A
•City of San Luis Obispo Economic Development Strategic Plan (2012 )
•City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2007 )
•Land Use and Circulation Element Update to General Plan (in progress)
•Margarita Area Specific Plan Reimbursement, Fiscal, and Economic Analysis (2012 )
•Margarita Area Specific Plan (2004)
•Orcutt Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan (2008 )
•Orcutt Area Specific Plan (2010)
•Airport Area Specific Plan (2005 )
CONSTRAINT S
The time to complete this project is limited. Completion is expected in the first quarter of Fisca l
Year 2013-14 . Total project budget is limited to $60,000 .
1 .Proposal Review and Award Schedule . The following is an outline of the anticipated schedul e
for proposal review and contract award :
a.Issue RFP 4/1 7
b .Conduct pre-proposal conference 4/23
c .Receive proposals 5/1 4
d .Complete proposal evaluation 5/2 1
e .Conduct finalist interviews 5/29
f.Finalize staff recommendation 6/7
g .Award contract 6/2 1
h .Execute contract 6/2 8
i .Start work 7/1
j .Presentations to Planning Commission and Council 8/15 –9/30
2 .
Pre-Proposal Conference . A pre-proposal conference will be held at the following location ,
date, and time to answer any questions that prospective bidders may have regarding this RFP :
Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 10 :00 a .m.
Council Hearing Roo m
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
•
•
•
C2-1 0
•
•
•
Attachment 1
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITION S
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENT S
1 .Requirement to Meet All Provisions .Each individual or firm submitting a proposal shall mee t
all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package . By
virtue of its proposal submittal, the bidder acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of al l
provisions of the RFP specifications .
2 .Proposal Submittal .Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in th e
specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials .
Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the
Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 .
In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with th e
proposal title, specification number, name of bidder, and date and time of proposal opening . 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 insuranc e
coverage during proposal evaluation ; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements ar e
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 quantitie s
indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the bidder must be entered in figures in the space s
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 amoun t
stated by any bidder for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered a s
representing the bidder's intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to th e
specified unit price .
5 .Proposal Withdrawal and Opening .A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without prejudic e
prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to th e
Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to th e
proposer unopened . No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than tha t
stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered . All proposals will be opened an d
declared publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening o f
the proposals.
6 .Submittal of One Proposal Only .No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowe d
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 bidder submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such bidder ,
is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other bidder s
submitting proposals .
C2-11
Attachment 1
7.Cooperative Purchasing .During the term of the contract, the successful bidder will extend al l
terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request . Thes e
agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their plac e
of business and will be directly billed by the successful bidder .
8.Communications .All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a writte n
response from the City . Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but wil l
be permitted . However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City .
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTIO N
9.Proposal Retention and Award . The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a perio d
of 60 days for examination and comparison . The City also reserves the right to waiv e
non-substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete on e
part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified b y
specific limitations . See the "special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specification s
for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria .
10.Competency and Responsibility of Bidder .The City reserves full discretion to determine th e
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of bidders . Bidders will
provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a
decision.
11.Contract Requirement.The bidder to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a writte n
contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent b y
mail to it at the address given in its proposal . The contract shall be made in the form adopted b y
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) calenda r
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 certificat e
before execution of the contract . Additional information regarding the City's business ta x
program maybe obtained by calling (805) 781-7134 .
CONTRACT PERFORMANC E
14.Ability to Perform .The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged throug h
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry ou t
and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, an d
special district laws, ordinances, and regulations .
15.Laws to be Observed . The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe an d
comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obisp o
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 th e
Contractor is required to pay .
17.Permits and Licenses .The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges an d
fees, and give all notices necessary .
•
•
•
C2-12
Attachment 1
18.Safety Provisions .The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safet y
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 othe r
devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damag e
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 whe n
the Contractor began work .
21.Immigration Act of 1986.The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractor s
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the Unite d
States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable law s
shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder .
22.Contractor Non-Discrimination .In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that i t
will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discriminatio n
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 don e
• 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, o r
labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the tim e
of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upo n
by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extension s
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 o f
the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to th e
causes of same .
24.Payment Terms .The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoic e
and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by th e
Contractor (Net 30).
25.Inspection .The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City t o
ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with th e
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 no t
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 writte n
materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to an y
payment to Contractor .
27.Interests of Contractor.The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall no t
•acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degre e
with the performance of the work hereunder . The Contractor further covenants that, in th e
•
C2-13
Attachment 1
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 performanc e
of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor an d
not an agent or employee of the City .
28.Hold Harmless and Indemnification .The Contractor agrees to defend,indemnify,protect an d
hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and al l
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 ar e
connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of th e
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 th e
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 o f
the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individua l
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 no t
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 specifie d
in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contrac t
immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect . Thereafter, neither party shall hav e
any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, an y
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 performe d
from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice o f
Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from suc h
breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last mileston e
or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in th e
Agreement payment schedule ; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed o r
provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of th e
work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope .
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirme d
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 .
•
•
•
C2-14
Attachment I
Section C
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITION S
3 .Proposal Content .Your proposal must include the following information :
Submittal Form s
a.Proposal submittal summary .
b.Certificate of insurance.
c.Statement of past contract disqualifications .
d.References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services .
Qualifications
e.Experience of your firm in performing similar services .
f Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub -
consultants .
g.Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants .
h.Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a
project or disqualified from proposing on a project .
Work Program
Description of your approach to completing the work .
j.Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work .
k.Estimated hours for your staff in performing each major phase of the work, includin g
sub-consultants.
1 .Services or data to be provided by the City .
m.Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision .
n.An example of components of an Impact Fee Structure study .
Compensation
o.Proposed compensation and payment schedule tied to accomplishing key tasks .
Proposal Length and Copie s
Proposals should not exceed 30 pages, including attachments and supplemental materials .
Six copies of the proposal must be submitted .
4 .Proposal Evaluation and Selection .Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee base d
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 successfull y
performing the work required by the City .
d.Recent experience in successfully performing similar services .
e.Proposed approach in completing the work .
I References .
g.Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this
•project.
h.Proposed compensation .
•
P .
q.
C2-15
Attachment 1
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination o f
factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City . After evaluating the proposals an d
discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserve s
the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation .
5 .
Proposal Review and Award Schedule .The following is an outline of the anticipated schedul e
for proposal review and contract award:
a .Issue RFP 4/1 7
b .Conduct pre-proposal conference 4/2 3
c .Receive proposals 5/1 4
d .Complete proposal evaluation 5/2 1
e.Conduct finalist interviews 5/2 9
f.Finalize staff recommendation 6/7
g .Award contract 6/2 1
h .Execute contract 6/2 8
i .Start work 7/1
j .Presentations to Planning Commission and Council 8/15 — 9/30
6.
Pre-Proposal Conference .A pre-proposal conference will be held at the following location ,
date, and time to answer any questions that prospective bidders may have regarding this RFP :
Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 9 :00 a.m .
Council Hearing Roo m
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
7.Ownership of Materials . All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared b y
or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shal l
become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand .
8.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 thes e
specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual o r
organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City .
9.Copies of Reports and Information .If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings ,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish i n
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 th e
costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense .
10.
Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide :
a.Six copies of proposal addressing all elements of the workscope . City staff will revie w
any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and, where necessary, th e
Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as
deemed appropriate .
b.One camera-ready original of the technical memorandum, unbound, each page printed o n
only one side, including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready fo r
reproduction .
•
•
•
-10-
C2-1 6
Attachment 1
• c . When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part o f
the workscope, the Contractor must provide the corresponding computer files to the City ,
compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed b y
the project manager :
•Word Processing Wor d
•Spreadsheets Exce l
•Desktop Publishing CorelDraw, PageMake r
•Computer Aided Drafting (CAD)AutoCAD
Computer files must be on 3W, high-density, write-protected diskettes, formatted for us e
on IBM-compatible systems . Each diskette must be clearly labeled and have a printe d
copy of the d irectory. Alternatively, files may be emailed to the City .
11.Attendance at Meetings and Hearings .As part of the workscope and included in the contrac t
price is attendance by the Contractor at a minimum of three (3) public meetings to present an d
discuss its analysis, findings and recommendations . Contractor shall attend as many "working "
meetings with staff as necessary in performing workscope tasks .
12.Alternative Proposals .The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that i t
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 th e
alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to th e
other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may b e
expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted .
• 13 . Accuracy of RFP. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate an d
to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact . Bidders are cautioned t o
undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does no t
guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package .
In preparing its proposal, the bidder and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sol e
responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions i n
the plans and specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining either th e
project site or accurate test data in the City's possession . Although the effect of ambiguities o r
defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity o r
defect shall give rise to a duty of bidder to inquire prior to proposal submittal . Failure to so
inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the bidder . An
ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the bidder, assumin g
reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence o f
the ambiguity or defect . Furthermore, failure of the bidder or subcontractors to notify City i n
writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive an y
right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal .
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not b e
liable for costs incurred by the successful bidder to achieve the project's objective or standar d
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 allege d
ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Contracto r
shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors shal l
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
-11 -C2-1 7
Attachment I
compensation has been granted by City . Failure to provide the hereinbefore described writte n
notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to th e
dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguit y
in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute .•
•
•
-12-C2-18
•
•
•
Attachment 1
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMEN T
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by an d
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, an d
[CONTRACTOR'S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Contractor .
WITNESS ET H :
WHEREAS, on [date], City requested proposals for an Impact Fee Structure Study per Specification No .
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafte r
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows :
[9x-xx].
services .
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. [9x-xx] and Contractor's
proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement . To the extent that there are an y
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 pa y
and Contractor shall receive therefor compensation set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by
reference .
4.CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS . For and in consideration of the payments and agreement s
hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to provide services as se t
forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference ..
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 .
-13-C2-19
Attachment 1
6.COMPLETE AGREEMENT . This written Agreement, including all writings specificall y
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto . No ora l
agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be o f
any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the partie s
hereto .
7.NOTICE . All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postag e
prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows :
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obisp o
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
Contractor Nam e
Addres s
8.AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT .Both City and Contractor do covenant that eac h
individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execut e
Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and yea r
first above written .
ATTEST :CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
By .
City Clerk City Manage r
APPROVED AS TO FORM :CONTRACTO R
By:
City Attorney
-14-C2-20
•
•
•
Attachment 1
Section E
INSURANCE REQUIREMENT S
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims fo r
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance o f
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, cod e
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 genera l
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit .
2.Automobile Liability : $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage .
•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 suc h
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, clai m
administration and defense expenses .
Other Insurance Provisions . The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or b e
endorsed to contain, the following provisions :
1.The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds a s
respects : liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor ; product s
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 primar y
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 o r
volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it .
3.The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made o r
suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability .
3 .
-15 -C2-21
Attachment 1
4 . Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not b e
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 th e
City .
Acceptability of Insurers .Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A .M . Best's rating of n o
less than A:VII .
Verification of Coverage . Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showin g
maintenance of the required insurance coverage . Original endorsements effecting general liability an d
automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided . The endorsements are to b e
signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf All endorsements are to b e
received and approved by the City before work commences .
•
•
•
-16-C2-22
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
Attachment 1
Sample A
•
•
•
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No . 91188, which is hereby
made a part of this proposal ; is thoroughly familiar with its contents ; is authorized to represent th e
proposing fum ; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full :
BID ITEM :Impact Fee Structure Stud y
q Certificate of insurance attached ; insurance company's A .M . Best rating:
Firm Name and Address
Total Base Price
Other (provide detail belo w
TOTAL $
Phon eContact
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
-17 -C2-23
Attachment 1
REFERENCE S
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications unde r
the present business name :
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide th e
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
Reference No .2
Reference No . 3
-18 -
C2-2 4
Customer Name
Contact Individua l
Telephone & FAX numbe r
Street Addres s
City, State, Zip Cod e
Description of services provide d
including contract amount, whe n
provided and project outcom e
Customer Nam e
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX numbe r
Street Address
City, State, Zip Cod e
Description of services provide d
including contract amount, whe n
provided and project outcome
Customer Nam e
Contact Individua l
Telephone & FAX numbe r
Street Address
City, State, Zip Cod e
Description of services provide d
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
•
•
•
•
Attachment 1
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATION S
The bidder 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 othe r
reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work o r
product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances .
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare ?
Yes q No U
Ifyes,explain the circumstances .
•
•
Executed on at under penalty
of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct .
Signature of Authorized Bidder Representative
-19 -C2-25
Attachment 1
BIDDERS LIS T
IMPACT FEE STRUCTURE STUDY—SPECIFICATION NO . 91188 •
Goodwin Consulting Grou p
Susan Goodwin
555 University Avenue, Suite 28 0
Sacramento, CA 9582 5
(916) 561-089 0
(916) 561-089 1
admin[7a,goodwinconsultinggroup .net
FCS Grou p
Redmond Town Center
7525 166 th Avenue NE, Suite D-21 5
Redmond, WA 9805 2
(425) 867-180 2
(425) 867-193 7
In fo WA na, fc s g ro up . c om
Brion & Associates
Joanne Brion
San Francisco, C A
(707) 570-147 7
j oanneAbrionas sociate s . co m
David Taussig & Associate s
5000 Birch Street, Suite 600 0
Newport Beach, CA 9266 0
(949) 955-150 0
(949) 955-159 0
Keyser Marston Associate s
55 Pacific Avenue Mal l
Golden Gateway Common s
San Francisco, CA 9411 1
(415) 398-305 0
(415) 397-506 5
infosf j,keysermarston.co m
Bay Area Economic s
1285 66`h Street
Emeryville, CA 9460 8
(510) 547-938 0
Bael@bael .com
RS G
309 W .4th Street
Santa Ana, CA 9270 1
(714) 541-458 5
infoa,webrs&co m
Applied Development Economics (ADE )
Kathryn Studwel l
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 56 0
Walnut Creek, CA 9459 6
(925) 934-871 2
kstudwell(a)adeusa . co m
Economics & Planning Systems, Inc .
2501 Ninth Street, Suite 20 0
Berkeley, CA 9471 0
(510) 841-919 0
jmoody(c,epsys .com
ESI Corporatio n
300 W . Clarendon Avenue, Suite 47 0
Phoenix, AZ 8501 3
(602) 265-612 0
infoesit7,esicorp .net
Stanley R . Hoffman Associate s
Stanley Hoffma n
11661 San Vicente Blvd, Suite 30 6
Los Angeles, CA 90049-511 1
(310) 820-268 0
stan(a,stanleyrhoffman .co m
Michael J . Multari
83 La Entrad a
San Luis Obispo 9340 5
544-9343
mjmultari(a1aol .com
•
C2-26
RECEIVE D
Goodwin,Heather APR 16 201 3
SLO CITY CLE
Grimes, Maev e
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9 :06 A M
Goodwin, Heathe r
Subject FW : Site Selection Criteria For High-Tech Companie s
Attachments :04_15_13 ...siteselectionforhigh-techcompanies .docx
Heather,
Please post as Agenda Correspondence for Item C2 .
Thank you ,
macve kenneay Grime s
City Cler k
city of sari luis OBISDO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
phone : (805) 781-710 2
email :mgrimesPslocity .org
From :Marx, Ja n
Sent :Monday, April 15, 2013 7 :46 P M
To :Grimes, Maeve
sect :FW : Site Selection Criteria For High-Tech Companie s
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor of San Luis Obisp o
(805) 781-7120 or (805) 541-271 6
From :Allan Cooper [allancoope@gmail .com ]
Sent :Monday, April 15, 2013 4 :26 P M
To:Marx, Jan ; Carpenter, Dan ; Ashbaugh, John ; Smith, Kathy
Subject :Site Selection Criteria For High-Tech Companie s
Dear Honorable Mayor Marx and Council Members -
Could you please "red-file" the following (see attached) for Item C-2 for tomorrow's Council meeiting? Than k
you !
- Allan
Trends and Criteria in Site Selectio n
0 for High-Tech Companie s
ase post this as agenda correspondence .
Thanks ,
Jan
AGEND A
CORRESPONDENC E
Date 411 &/1 Item#62-
1
by RICK L . WEDDL E
president & CEO of the Metro Orland o
Economic Development Commissio n
•
2
• Trends and Criteria i n
Site Selection fo r
High-Tec h
Companie s
by RICK L . WEDDL E
president & CEO of the Metro Orland o
Economic Development Commissio n
•"Many high-tech companies want co-working options in a young ,
urban, funky downtown location with amenities nearby . Much of this i s
based around the work of author Richard Florida and his concept of th e
creative class and its implications for urban regeneration . Tw o
American cities following this model are Austin, Texas, and Orlando ,
Florida .D
Austin recently joined the International Association of Science Park s
and Areas of Innovation (IASP) as the first-ever city to be recognize d
as a science park . And Orlando is on its way with two major scienc e
parks — Central Florida Research Park and Lake Nona Medical Cit y
— and the upcoming Creative Village planned for downtown Orlando .
Internationally, there are several centers focusing on urban renewal an d
a focus on social inclusion, including :
Porto Digital is an Information and Communication Technology Cente r
located in Recife, Brazil . To date, the center has attracted almost 200
companies including IBM, Motorola, Samsung and Microsoft .
22@Barcelona — "The Innovation District" — in Barcelona, Spain ,
has transformed its industrial downtown area with new energ y
networks, wi-fi and optic fiber and mobility, attracting companies i n
the areas of media, information and communication technologies (ICT),
Medical Technologies (MedTech), energy and design .
Adlershof is a science, business and media location in Berlin, Germany ,
with more than 400 high-tech companies . Originally the center fo r
German aviation, the center is now known as a "City of Science ,
Technology and Media ."
We'll continue to see more examples of science parks going from a
traditional business park model into a more dispersed, organic, urba n
corein an effort to attract high tech companies and their workers .
Goodwin, Heathe r
0n:
Subject:
Heather,
Please post as Agenda Correspondence for Item C2 .
RECEIVE D
APR 16 201 3
Grimes, Maeve
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9 :06 A M
Goodwin, Heathe r
FW :) Economic Development Strategic Plan Implementation : Infrastructure Financin g
Analysis . (Codron/Clark)
SLO CITY CLER K
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENC E
Date 7//6'l ~.3Item#''
Thank you ,
mew kenneey cl ime s
City Cler k
city of sail Luis OBISp o
990 Palm Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
phone : (805) 781-710 2
email :mgrimes@slocitv .or g
From :Marx, Ja n
Sent :Monday, April 15, 2013 7 :49 P M
Ob Grimes, Maeve
allancoopeegmail .com
ject :FW : ) Economic Development Strategic Plan Implementation : Infrastructure Financing Analysis . (Codron/Clark )
Please post this message as agenda correspondence .
Thanks,
Ja n
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781-7120 or (805) 541-271 6
From :Allan Cooper [allancoope@gmail .com ]
Sent :Monday, April 15, 2013 3 :30 P M
To :Marx, Jan ; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy ; Ashbaugh, Joh n
Subject : )Economic Development Strategic Plan Implementation : Infrastructure Financing Analysis . (Codron/Clark)
Dear Honorable Mayor Marx and Council Members —
I have recently become concerned with Claire Clark's recent focus on attracting more high -
paying "head of household" jobs by way of reducing the infrastructure costs for prospectiv e
business park developers who want to place their businesses within the Santa Margarit a
annexation area . This item (C-2) is coming up before you tomorrow night as a consen t
agenda item (i .e ., approval of a $60,000 appropriation to hire a consultant to help expedit e
s type of development). The reason for my concern is as follows : (1) I don't think that thi s
help SLO's job housing imbalance but will only exacerbate the current situation ; (2) I don't
ink we should be moving office parks out into the hinterlands as many "dotcom" compan y
1
employees prefer to be located within the "downtown core" where there are 24-7 activitie s
and cultural opportunities available to this well-educated and sophisticated demographic ; an d
(3) 1 don't think we should be encouraging "urban sprawl". Some of you may be familiar wit h
S P Professor Gregg Doyle's "SLO Smart Growth Housing Solutions" Powerpoin t
sentation that he did in conjunction with his CRP 411 class, now almost a decade ago .I
would hope that you might take some of these "smart growth" principals to heart !
Sincerely, Allan Cooper, Chair Save Our Downtow n
•
•
2