HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2022 0202 CCSA REG ITEM 09CCITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of February 2, 2022
ACTION Approved Staff Recommendation,
Including Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-
4069. (Roll Call Vote: Unanimous).
BY B. Garza.
C.Consider Agreement with ClearSource Financial Consulting for a Cost Allocation
Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study for $101,555 and Resolution
Amending the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget. Staff Recommendation: 1) Approve
Agreement with ClearSource Financial Consulting for a Cost Allocation Plan,
Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study, and authorize the City Manager to
execute the Agreement, subject to final language approval of the City Manager;
and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-4069 amending the Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget
to fully fund the Agreement. (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED) (Staff: Carlene
Saxton, Community Development Director)
Item: 9.C.
Item: 9.C.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Carlene Saxton, Community Development Director
DATE: 02/02/2022 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Agreement with ClearSource Financial Consulting for a Cost
Allocation Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study for
$101,555 and Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget
SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council approve an Agreement (Attachment 1) with
ClearSource Financial Consulting (ClearSource) for a Cost Allocation Plan, Impact Fee
Study, and Developer Fee Study (Fee Study) in the amount of $101,555 as well as a
resolution allocating the necessary additional funding from CDD Administration (1000-
160-00000-59010) for the project.
BACKGROUND
In 2019, the City contracted Management Partners, Incorporated (MP/Management
Partners) to prepare an audit of the Community Development Department, to review the
entitlement process, analyze current practices, and recommend a framework of
development policies, regulations, and procedures. The resulting report, “Community
Development Organizational Audit” (Attachment 2), which was presented to the City
Council on January 15, 2020, recommended various improvements to streamline,
modernize, and advance the development review process.
The MP “Draft Implementation Action Plan” (Attachment 2, Exhibit A) summarizes the
recommendations, outlines implementation steps, prioritizes steps and identifies the
responsible department or staff person implementing the procedure. Within the last two
years, staff has implemented or initiated the overwhelming majority of these
recommendations. The following extracted recommendations (Table 1) support the
requested action in this report:
222
Honorable City Council
02/02/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 2
Table 1: Management Partners – Draft Implementation Action Plan
Rec
No.
Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority 1 Person
Responsible2
Implemented
3 Conduct a nexus study
to determine the
infrastructure and
improvements required
to serve new
development and
analyze their costs in
relation to new
development projects.
•Assign team members responsibility for
nexus study
•Apportion costs for new infrastructure
and improvements to new development,
based on project impact and need
•Review results with City Manager and
Community Development Director
2 Public Works
Director
Pending
4 Adopt impact fees
based on the nexus
study.
•Collect and review sample/peer impact
fee structures
•Establish impact fees based on the results
of the nexus study
•Communicate new fees to staff
2 Public Works
Director
Pending
24 Expand consulting
services to include
additional on-call
economic and planning
casework assistance, as
well as services to
analyze building permit
fees and development
impact fees.
•Determine which additional services the
department will use consultants for (i.e.,
analyzing fees, on-call project processing)
•Prepare and circulate a request for
qualifications
•Select the appropriate consultants and
finalize contracts
2 Community
Development
Director
Pending
31 Determine whether
building fees are to be
calculated on the basis
of project valuation or
the estimated time for
completing each task.
•Obtain advice from a building permit fee
consultant about the revenue
implications of the alternatives
•Provide a briefing for the City Manager
•Determine whether the City will use
project valuation or actual costs for
calculating building fees
2 Community
Development
Director
Pending
On February 3, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-3989, approving a
unified schedule of fees and service charges, and provided direction to staff to initiate a
comprehensive study of the City’s fees and service charges.
DISCUSSION
Since incorporation, the City Council has adopted numerous resolutions establishing and
updating various fees and service charges. These cover such items as permits, park and
facility rentals, business registrations, and even photocopies. In general, fees and service
charges are calculated so that the City can recover the costs of providing a municipal
1 Priority 1: Important to accomplish without delay and/or easy to accomplish.
Priority 2: Second tier of importance to accomplish and/or may involve some complexity or time to complete.
Priority 3: Least urgent to complete and/or may take longer to set-up or to execute.
2 To establish clear accountability there should be a single manager assigned responsibility for completing implementation of
each recommendation. Where more than one manager is identified in this column, responsibility should be clarified when
the Final Action Plan is prepared.
223
Honorable City Council
02/02/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 3
service. The City has not recently conducted a comprehensive review of all of its fees
and charges, instead occasionally adopting them piecemeal. As a result, the City
currently has fees for obsolete services (for example, the City no longer needs a charge
for printing/mailing City Council agendas because they are distributed for free via e-mail)
and does not have fees for various items (such as a citywide traffic impact fee), but rather
collects fees based on Areas of Contribution. To purge unneeded fees, calibrate current
fees to ensure they do not undercharge or overcharge the costs to provide associated
municipal services, and to develop new fees, staff as directed by City Council, released
a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a firm to establish a contract for a Cost Allocation
Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study in November 2021.
In February 2021, the City Council directed staff to prepare a RFP for a fee study
consultant, with an optional line item to update the City’s Cost Allocation Plan. City’s Cost
Allocation Plan calculates the distribution of general governmental and support service
costs of an organization across its various municipal operations. For example, the City’s
Human Resources Division provides general support to all City staff across all operations,
and the Cost Allocation Plan would distribute the General Fund costs of the Human
Resources operations to the General Fund, Public Works Funds, Community
Development Funds, etc. Since February 2021, staff has considered the necessity of
having a Cost Allocation Plan as part of the comprehensive fee study and recommends
conducting all three components (Cost Allocation Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer
Fee Study) at the same time to ensure a coordinated and fully transparent fee setting
process. This perspective was further confirmed through the proposal and interview
process conducted to select the top consultant. In addition, by including all three
components simultaneously the City benefits from cost savings due to overlapping
research and work efforts.
On November 30, 2021, staff received six RFP’s from qualified firms for the fee services
listed above. The proposals were reviewed by staff and were ranked on the following
criteria:
• Understanding of Scope of Works & Quality of Proposal
- Understanding of problem is addressed
- Proposal meets requirements listed in RFP
• Past Performance (Experience and References)
- Demonstrated skills and credentials
- Experience with similar projects
- Fee Study and Plan final report sample or detailed description
- Feedback from references
• Project Work Plan (Approach to Scope of Work Implementation)
- Timelines and proposed schedule
- Approach for accomplishing tasks in scope of work/Work plan
- Ability to meet current and projected service requirements over term of
agreement
- Proposed Fee
224
Honorable City Council
02/02/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 4
On December 6, 2021, staff met to review the proposals and selected three firms to
continue in the selection process. The three firms that were selected are as follows:
•Willdan
•NBS
•ClearSource
On December 22, 2021, staff interviewed the three selected firms. Each firm was
instructed to prepare a presentation based on the information provide in the RFP and to
address the following three questions:
•It is the City’s desire have this process be as seamless as possible, please indicate
the expectations for City staff in the overall project.
•Please indicated your firms experience and tact for political sensitivities in the
process including interactions with the Building Industry Association (BIA).
•The City is currently undertaking a General Plan Update and comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance update to provide a more streamline process. Please indicate
how the Cost Allocation, Impact Fee Study and Developer Fee Study will integrate.
The interviews were ranked based on how they addressed the questions above and the
quality of their presentation in general.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for Cost Allocation Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study is
$101,555.
A budget amendment is needed in order to fully fund the Cost Allocation Plan, Impact Fee
Study, and Developer Fee Study. The funds available in the Consulting Impact Fee Study
(2200-161-00000-51000) total $60,000.00. A budget amendment of $41,555 from CDD
Administration (1000-160-00000-59010) is needed to fully fund the project.
COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE
This action supports City Council Goal 3, Objective 3.9 “Identify revenue enhancement
strategies” and Objective 3.10 “Identify cost savings and fee schedules that recover costs
for City services”.
In addition, this action implements recommendations identified in the December 2019
“Community Development Organizational Audit” prepared by MP. The report was
presented to the City Council on January 15, 2020, and made a variety of
recommendations to address the development and entitlement process at the City of
Moorpark, as shown in Table 1. The proposed fee study would implement the suggested
recommendations noted in the MP report.
225
Honorable City Council
02/02/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED)
1. Approve Agreement with ClearSource Financial Consulting for a Cost Allocation
Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study, and authorize the City Manager
to execute the Agreement, subject to final language approval of the City Manager;
and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-____ amending the Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget to fully
fund the Agreement.
Attachment 1: Agreement with ClearSource Financial Consulting
Attachment 2: Community Development Organizational Audit by Management Partners
Exhibit A: Draft Implementation Action Plan
Attachment 3: Draft Resolution No. 2022-____
226
ATTACHMENT 1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MOORPARK AND
CLEARSOURCE FINANCIAL CONSULTING FOR
COST ALLOCATION PLAN, IMPACT FEE STUDY,
AND DEVELOPER FEE STUDY SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and effective as of this _____ day of February, 2022,
between the City of Moorpark, a municipal corporation (“City”) and ClearSource Financial
Consulting, a corporation (“Consultant”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and
conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
WHEREAS, City has the need for cost allocation plan (Plan), impact fee study
(Impact Study), and developer fee study (Developer Study) services; and
WHEREAS, Consultant specializes in providing such services and has the proper
work experience, certifications, and background to carry out the duties involved; and
WHEREAS, Consultant has submitted to City a Proposal dated November 23,
2021, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, benefits, and
premises herein stated, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution to completion of
the work identified in the Scope of Services and in conformance with Exhibit C, unless
this Agreement is terminated or suspended pursuant to this Agreement.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
City does hereby retain Consultant, as an independent contractor, in a contractual
capacity to provide cost allocation plan, impact fee study, and developer fee study
services, as set forth in Exhibit C. In the event there is a conflict between the provisions
of Exhibit C and this Agreement, the language contained in this Agreement shall take
precedence.
Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit C. Consultant
shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth
in Exhibit C.
Compensation for the services to be performed by Consultant shall be in
accordance with Exhibit D. Compensation shall not exceed the rates or total contract
value of one hundred and one thousand five hundred fifty-five dollars ($101,555) as stated
in Exhibit D, without a written Amendment to the Agreement executed by both parties.
Payment by City to Consultant shall be in accordance with the provisions of this
Agreement.
227
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 2 of 15
3.PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of their ability,
experience, standard of care, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by
persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in
meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4.MANAGEMENT
The individual directly responsible for Consultant’s overall performance of the
Agreement provisions herein above set forth and to serve as principal liaison between
City and Consultant shall be Terry Madsen, and no other individual may be substituted
without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
The City’s contact person in charge of administration of this Agreement, and to
serve as principal liaison between Consultant and City, shall be the City Manager or the
City Manager’s designee.
5.PAYMENT
Taxpayer ID or Social Security numbers must be provided by Consultant on an
IRS W-9 form before payments may be made by City to Consultant.
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit C, based upon actual time
spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed one hundred and one thousand
five hundred fifty-five dollars ($101,555) for the total term of the Agreement unless
additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with
its performance of this Agreement, which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless
such additional services and compensation are authorized, in advance, in a written
amendment to this Agreement executed by both parties. The City Manager, if authorized
by City Council, may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
amount of the Agreement.
Consultant shall submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter
as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within
thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. Any expense or
reimbursable cost appearing on any invoice shall be accompanied by a receipt or other
documentation subject to approval of the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee.
If the City disputes any of Consultant’s fees or expenses, City shall give written notice to
Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
228
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 3 of 15
6. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION WITHOUT CAUSE
The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend, or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least
ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise.
If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement, such suspension or
termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
The Consultant may terminate this Agreement only by providing City with written
notice no less than thirty (30) days in advance of such termination.
In the event this Agreement is terminated or suspended pursuant to this Section,
the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of
termination or suspension, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon
termination or suspension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will
submit an invoice to the City pursuant to this Agreement.
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
The Consultant’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of
this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant
for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate or suspend this
Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the
Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes
beyond the Consultant’s control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall
not be considered a default.
If the City Manager or his/her designee determines that the Consultant is in default
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall cause
to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default. The Consultant shall
have thirty (30) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by
rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its
default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and
without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under
this Agreement.
8. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
There are no liquidated damages under this Agreement.
9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales,
costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate
229
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 4 of 15
records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All
such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide
free access to the representatives of City or the City’s designees at reasonable times to
such books and records; shall give the City the right to examine and audit said books and
records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow
inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this
Agreement. Notification of audit shall be provided at least thirty (30) days before any such
audit is conducted. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be
maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension without cause of
this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files,
surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to
be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the
Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City,
at the Consultant’s office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary
computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and
printing computer files.
10. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
Indemnity for professional liability: When the law establishes a professional
standard of care for Consultant’s Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its
officials, employees, and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all
losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable legal counsels’
fees and costs to the extent same are caused by any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any agency
or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of
professional services under this Agreement.
Indemnity for other than professional liability: Other than in the performance of
professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify,
protect, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its officials, employees, and
agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration
proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or
costs of any kind, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs, court costs,
interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, pertain to,
or are in any way attributable to, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by
any individual or agency for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to
officers, agents, employees or subcontractors of Consultant.
Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions
identical to those set forth here in this Section from each and every subcontractor, or any
other person or entity involved by, for, with, or on behalf of Consultant in the performance
of this Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from
230
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 5 of 15
others as required here, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms
of this Section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no
additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder.
This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors,
assigns, or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the termination of this Agreement or this
Section.
City does not and shall not waive any rights that it may have against Consultant by
reason of this Section, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any
insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. The hold harmless
and indemnification provisions shall apply regardless of whether or not said insurance
policies are determined to be applicable to any losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and
expenses described in this Section.
11. INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this
Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
12. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
Contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Neither
City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in
this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any
of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers or employees, or agents
of the City except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not incur or have the
power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability against City, or bind City in any manner.
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereunder.
13. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Consultant shall keep itself informed of local, state, and federal laws and
regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the
performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times
observe and comply with all such laws and regulations, including but not limited to the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws
and regulations. The Consultant shall comply with and sign Exhibit B, the Scope of Work
Requirement for Professional Services Agreements Compliance with California
231
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 6 of 15
Government Code Section 7550, when applicable. The City, and its officers and
employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant
to comply with this Section.
Should the Scope of Services include work that is considered a public work to
which prevailing wages apply, the public work project is subject to compliance monitoring
and enforcement by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Consultant
agrees to comply with and be bound by all applicable terms, rules and regulations
described in (a) Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the
California Labor Code, including without limitation Labor Code Section 1771 and (b) the
rules and regulations established by the DIR implementing such statutes, as though set
forth in full herein, including any applicable amendments made thereto during the term of
this Agreement. For every subcontractor who will perform work on this project, Consultant
shall be responsible for subcontractor’s compliance with (a) and (b), and Consultant shall
take all necessary actions to ensure subcontractor’s compliance. Labor Code Section
1725.5 requires all contractors and subcontractors to annually register with the DIR before
bidding or performing on any public work contract.
14.ANTI DISCRIMINATION
Neither the Consultant, nor any subconsultant under the Consultant, shall
discriminate in employment of persons upon the work because of race, religious creed,
color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition,
genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age,
sexual orientation, or military and veteran status; or any other basis protected by
applicable federal, state, or local law, except as provided in Section 12940 of the
Government Code. Consultant shall have responsibility for compliance with this Section.
15.UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used
against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City in connection with the award,
terms, or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion,
confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the
City will receive compensation, directly or indirectly from Consultant, or any officer,
employee, or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any
work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a
material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in
equity.
16.NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of the City, or their designees or agents, and no
public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Services
during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect,
in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in
connection with the Services performed under this Agreement.
232
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 7 of 15
17. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Consultant covenants that neither they nor any officer or principal of their firm have
any interests, nor shall they acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict
in any manner or degree with the performance of their services hereunder. Consultant
further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, they shall employ no person
having such interest as an officer, employee, agent, or subconsultant. Consultant further
covenants that Consultant has not contracted with nor is performing any services directly
or indirectly, with the developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or
partnership(s) and/or public agency(ies) owning property and/or processing an
entitlement application for property in the City or its Area of Interest, now or within the
past one (1) year, and further covenants and agrees that Consultant and/or its
subconsultants shall provide no service or enter into any contract with any developer(s)
and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) and/or public agency(ies)
owning property and/or processing an entitlement application for property in the City or
its Area of Interest, while under contract with the City and for a one (1) year time period
following termination of this Agreement.
18. NOTICE
Any notice to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing, and all such
notices and any other document to be delivered shall be delivered by personal service or
by deposit in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, with
postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for whom intended as follows:
To: City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
To: Terry Madsen
ClearSource Financial Consulting
7960 B Soquel Drive, Suite 363
Aptos, CA 95003
Either party may, from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a
different address or contact person, which shall be substituted for the one above
specified. Notices, payments, and other documents shall be deemed delivered upon
receipt by personal service or as of the third (3rd) day after deposit in the United States
mail.
19. CHANGE IN NAME
Should a change be contemplated in the name or nature of the Consultant's legal
entity, the Consultant shall first notify the City in order that proper steps may be taken to
have the change reflected in the Agreement documents.
233
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 8 of 15
20. ASSIGNMENT
Consultant shall not assign this Agreement or any of the rights, duties, or
obligations hereunder. It is understood and acknowledged by the parties that Consultant
is uniquely qualified to perform the services provided for in this Agreement.
21. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force
and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services in this
Agreement.
22. VENUE AND GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement is made, entered into, and executed in Ventura County, California,
and any action filed in any court or for arbitration for the interpretation, enforcement or
other action of the terms, conditions, or covenants referred to herein shall be filed in the
applicable court in Ventura County, California. The City and Consultant understand and
agree that the laws of the state of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties,
and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this
Agreement.
23. COST RECOVERY
In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement of, or the
declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement or as a result of any
alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover its costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, from the losing party, and any
judgment or decree rendered in such a proceeding shall include an award thereof.
24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contain the entire understanding
between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement.
All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and
statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further
force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the
representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own independent investigation of
any and all facts such party deems material.
25. CAPTIONS OR HEADINGS
The captions and headings of the various Articles, Paragraphs, and Exhibits of this
Agreement are for convenience and identification only and shall not be deemed to limit
or define the content of the respective Articles, Paragraphs, and Exhibits hereof.
234
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 9 of 15
26. AMENDMENTS
Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall
be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by both parties to this Agreement.
27. PRECEDENCE
In the event of conflict, the requirements of the City’s Request for Proposal, if any,
and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the Consultant’s
Proposal.
28. INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT
Should interpretation of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, be necessary, it is
deemed that this Agreement was prepared by the parties jointly and equally and shall not
be interpreted against either party on the ground that the party prepared the Agreement
or caused it to be prepared.
29. WAIVER
No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute,
a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any such waiver constitute
a continuing or subsequent waiver of the same provision. No waiver shall be binding
unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver.
30. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant
warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of
obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MOORPARK CLEARSOURCE FINANCIAL
CONSULTING
__________________________________ __________________________________
Troy Brown, City Manager Terry Madsen, President
Attest:
__________________________________
Ky Spangler, City Clerk
235
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 10 of 15
Exhibit A
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of Work, Consultant will maintain
insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will use
existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not
meet requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement, or endorse
the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance coverage
and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage
required. Any insurance proceeds available to the City in excess of the limits and
coverage required in this Agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be
available to the City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office (ISO)
“Commercial General Liability” policy form CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense
costs must be paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims
or suits by one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less
than $1,000,000 per occurrence for all covered losses and no less than $2,000,000
general aggregate.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 including
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no event
to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Consultant owns no vehicles, this requirement
may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability policy
described above. If Consultant or Consultant’s employees will use personal autos in any
way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability for each
such person.
Workers’ Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer’s liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written
on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the Consultant and “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the
policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy limit
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must “pay on
behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer’s duty to
defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this
Agreement.
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit requirements,
shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages.
Coverage shall be provided on a “pay on behalf” basis, with defense costs payable in
236
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 11 of 15
addition to policy limits. Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time
insured’s liability is determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first. There
shall be no cross liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one insured
against another. Coverage shall be applicable to the City for injury to employees of
Consultant, subconsultants, or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage
provided is subject to approval by the City following receipt of proof of insurance as
required herein. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $2,000,000
aggregate.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurers that are
admitted carriers in the State of California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better
and a minimum financial size of VII.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and the City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability
coverage required herein to include as additional insureds the City, its officials,
employees, and agents, using standard ISO endorsement CG 2010 and CG 2037
with edition acceptable to the City. Consultant also agrees to require all contractors
and subcontractors to do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall
prohibit Consultant, or Consultant’s employees, or agents, from waiving the right
to subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights
against the City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to
require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or
applicable to this Agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies.
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or
its operation limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been
first submitted to the City and approved in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to
eliminate so-called “third party action over” claims, including any exclusion for
bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification, and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or
reduction of discovery period) that may affect the City’s protection without the
City’s prior written consent.
237
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 12 of 15
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates
of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured
endorsement to Consultant’s general liability policy, shall be delivered to city at or
prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance
is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled or reduced
at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, the City has the right, but
not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests
under this or any other Agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid
by the City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from
sums due Consultant, at the City’s option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide thirty (30) days notice to the
City of any cancellation or reduction of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its
insurer to modify such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that
failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation or reduction of coverage
imposes no obligation, or that any party will “endeavor” (as opposed to being
required) to comply with the requirements of the certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this Agreement that all insurance coverage
required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply
first and on a primary, non-contributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self-insurance available to the City.
10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with
the Work who is brought onto or involved in the Work by Consultant, provide the
same minimum insurance required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor
and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such
coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant
agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and others engaged
in the Work will be submitted to the City for review.
11. Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that
it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer, or other entity
or person in any way involved in the performance of Work contemplated by this
Agreement to self-insure its obligations to the City. If Consultant’s existing
coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-
insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time, the City shall review
options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the
deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other
solutions.
12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the Agreement to change
the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90)
days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increased benefit to the City.
238
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 13 of 15
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed
to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that
can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part
of the City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with an insurance requirement
in no way imposes any additional obligations to the City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually for five years after the
Agreement is canceled or terminated. Termination of this obligation is not effective
until the City executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from
Consultant’s insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications
applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to the City within
five days of the expiration of coverage.
17. The provisions of any Workers’ Compensation or similar act will not limit the
obligations of Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not
to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to the City,
its employees, officials and agents.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are
not intended as limitations on coverage, limits, or other requirements nor as a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-
inclusive.
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any
other provision in this Agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20. The requirements in this section supersede all other sections and provisions of this
Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts or impairs the
provisions of this section.
21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any
party involved in any way with the Work reserves the right to charge the City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this
Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to the City. It is
not the intent of the City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with
239
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 14 of 15
these requirements. There shall be no recourse against the City for payment of
premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.
22.Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against
Consultant arising out of the work performed under this Agreement. The City
assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty)
to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve the
City.
240
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 15 of 15
Exhibit B
CITY OF MOORPARK
Scope of Work Requirement for Professional Services Agreements
Compliance with California Government Code Section 7550
Consultant shall sign and include this page in any document or written reports prepared by
Consultant for the City of Moorpark (City) to which California Government Code Section 7550
(Government Code § 7550) applies. Government Code §7550 reads:
“(a) Any document or written report prepared for or under the direction of a state
or local agency, that is prepared in whole or in part by nonemployees of the
agency, shall contain the numbers and dollar amounts of all contracts and
subcontracts relating to the preparation of the document or written report; if the
total cost for the work performed by nonemployees of the agency exceeds five
thousand dollars ($5,000). The contract and subcontract numbers and dollar
amounts shall be contained in a separate section of the document or written report.
(b) When multiple documents or written reports are the subject or product of the
contract, the disclosure section may also contain a statement indicating that the
total contract amount represents compensation for multiple documents or written
reports.”
For all Professional Services Agreement with a total dollar value in excess of $5,000, a signed
and completed copy of this form must be attached to all documents or completed reports
submitted to the City pursuant to the Scope of Work.
Does the dollar value of this Professional Services Agreement exceed $5,000?
Yes No
If yes, then the following information must be provided in compliance with
Government Code § 7550:
1. Dollar amount of Agreement/Contract: $ 101,555.00
2. Dollar amount of Subcontract: $ ____________
3. Does the total contract amount represent compensation for multiple
documents or written reports? Yes No
I have read the foregoing Code section and will comply with Government Code §7550.
ClearSource Financial Consulting
__________________________________
______________________
Terry Madsen, President Date
241
Exhibit C Formatted: Centered
The City of Moorpark (City) is engaging ClearSource Financial Consulting (Consultant) to perform a Cost
Allocation Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study. (ClearSource will engage a subconsultant,
Harris & Associates, for certain elements of the project.) Extracted from the ClearSource-Harris proposal
is the following description of the services to be provided by the Consultant to complete the project.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Overall Project Elements
The City of Moorpark is initiating a Cost Allocation Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study.
This type of project is focused on the ethic of “the costs to serve” from different, yet intertwined,
perspectives:
What are the costs of central services within the municipal organization, and how do those costs
relate to the array of direct services provided to the community? What are the cost recovery
opportunities for these administrative, management, and support services of the agency? (This is
accomplished through a Cost Allocation Plan.)
What are the projected costs of ensuring public infrastructure is available and operating at
necessary levels of service as the community grows and changes? What development impact fees
are justified to target cost recovery of these capital investments from the development generating
increased demands for public service? (This is accomplished through an Impact Fee Study.)
What are the costs of development regulation services provided to the community, which
currently have or may be eligible for a user or regulatory fee? What are the cost recovery targets or
policies of the City as to the amounts that should be paid for those who request or cause these
services? What is the impact to the source funds – typically the General Fund – of changes to
user/regulatory fees? (This is accomplished through a Developer Fee Study.)
City Project Objectives
The City of Moorpark has outlined the following objectives for each element of study:
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Ensure the City is accurately accounting for the true cost of providing various services by
departments through the use of a well-documented and defensible plan.
Ensure the City has a valid basis for calculating and administering comprehensive overhead rates
which are used for internal budgetary transfers and expenditures in addition to billable rates for
federal and state grants, user fees, cost recovery, and reimbursements from other government
agencies.
IMPACT FEE AND DEVELOPER FEE STUDIES
Develop defensible fee justifications and nexus report that complies with Proposition 218.
Formatted: Different first page header
242
C-2
City Services for Study
USER FEES
It is expected that the direct, fee-related services under review in this element will focus on services
eligible for user fee methodology, as well as identification during this study of any relevant additions for
services performed without a fee or for under-quantified or ineffectively structured fees.
The City is limiting this analysis to services related to development and construction for which a user or
regulatory fee is or can be imposed can be included as desired. This can encompass activities managed
by the Department that may include generally:
Regulatory activities, such as review and inspection of land development, construction/building, and
improvements to infrastructure, and other areas of code review, compliance, and enforcement
Permitting, such as special events and use of public facilities, infrastructure, and services
Facility rentals and use of public spaces
Program participation
Operations and services of individual benefit/request or in response to individual action
Licensing, billing, records management, and administrative service
Hourly rates for direct-billing City staff time
Revenue streams generally excluded from this type of methodology due to differing authority,
implementation and analytical methodologies, and approval procedures would include: utility rates and
other property-related fees subject to Proposition 218 proceedings, assessments, in-lieu fees, fees
intended and codified more as “taxes,” punitive fines/penalties, and general taxes.
From the City’s existing Schedule of Fees and Charges Effective March 17, 2021, our team expects the
following broad categories of fees to fall under review in the Developer Fee Study:
Planning – Counter Services
Planning – Development Services
Public Works – Engineering Services
Public Works – Counter Services
Building & Safety
Vector Control/Animal Control Services
Police Services
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The City of Moorpark has an adopted Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. According to the City’s
latest Annual report, the City imposes fees for:
243
C-3
Traffic Systems Management
Citywide Traffic Mitigation
Crossing Guard
Library Facilities
Open Space Maintenance
Tree & Landscaping
Art in Public Places
Park Improvement and Recreation Facilities
Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution
Tierra Rejada Road/Spring Road Area of Contribution
Casey Road/Gabbert Road Area of Contribution
Fremont Storm Drain AOC
Walnut Canyon Traffic Noise Attenuation
Police Facilities
Parking In-lieu
Truck Impact Fee
The City desires to complete an analysis of the City’s needs and establish a new development impact fee
program.
CENTRAL SUPPORT SERVICES
While cost recovery for the above listed direct services are the focus of the two fee studies, a Cost
Allocation Plan focuses on potential cost recovery for the “indirect” services of the municipal
organization. Indirect services represent City budget units commonly found in the General Fund that
might include:
Legislative and general governmental activities
Organization-wide management and administration
Central services outside of internal service funds
WORK PLANS BY STUDY ELEMENT
Cost Allocation Plan
ClearSource presents the following work plan to complete the Cost Allocation Plan envisioned by the
City of Moorpark.
244
C-4
TASK 1 | STUDY ORIENTATION
To commence the study on solid ground, ClearSource will generate common understanding of
objectives, known issues that must be addressed by study end, participant roles, expected procedural
requirements, schedule and pre-established dates, and data collection and development procedures.
Subtasks include:
Facilitate project kick-off event(s)
Assess prevailing cost allocation models, methods, and applications. Particular attention will be paid
to annual procedures, internal opinions and impacts, and balance of workload with the
requirements of the City’s uses for overhead, including internal transfers/reimbursements and
external agency reimbursement.
Review readily available budgetary documents to gain a working knowledge of City structure and
accounting practices.
Determine a plan for generating current indirect cost allocations for the host of uses identified by the
City. This will likely include development of a new Excel-based model in alignment with current needs
but may include modification of existing tools if City personnel prefer to sustain existing tools.
ClearSource will remain flexible.
TASK 2 | FINANCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS
ClearSource will develop the necessary foundation for subsequent quantitative analysis. Particular focus
will be generating necessary data and documentation of inputs and assumptions as required by the
application of plan outcomes. (For example, an OMB 2 CFR Part 225 compliant plan requires a specific
inventory of information that may not be as essential if applications are entirely internal to the City.)
Subtasks include:
Access organizational and line-item detail to support costs, allocation factors, workload metrics, and
accounting structure in the cost allocation model.
Acquire and parse statistics that may be useful as bases for distributing costs and where necessary,
develop and document alternate data sets to serve as distribution methods.
Conduct targeted engagement with representatives from support services departments if useful to
influence data accessibility and relevance in the cost allocation plan, such as work order records,
inventories, and other volumetric or organizational tools.
TASK 3 | COST ALLOCATION MODEL
ClearSource will generate the quantitative model in Microsoft Excel to allocate indirect costs Citywide.
The model will be built to accommodate change in the organization: the ability to add or remove direct
and indirect costs and to adapt to a range of activities, from simple to complex. Structure and detail of
the final model will be dependent upon the ultimate application of its results, as a plan submitted for
cognizant agency approval in compliance with OMB 2 CFR Part 225 and/or the State Controller’s Office
for Cost Claiming will require aspects unnecessary in applications where cost recovery is expected to be
entirely internal to the agency. The model is expected to identify:
245
C-5
Citywide fund and accounting structure and fiscal year data for allocation outcomes
Allocable indirect service centers
Allocation bases and related distribution factors for indirect service centers
Direct service centers
Primary and secondary allocations
Resulting annual cost allocations
Resulting indirect service rates
Resulting interfund transfers
The model will provide for future in-house updates utilizing annual inflators or revision of underlying
assumptions for personnel costs, contracted service inflation, etc. where allowed and recommended as
feasible/reasonable.
ClearSource will also generate a comparison of outcomes under the updated Cost Allocation Plan to
prior year outcomes, including explanation for substantive differences.
TASK 4 | REPORTING AND DELIVERABLE TOOLS
ClearSource will provide the formal documentation encompassing the work and outcomes of the study,
as well as deliver the tools developed throughout the study for the City’s ownership and future use,
including preparation or inclusion of:
A narrative description of the study, describing key data and assumptions, and impacts.
Tables and charts to explain findings
The complete quantitative analysis as the justification for updated indirect cost allocations and
associated rates and transfers.
For a cost allocation plan in compliance with OMB 2 CFR Part 225, the report/quantitative analysis will
include:
Description of each allocated central service
Identification of the units rendering services and the units receiving services
Items of expense included in the allocated cost of service
Method used to distribute the cost of service to benefitted units
Schedule showing the allocation of each service to the specific benefitting units
Organizational chart
Upon review and feedback from the City staff, consultants will revise the draft report and accompanying
outcomes to incorporate direction received. The final report will be issued for the City’s implementation
and as a data source for incorporation in the Cost of Services Study. Reports will be issued in PDF for
246
C-6
digital distribution and any necessary printing by the City beyond the requested bound (3) and unbound
copies delivered by consultants.
Upon issuance of the final report, ClearSource will deliver editable versions of all models,
documentation, and associated work papers to the City for future use. Models will be delivered in
Microsoft Excel and PDF. Documentation will be delivered in Microsoft Word and PowerPoint and in
PDF. Additional work papers developed will be delivered in the format in which they were created and in
PDF.
Consultants will provide training to City staff on the development and future in-house update of the
delivered electronic tools and various reports.
TASK 5 | ENGAGEMENT
ClearSource will facilitate a meaningful level of interaction between consultants, City personnel, and City
Councilmembers:
At least two interim review points to engage with designated City personnel managing cost
allocation practices
At City management discretion, an event with the City Council to present the draft report and
receive feedback and direction on cost allocation proposals that would impact the City’s budgetary
and financial practices.
Consultants will prepare materials for these sessions, present the plan (or elements relevant), and
respond to inquiries. Consultants will be available to City staff in the future to advise on the cost
allocation plan.
Impact Fee Study
Harris & Associates presents the following work plan to complete the Impact Fee Study envisioned by
the City of Moorpark.
TASK 1 | KICK-OFF MEETING
Harris will attend a kick-off meeting with City staff to review the objectives of the analysis, to agree on
methodology, to exchange information, to set the schedule for all tasks, and to determine further
information needed from City staff. Harris will work with City staff to refine the scope, purpose, uses,
and goals of the City and for the project.
TASK 2 | RESEARCH AND FEE STRUCTURE
Harris will participate in calls with individual members of City staff to gain an understanding of the
purpose and use of the fees and any concerns staff have with the current fee program. It is anticipated
that up to eight (8) calls will be required.
Harris will review the existing fee studies and background documentation including the existing fee
studies, ordinances and resolutions, any master plans, the City’s general plan, and any other available
studies that identify the City’s goals and required infrastructure needs. The goal of this task is to better
247
C-7
understand the needs and goals of the City for each impact fee category and to gather the information
that will serve as the basis for the fees.
Once all documentation has been reviewed, Harris will meet with staff to discuss the validity of the
current fees and any fee categories that the City may wish to pursue developing as part of the update.
We will discuss any missing information and how the supporting documentation can be developed.
Harris will recommend any changes to the current fee structure to facilitate better collection and
administration of the program. Harris will also discuss AB602 and whether the City wishes to collect
fees based on house size in accordance with the new bill, or continue collecting on a per unit basis. If
new categories of fees are identified or documentation to support the fees is not available, a scope
amendment may be necessary.
TASK 3 | DRAFT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Harris will gather the City’s growth projections and will gather other assumptions such as persons per
household, existing city population and employment, and future population and employment.
Harris will work with City staff to understand the facilities and supporting infrastructure (i.e. equipment
and vehicles) needed to serve future development. We will develop the project lists and cost estimates
utilizing the City’s existing plans, discussions with City staff, and level of service analysis. Where future
facilities may not be able to be determined, such as with parks or public safety facilities, a level of
service analysis can be completed that sets funding at levels that maintain the City’s existing level of
service (i.e., acres of parks or square feet of Fire Stations).
When the land use assumptions and the identification of the needed facilities are completed, Harris will
determine the methodology to allocate the infrastructure costs in each fee category to the various land
uses based on the additional residents and employees that these new developments generate.
Based on this information gathered, Harris will calculate the recommended fee for each land use type in
compliance with the requirements of Section 66000 of the Government Code. An administrative fee will
also be calculated to fund impact fee studies, annual administration, City staff administration, and
reporting requirements
Harris will prepare a comparison of the development impact fees from surrounding jurisdictions. Up to
six jurisdictions will be included and will be based on input from the City as to which cities are to be
included. The comparison will include fees for single family residential, multi-family residential,
commercial, and industrial development to current and proposed fees in the City.
Harris will prepare the draft fees and fee comparison for review with the City.
TASK 4 | DRAFT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Once all parties agree on the fees, Harris will prepare the Nexus Study. The Nexus Study will be prepared
in an organized fashion with an executive summary and will contain all required legal and technical
documentation including additional information required under AB602. The study will include all
background information, the methodology used to determine the fees, all supporting information,
calculations that demonstrate the legal nexus between the recommended fees and the impact created
by new development, the relationship between the fee’s use and the type of project on which the fee
would be imposed, the purpose of the fee, how the fees would be used, and a description of the
248
C-8
relationship between the need for any additional facilities and the type of development project on
which the fee would be imposed. In addition, the report will discuss annual fee update procedures,
credit and reimbursement policies and will outline the required administrative procedures including
online reporting requirements required under SB1483. We will also incorporate the legal methodology
for calculating fees for accessory dwelling units.
Harris will meet with the City to discuss the report and incorporate one set of consolidated comments to
create final draft report.
TASK 5 | STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
Harris will prepare and lead a meeting with BIA, development community and other stakeholders.
Obtaining the development community’s support is best achieved when their input is included in the fee
analysis. Harris will discuss any recommendations that come out of this meeting with the City and
incorporate relevant feedback into the study.
Harris will prepare and make presentations on the methodology, findings, and implications of the
proposed impact fees at City Council and/or planning commission meetings to facilitate the
understanding of the impact fee analysis. The presentations will be prepared in a clear and concise
manner. Harris will answer any questions and document any concerns or requested changes. Two
presentations are assumed. Harris will assist the City with the preparation of the staff report and
resolution for City Council adoption. An automatic inflation factor will be included in the resolution. It is
assumed that the City will notice all meetings and provide a legal review of the documents. Revisions to
the report will be completed based on input received from the City Council and the final report provided
to the City.
TASK 6 | FINAL REPORT
Once the report is adopted, Harris will provide three (3) bound paper copies, and an electronic pdf, excel
fee schedule model that can be updated.
Developer Fee Study
ClearSource presents the following work plan to complete the Developer Fee Study envisioned by the
City of Moorpark.
TASK 1 | STUDY ORIENTATION
To commence the study on solid ground, ClearSource will generate common understanding of
objectives, known issues that must be addressed by study end, participant roles, expected procedural
requirements, schedule and pre-established dates, and data collection and development procedures.
Most significantly, this task includes a major upfront effort to examine prevailing fees for known issues
and to discuss initial and potential modifications to structures and practices. Subtasks include:
Facilitate project kick-off event(s)
Assess prevailing fees and methods to understand effectiveness of current structures, including
perceived cost recovery, perceived equity, alignment of fee categories with the manner in which
249
C-9
work is performed, perceived competitiveness in the region, and feasibility or accuracy of billing
within current capabilities
Draft initial user/regulatory fee structures, where remodeling is predicted, to direct down-stream
data development steps
250
C-10
TASK 2 | FINANCIAL AND LABOR TIME INPUTS
Consultants will develop the necessary foundation for subsequent quantitative analysis, focusing this
initial work to prepare the body of data that will inform every downstream element of the fee study. To
develop financial inputs, consultants will gather and/or prepare and model financial data, including:
Current and historical fee revenues,
Personnel and contractor costs and organization,
Adopted line-item expenditures,
Forecasted periodic outlays, and
Allocated indirect/overhead costs via new or existing plan.
To develop and test labor time inputs, based on prevailing and future business processes, consultants
will gather and develop expressions of time several ways:
Utilize any existing labor time-tracking data,
Conduct interviews to estimate a distribution of annual time across core functions of service,
Develop service time questionnaires linked to remodeled fee structures to estimate average or a
range of service times for fee-related services,
Apply industry experience to populate under-developed or unavailable time estimates, particularly
from prospective changes in workflow resulting from the project,
Analyze any existing data sets that inform workload/activity/use levels and project profiles for fee-
related services, and
Reconcile annual time, service time estimates, and service volumes to test reasonableness of critical
assumptions.
TASK 3 | LABOR TIME VALUATION
ClearSource will develop fully burdened hourly labor rates in each department/division participating
directly in the provision of services associated with a fee under review. Rates will be built to encompass
labor costs, non-labor operating costs, departmental and/or divisional administration, central
services/general City administration, and periodic investments. Rates will be expressed by function of
direct and indirect service within each department/division, where applicable and to enable cost
recovery considerations for certain fee categories. Rates may be expressed as composite for the
department/division, for the position class, and/or by individual position.
TASK 4 | FEE DESIGN
ClearSource will apply the outcomes from Tasks 1 and 2 – an assessment of existing fees and interaction
with City staff to understanding current practices and work flow – to ensure cost of service analysis
aligns with the fee structures recommended from that work, which may include elements of prevailing
fees, recommendations based on prevailing business processes, system capabilities, and relevant market
251
C-11
or industry practices applicable to City work flow. Consultants will prepare a working model of a master
fee schedule.
TASK 5 | COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
ClearSource will prepare a cost of service model to join fully burdened hourly labor rates, time estimates
associated with current work flow and business processes, and existing or any redesigned fee structures,
in order to calculate the full unit cost of service associated with each fee category and layers within
them.
The full cost of service informs the maximum fee amount allowed under California framework for
establishing user/regulatory fees by City Council action.
The full cost of service at the fee-based activity level or the programmatic level is composed of:
Direct labor and non-labor costs,
Indirect labor and non-labor costs,
Periodic outlays or investments of direct or indirect benefit,
Departmental overhead, and
Citywide overhead.
Analysis will include modeling of activities with under-developed or no fee imposed but where one is
warranted and practical to improve the City’s cost recovery from private benefit activities.
TASK 6 | COST RECOVERY AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
Consultants will recommend cost recovery targets for fee-based services or work with City staff in
developing cost recovery policy to inform final fee amounts, particularly where full cost recovery is
deemed undesirable. Development of cost recovery policy and practices will optimize the City’s array of
funding sources considering public/private benefits, market sensitivity, compliance and behavior
modification, and fiscal constraints.
Consultants will develop a master fee schedule for the City, useful in presenting proposals, as well as
communicating fee descriptions, fee amounts, and charge bases to other City departments, who may
have responsibility for maintaining Citywide schedules of fees. As desired, the master fee schedule
developed can also include a tool for subsequent annual inflationary adjustments to the established fee
structures.
Final proposed fee amounts will be applied in the master fee schedule alongside information useful in
communicating fees to the public. To the extent existing data systems enable it, revenue estimates
based on historical or projected performance will be attempted. Finally, comparison to prior fees will be
completed in targeted service categories to assist in explaining impacts of changes.
Consultants will prepare a comparison of fees to other municipalities in targeted service categories as
needed, likely by creating profiles for an array of “typical” uses in addition to one-for-one comparisons.
Consultants will review associated fee practices, including waivers, deposit amounts, fee/deposit
collection practices, and economic incentive practices.
252
C-12
Where needed, consultants will provide recommendations and industry information regarding relevant
fee policies and practices which may impact cost recovery, including the use of waivers, any billing and
deposit management procedures, and collections.
TASK 7 | REPORTING AND DELIVERABLE TOOLS
ClearSource will prepare the administrative record for pursuing implementation of revised fees. This
focuses on the draft and final reports of cost of service findings, including assumptions, critical data, and
discussion of expected impacts. Analytical detail will be included, as well as executive summary and
infographics useful in public presentation and legislative processes.
Consultants will deliver the analytical models used to develop fees in Microsoft Excel format for future
update and management, including the working master fee schedule and its publishable version.
For reporting and the delivery of all tools, subtasks include:
Deliver formal documentation and tools for the City’s ownership and future use in editable formats
(e.g., Microsoft Office suite) and publishable format (PDF)
Draft and final draft report iterations
Presentation/summary materials for communicating proposals
Assistance with staff report and public hearing noticing
Document the statutory and legal framework and annual and five-year reporting requirements
Discuss best practices to ensure better collection of the fees
Final report, including all background information, methodology, supporting justification,
calculations, and administrative processes
Delivery of technical models and work papers
Training event for City staff in annual updates and analytical use of delivered models
TASK 8 | REVIEW AND ENGAGEMENT
ClearSource will facilitate a meaningful level of interaction between consultants, City personnel, and City
Councilmembers with the goal of successful approval, implementation, and ongoing maintenance of
study proposals. Subtasks include:
Departmental interaction – to develop data and provide interim reviews points by lead service
areas.
City leadership interaction – to receive direction on proposals and outcomes prior to pursuit of
approval.
City Council engagement – to present the final draft report and receive direction.
City Council / public hearing – to adopt the proposed fees contained in the final report.
Stakeholder outreach – as needed to facilitate successful implementation of proposals.
253
C-13
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Timeline by Tasks / Milestones
The ClearSource-Harris team anticipates the following timeline for delivery of final draft reports for
each element of this project:
Cost Allocation Plan: 90 Days
Impact Fee Study: 150 Days
Developer Fee Study: 120 Days
Upon delivery of the draft reports in each study element, the City may schedule City Council
engagements to review recommendations, consultants may issue final reports, and public hearings may
be scheduled following the City’s preferred timing and legislative or community priorities. Total
estimated project timing and calendar is illustrated in Figure 1.
254
C-14
FIGURE 1 | PROJECT TIMELINE BY STUDY ELEMENT AND MAJOR TASK / MILESTONE
255
December 2019
City of Moorpark, California
Community Development Organizational Audit
Comprehensive Executive Summary
ATATTACHMENT 2
256
1730 MADISON ROAD • CINCINNATI, OH 45206 • 513 861 5400 • FAX 513 861 3480 MANAGEMENTPARTNERS.COM
2107 NORTH FIRST STREET, SUITE 470 • SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95131 • 408 437 5400 • FAX 408 453 6191
3152 RED HILL AVENUE, SUITE 210 • COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 • 949 222 1082 • FAX 408 453 6191
December 11, 2019
Mr. Troy Brown
City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mr. Brown:
Management Partners is pleased to transmit this Comprehensive Executive Summary
containing the results of our organizational audit of the Community Development Department
and Moorpark’s development review process.
We conducted this assessment after reviewing a wide variety of documents and data,
interviewing several City staff and reaching out to key stakeholders who are experienced
customers of Moorpark’s development process. Our team spent considerable time onsite to
understand the department and development process, and to observe operations firsthand.
During our time onsite we collaborated with City staff to develop a framework for a revised
development process. This revised process is illustrated in the process map attachments to this
report.
Our report identifies 34 recommendations designed to improve department operations, increase
efficiency, and guide changes in the development process. The recommendations also address
the need for updating the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance/Map. Additionally, we found
that improving various business systems is necessary to improve staffs’ effectiveness and to
ensure the department’s work is transparent to stakeholders and the general public.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you and the City of Moorpark.
Sincerely,
Gerald E. Newfarmer
President and CEO
257
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Table of Contents Management Partners
2
Table of Contents
Overview....................... .............................................................................................................................. 2
Stakeholder and Staff Comments .......................................................................................................... 5
Themes from Stakeholder Outreach .............................................................................................. 5
Themes from Staff Interviews ........................................................................................................ 7
Context for Development ........................................................................................................................ 9
Moorpark’s Use of Residential Planned Development Permits ................................................ 9
General Plan, Zoning Status and Use of Development Agreements ...................................... 10
Development Impact Fees and Exactions ................................................................................... 11
Organization Structure and Workload ............................................................................................... 13
Organization Structure is Typical of Similar Cities ................................................................... 13
Workload ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Development Review Process .............................................................................................................. 17
Process Mapping ............................................................................................................................ 17
Improving the Development Process .......................................................................................... 18
Business Technologies ........................................................................................................................... 22
EnerGov ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Electronic Plan Review .................................................................................................................. 22
Transition to Paperless System ..................................................................................................... 23
Enterprise Resource Planning Software ...................................................................................... 23
City Website and Handouts .......................................................................................................... 24
Management System........... ................................................................................................................... 26
Cycle and Task Times .................................................................................................................... 26
Measuring Performance ................................................................................................................ 28
Standardized Conditions .............................................................................................................. 29
Staff Engagement and Training .................................................................................................... 30
Use of On-Call Consultants .......................................................................................................... 32
Analytic Capacity ........................................................................................................................... 34
Fees, Cost Recovery and Cost Center Management .................................................................. 35
258
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Table of Contents Management Partners
3
Pre-Application Reviews and Fees ............................................................................................ 35
Cost Recovery ........................................................................................................................... 36
Basis for Calculating Building Fees .......................................................................................... 37
Implement Surcharges to Recover Business System Costs ....................................................... 38
Workplace Environment ........................................................................................................................ 39
Conclusion.................... ............................................................................................................................ 42
Attachment A – List of Recommendations ......................................................................................... 43
Attachment B – Draft Process Maps for Major Discretionary Projects ......................................... 45
Attachment C – Draft Process Maps for CEQA Review .................................................................. 46
259
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Table of Contents Management Partners
4
Tables
Table 1. Planning Permitting Workload ............................................................................................. 14
Figures
Figure 1. Stakeholder Ratings ................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Organization Structure of the Community Development Department................... .... 13
260
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Overview Management Partners
2
Overview
Management Partners was engaged by the City of Moorpark to conduct an
organizational audit of the Community Development Department and
development review process. This section contains a brief overview of the
project, including the City’s reasons for initiating the study.
Background. In becoming a city in 1983, Moorpark inherited a substantial
number of entitlements for major development projects that were previously
approved by the County of Ventura. Early leaders found themselves having
to manage around projects they did not approve and applying an ad hoc
system to address issues such as design quality, offsite infrastructure,
community amenities and related matters that typically set apart cities from
counties.
Ad hoc development review. Moorpark’s ad hoc approach to
development review worked for some time; however, the City has
outgrown it because it does not provide a clear process and a
reasonable level of predictability for the development industry, large
and small businesses seeking to locate in Moorpark, and individuals
wanting to upgrade their residential sites. The City’s past practices
have also led to a highly siloed organization that reviews
development piecemeal rather than on the basis of comprehensive
land use policies and regulations such as a General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
Identifying infrastructure requirements. Another challenge with the
current practices is that the City does not have an effective system of
identifying infrastructure and related fees for new development
projects. This means that the infrastructure requirements for new
development must be analyzed piecemeal rather than on the basis of
comprehensive land use policies and regulations.
While the City currently imposes Development Impact Fees (DIFs) on
certain new projects, this is also done on a piecemeal basis due to the
lack of comprehensive land use policies and a nexus-based analysis of
infrastructure needs. This makes managing infrastructure
261
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Overview Management Partners
3
requirements and fees, as well as the actual improvements, more
difficult for the City. The current practices also make it difficult for
developers to understand the scope and cost of the infrastructure
requirements before deciding whether to pursue a project.
Delay and uncertainty. The unfortunate by-products of the current ad-
hoc review of development projects and infrastructure requirements
are delay and uncertainty for customers and staff.
Goals of the study. Given its concerns about these issues, the City identified
several goals for Management Partners’ assessment, as follows.
a) Analyze the current practices and recommend a framework of
development policies, regulations and procedures;
b) Create a team-oriented organization focused on outcomes that serve
the community and stakeholders and provide professional growth for
staff;
c) Establish a clear development process that is easier to understand,
and improves predictability for stakeholders;
d) Identify business systems and new technology to improve
effectiveness and efficiency and make information easier to obtain
and understand;
e) Establish a clear management system that focuses on outcomes,
implements effective internal controls, and allows staff to do their
best work;
f) Improve the cost center system by making it more transparent and
easier to administer;
g) Establish a proactive approach to infrastructure and development-
related improvements through a nexus analysis of future needs and
the adoption of comprehensive development impact fees; and
h) Create a spirit of partnership with the community and stakeholders
through better communication and greater transparency.
Recommendations. The 34 recommendations identified in this
comprehensive executive summary, when taken as a whole, will position the
City to meet each of the eight goals and apply best practices going forward.
Attachment A provides a summary of all recommendations.
Project approach. Management Partners used a variety of techniques to
inform our assessment. These included reviewing documents, conducting
262
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Overview Management Partners
4
interviews with key stakeholders and City staff, observing activity at the
front counter, analyzing the methods used to process development projects,
reviewing application forms, analyzing workload volumes, and creating
proposed process maps. We examined areas of responsibilities, overlaps and
interconnections related to staff review of entitlement/permit applications,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and reviewing
compliance with conditions of approval.
Organization of the Document. In addition to this Overview Section, the
remainder of this document is organized as follows:
Stakeholder and Staff Comments
Context for Development
Organization Structure and Workload
Development Review Process
Business Technologies
Management System
Workplace Environment
Conclusion
263
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
5
Stakeholder and Staff Comments
This section contains a summary of comments from development
stakeholders and comments from City staff. During the period May through
July 2019, our team conducted interviews with staff members and several
stakeholders to learn their perspectives on operations that are working well
and those that could be improved. We received useful data and information,
good advice about resource documents, as well as candid comments about
impediments to productivity and problems in the work environment.
Themes from Stakeholder Outreach
Management Partners interviewed several stakeholders with broad
development experience with residential, commercial and industrial projects
in Moorpark. City staff assisted by identifying prospective stakeholders, and
Management Partners was solely responsible for the confidential interviews,
with no participation by City staff.
Stakeholders were asked to share comments about what is working well and
what changes they would recommend, as well as to rate the City’s
performance on a variety of factors. This technique helped us to gauge the
seriousness of the issues and concerns customers have. The categories and
ratings are illustrated in Figure 1. A rating of 1 indicates poor service while a
rating of 10 means excellent service.
Summary of comments. Stakeholders felt that the best aspects of the
department’s service were the helpfulness and accessibility of staff, although
there was a wide range of opinions. Stakeholders more consistently said that
complexity of the development process and getting quality information about
it are problematic.
We would note that stakeholders understood the department was working
hard under new leadership to implement improvements; therefore, their
ratings are retrospective comments on operational policies and processes that
have been in place for many years.
264
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
6
Figure 1. Stakeholder Ratings
Consistent themes emerged from the stakeholder interviews regarding the
development review process, as noted below.
• Building and Safety plan check and inspection services are highly
regarded.
• It was difficult to get a meeting scheduled to resolve high-stakes
technical matters. That is changing for the better under the current
administration.
• Previously it took too long for City staff to follow up on important
matters and staff did not convey a sense of urgency. Stakeholders
said that the current administration is sensitive to this issue and
appears to be committed to addressing it.
• The status of entitlement and condition compliance sub-processes
were difficult for customers to understand. The ambiguity made it
harder to explain the status to investors and property owners.
However, the current administration is implementing a permit
tracking system to address this and other challenges.
• No one on staff exhibited ownership or overall responsibility for
the management of the process.
• The development review process was not predictable and “11th
hour” surprises for applicants had become the norm.
• The civil engineering review of projects has relied too heavily on
the judgment and technical acumen of a single contractor to the
City.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ease of understanding Moorpark's development review process
Quality of information about the process
Helpfulness of staff
Accessibility of staff
Time it takes for staff review and comments
Consistency of staff's comments and code corrections
Overall experience with Moorpark's process
265
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
7
• There is a perception that some of the City’s contractors slow up
the technical review of projects when there are disagreements
about plans and drawings.
• Customers believe that the engineering contractor’s time and costs
are not well managed, which is important because those costs are
passed on to customers.
• Reconciling developer deposits for entitlement/permit processing
and condition compliance can take several months to a year or
more because the City is missing (or has inaccurate) details.
• Customers are given no direction or assistance from staff when
their projects require them to deal with other departments or
outside agencies.
Management Partners has found that, in conducting many development
process studies, it is common for differences and misunderstandings to arise
between staff and the development community. However, these conflicts can
be unsettling, and they can affect the customer/staff relationship. More
important, the conflicts can affect an organization’s ability to improve and
move forward.
An annual meeting with local leaders of the development community would
be one way to provide an open opportunity to customers to work
collaboratively with staff to address thorny issues, policy and regulatory
goals and professional roles. This could help to clear the air and improve
understanding on both sides.
Conduct annual meetings with local Recommendation 1.
development community leaders to obtain feedback about
the development review process and identify steps for
continued improvement.
Themes from Staff Interviews
A consistent theme from the staff interviews was a desire for change to a
more traditional development review process based on best practices. A
comment we heard that was reflective of many staff comments was “What’s
taking so long? Show us the way – we are ready.”
Themes arising from the staff interviews included:
• There is good team spirit despite challenges of the past, and there are
areas within the department (and City organization) where
communication is effective.
266
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
8
• The Building Division and its processes are viewed by staff as
working relatively well, with a high level of service (e.g., plan check
and inspection turnaround timeframes).
• Technology in the department has been inadequate and there have
been significant delays implementing new business systems such as
EnerGov. IT support is inadequate for staff to do their jobs efficiently.
Some examples included “the City website is unfriendly”, “wireless
internet in City Hall does not work well”, and “tasks such as ordering
a new keyboard are too complicated”.
• Moorpark is a small community where people know one another;
relationships are easy to develop but also problems are easily
magnified.
• The Community Development Department was characterized by
some staff as having been “in a rut.”
• The development process is perceived as arcane. An example noted
by several staff was the City’s reliance on development agreements
for so many projects which adds complexity, reduces predictability
for applicants and delays the overall development process.
• There is a high degree of dissatisfaction (and some finger pointing
among staff) about the cost center system of collecting developer
deposits and charging staffs’ time against project accounts.
• Staff members have not had adequate training and what they have
had has lacked focus.
• The prospect of change in the organization has been met with a little
resistance. Such resistance is common in the change process, in
Management Partners’ experience, and it will require commitment
and follow to help those who may not embrace change easily.
• Some silos exist which can hinder the ability of the organization to
work efficiently between departments. This is a common challenge
for cities, in Management Partners’ experience.
267
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
9
Context for Development
This section summarizes the historical context for the development
processes in effect today, where the City is with its General Plan and
zoning status, and development impact fees.
Moorpark’s Use of Residential Planned Development Permits
In 1983, the development pattern for Moorpark’s 12.8 square miles was
thought of in “thirds.”
One-third of the City had already been built out for a population
of approximately 8,000 residents,
Another one-third was covered by county-approved and vested
subdivisions yet to be developed, and
The remaining one-third was left for future consideration.
The middle one-third (approved, undeveloped subdivisions) was the
focus of attention during the first year of incorporation. City leaders
wanted higher quality development (site layout, design and building
materials) than had been approved by the county. Community members
wanted visually appealing streetscapes and landscaped medians and, in
some cases, reduced density of development.
To achieve these objectives, the City invited developers to either
renegotiate and modify the Residential Planned Development (RPD)
permits that accompanied the vested subdivisions or start over under
Moorpark’s undefined standards and process which were to take effect at
the one-year anniversary.
268
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
10
Developers were concerned with starting over, so almost every RPD
project was renegotiated with the City. This experience framed future
expectations, especially related to negotiating for exactions and public
benefits in development agreements as they relate to community benefit
exactions that would not be subject to the Mitigation Fee Act.1
General Plan, Zoning Status and Use of Development
Agreements
The General Plan and zoning ordinance need to be updated, and the use
of development agreements limited to only those projects that truly
warrant such an extraordinary entitlement.
The Moorpark General Plan is today more of a series of resolutions than a
comprehensive vision of the community’s future. Moreover, the Land Use
Element and Circulation Element are 27 years old; the Open Space
and Conservation and Recreation Element are 33 years old; and the
Noise Element is 21 years old. Fortunately, the Housing Element is
only about five years old; however, it will require updating in 2021
pursuant to state law.
The Zoning Ordinance is largely the same as was inherited from Ventura
County at the City’s incorporation, with several mandated provisions tacked
on. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance includes a few requirements
that were adopted by the City of Moorpark (e.g., lighting regulations,
hillside management, revised sign regulations, accessory dwelling
units, newspaper racks and telecommunication transmitters and
receivers).
1 Development agreements are a type of land use approval or permit that give cities
latitude to advance their land use policies. A development agreement also gives cities
more flexibility in considering conditions and requirements, including how public
benefits associated with the project may make the project more desirable and worth
approving. In exchange for this latitude, flexibility and the public benefits, a developer is
typically granted more assurance that, once approved, their project can be built. A
development agreement is a contract; therefore, it requires consent of both city and
developer. However, because it is a contract, it allows a city to negotiate the terms of the
agreement including the exactions and public benefits provided by the developer.
269
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
11
Today, almost all medium- to large-sized development projects in Moorpark
require a General Plan Amendment and/or a Zoning Ordinance amendment.
The City encourages a developer seeking such modifications to negotiate a
development agreement. While a development agreement requires
consent by both parties, the City controls the process and timing.
Moreover, for projects of this nature, there is no set process with
benchmark timelines, other than legally required public notices, the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and procedures for public hearings and appeals. Development
agreements are powerful tools in the land use approval process in
California. However, our experience is that most cities use them for
unique projects and situations and not as the norm, which is what has
happened in Moorpark. This is one of the reasons for Moorpark’s
unpredictable development process and inability to review projects
efficiently.
On one hand, Moorpark’s planning and development framework has
given the City broad discretion regarding the timing and decisions for
major development projects. On the other hand, the framework is
regarded by customers as unpredictable, or as a stakeholder commented,
“You can’t see the goal posts, let alone the 50-yard line.” The current process
favors negotiation over a set, predictable process based on established
community standards and requirements set in policy that developers can
see and understand.
Making the development process more predictable and timely for
customers and more efficient for staff will require City leaders to adopt a
more traditional framework for guiding and regulating land use. This
would start with updating the General Plan to ensure it expresses the
City Council’s vision and goals for Moorpark. The Zoning Ordinance
(and perhaps the Zoning Map) should then be updated so that they serve
to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
Conduct a comprehensive Recommendation 2.
update to the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance/Map.
Development Impact Fees and Exactions
Once the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are updated, it will be
important to identify the types of infrastructure improvements that will
be necessary to support the development envisioned in the policy
documents. This involves preparing plans for future infrastructure and
improvements and determining what they will cost.
270
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
12
Through a nexus study, the costs for the new infrastructure and
improvements would be apportioned to new development based on
project impact and need.
These steps will obviate the need for reliance on development agreements
to ensure infrastructure and improvements are incorporated into new
development projects.
Conduct a nexus study to Recommendation 3.
determine the infrastructure and
improvements required to serve new
development and analyze their costs in
relation to new development projects.
Once a nexus study is completed, City leaders should establish a system
of impact fees.
Adopt impact fees based on Recommendation 4.
the nexus study.
271
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
13
Organization Structure and Workload
This section provides Management Partners’ observations about
organization structure and workload. Overall, we believe the way in
which the department is structured and staffed is appropriate for the
workload, except for the need for analytic capacity on staff. We address
that in recommendation 26 below.
Organization Structure is Typical of Similar Cities
The Community Development Department has three divisions, which is
typical of departments in similar cities.
Figure 2. Organization Structure of the Community Development Department
The structure and classification system and the positions are typical of
community development departments in similar cities.
The department is comprised of nine full-time-equivalent (FTE)
positions, which at first appears relatively small but seems
appropriate given that the building function is provided through
Community Development
Director
(10 FTE)
Planning and Code Compliance
(5 FTE)
Building and Safety
(1 FTE)
Administration
(3 FTE)
Functions
Administration
Budget
City Council liaison
Housing
Functions
California Environmental Quality
Act
Code enforcement
Development review
Planning Commission liaison
Public counter
Functions
Building inspection (contract)
Permitting
Plan check (contract)
Public counter
272
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
14
contract with the consulting firm of Charles Abbott Associates,
which provides their own staffing.
Code compliance staffing is limited but the services are provided
internally under the auspices of the Planning Division.
There is one FTE code compliance technician II position.
The span of control is adequate as well.
Historically, staffing levels in the department appear to have been kept
relatively lean. Further, we understand the City has only rarely engaged
planning consultants to keep up with workload demand. However, the
current workload appears to be somewhat light compared with other
planning and development agencies, and staffing appears to be adequate
for workload.
Workload
Management Partners reviewed the case volume by permit types for
three fiscal years ending in FY 2018-19. Table 1 provides the volume of
permits processed during this period. These data show a general decline,
but we hesitate to call this a trend because it is based on a limited time
period.
Processing these permits is a large part of the Community Development
Department’s work. However, a similar workload is anticipated during
the current fiscal year budget as in FY 2018-19.
Table 1. Planning Permitting Workload
Permit Type Number of Permits Processed
FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Accessory Dwelling Units 5 8 2
Administrative Permits 14 8 6
Appeals 0 0 0
Certificates of Compliance 2 0 1
Commercial Planned Development 0 1 0
Conditional Use Permits 2 3 2
Film Permits 4 6 2
General Plan Amendments 0 1 0
General Plan Amendments Formal
Initiation 0 1 0
Historic Preservation Certificates 1 0 0
Home Occupation Permits 69 61 36
273
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
15
Permit Type Number of Permits Processed
FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Industrial Planned Development 2 0 0
Lot Line Adjustments 1 0 0
Open House Sign Permits 74 65 43
Permit Adjustments 7 3 1
Parcel Maps 2 1 1
Pre-Applications 2 1 1
Residential Planned Development 0 1 0
Sign Permits 33 18 7
Temporary Use Permits 26 27 9
Variances 0 0 0
Zone Changes 0 1 0
Zoning Clearances 518 383 81
Zoning Ordinance Amendments 5 4 1
Source: Moorpark Community Development Department
There are 15 mid- to large-scale residential projects currently under
entitlement/permit review, along with three industrial projects planned.
The 108-room Fairfield Hotel is also under construction and inspections
for condition compliance are underway.
The Building and Safety Division’s workload for FY 2017-18 totaled 1,257
permits with a total project valuation of $54.3 million. By comparison,
workload for FY 2018-19 decreased to 863 permits with a valuation of $9.6
million.
A special meeting of the City Council was conducted on May 29, 2019 to
introduce the City Manager’s proposed budget for FY 2019-20. A
summary of anticipated near-term development projects was provided
and is reproduced below for context about the trends and scale of work
being conducted by staff members throughout the City organization and,
in particular, the planning, civil engineering, affordable housing and
landscape sections of the Community Development, Public Works and
Parks and Recreation departments.
On the development side, the City Council can anticipate a number
of residential development projects to come before you during FY
2019/20 that will add new residents, new infrastructure to support
residents, as well as increased sales and property tax revenue. These
projects include a proposed 69-unit townhome project on Los
274
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
16
Angeles Avenue (Green Island Villa/Grand Moorpark) and another
60-unit townhome project on Everett Street (Chiu). Due to the
relatively low number of residential units these projects may bring,
the proposed budget does not propose the addition of new service
levels; conversely no services are proposed to be reduced.
275
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
17
Development Review Process
This section outlines Management Partners’ analysis of Moorpark’s
development process. Also included are an analysis and
recommendations for best practices that will help the department to
enhance services and improve outcomes.
Process Mapping
To fully understand each step in the City’s development process,
Management Partners prepared process maps. Our work began with a
day-long process mapping session with 12 staff members in May 2019.
Our goals in facilitating this session were twofold.
Identify the current process steps. Documenting the existing process
is important because it helps to form the baseline to identify gaps,
redundancies and other problems in the current system, and to
illustrate changes needed for improving efficiency.
The process mapping exercise was useful in clearly showing that
the City does not have a uniform, identifiable process that could
be documented in process maps. The system in Moorpark, can
best be described as “ad hoc” where each project is processed
independently, and the steps, sequence and requirements can
change from one project to another. This non-uniform approach
defeats the objectives of predictability, clear and efficient
timeframes, and the ability for staff to provide clear guidance for
applicants. Our attempt at mapping the current process enabled
us to understand what we had heard from stakeholders and staff
in our interviews.
Identify tangible ways to improve predictability and timeliness of the
development review process. These outcomes require an efficient
workflow, multiple ways for customers to access relevant data
and information, clear communication and feedback from staff,
and better overall customer service.
276
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
18
Management Partners was able to focus on this second objective
of process mapping. Staff members were eager to challenge the
status quo, question existing methods, and discuss the various
forms, notices and the timing of the process. The discussions with
staff also included a review of the pre-application, development
review and condition compliance sub-processes.2
Our review of the development process in Moorpark resulted in two sets
of process maps, one set for major discretionary development projects
and the other for CEQA review.
Improving the Development Process
Management Partners has several recommendations regarding improving
the development process below.
Uniform development process needed. Management Partners observed
activity at the public front counter, heard suggestions from staff, and
reviewed application forms to understand how staff process applications
currently. We also examined areas of responsibilities, overlaps and
interconnections related to staffs’ review of entitlement/permit
applications, CEQA review and reviewing compliance with conditions of
approval.
The process maps we created will serve as a foundation for establishing a
clear and uniform development review process. The department should
review the process maps annually to keep them current by making
refinements, as necessary. We suggest this review be conducted as part of
an annual omnibus process outlined below and addressed in
Recommendation 9.
Establish a uniform Recommendation 5.
development review process, using the
process maps as a foundation.
2 As mentioned previously, most large development projects in Moorpark have been
processed with development agreements, each having a unique set of conditions and
requirements. In contrast, the conditions and requirements in most cities tend to be more
standardized and, therefore, easier to understand and predict for applicants and easier to
enforce for staff.
277
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
19
Establish project manager. Each customer needs a single point of contact
that can help him/her understand and navigate through the process in a
straightforward and timely manner. Customers we interviewed voiced
the complaint that they were often referred to other departments or
outside agencies, and when that happened, they were confused and lost
time.
A better approach is for each applicant to have a staff member designated
as project manager. The project manager would be a sort of “air traffic
controller,” owning the flight path and trajectory for the project. Planning
staff should serve as project managers, with accountability built into their
job classifications and annual performance reviews.
One simple but effective way to standardize a workflow is to develop
checklists identifying key process steps and requirements. Checklists are
a tangible way to train staff and to serve as handouts to guide customers.
The checklists should be reviewed each year to ensure they are current
with policy changes, State law modifications, and process improvements
made by the City.
Establish the role of project Recommendation 6.
manager for each project that includes a
discretionary application.
Prepare comprehensive Recommendation 7.
internal checklists by project type for staff
members and applicants. This should also
involve an annual review of the checklists which
could be done as a part of the omnibus review
process by the Development Review Committee.
Communicate the steps of Recommendation 8.
the development review process, standards
and deposits/fees in a Development Review
Handbook that is provided to customers.
Conduct annual policy updates. The California Legislature periodically
enacts new regulations that affect land use policies, as well as imposing
new procedural requirements and practices. Instituting an annual
practice of reviewing Moorpark’s development policies, codes and
procedural changes along with implementing changes imposed by the
State would ensure that all elements of the City’s development policies tie
together.
278
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
20
Doing this at a set time each year will give policymakers and the
community a comprehensive picture of major issues. As an example, the
City of Encinitas conducts a comprehensive overview of its community
development function each spring, side-by-side with the state-required
Annual General Plan Report. The timing of this session gives Council
members an opportunity to prioritize and budget what staff work is to be
conducted on policy, code, process and fee matters as well as timing of
such work.
Establish an annual Recommendation 9.
omnibus process for adopting and updating
land use policies, regulatory code standards,
programs, and administrative processes,
including the procedures for managing the
cost center program.
Expand role of Development Review Committee (DRC). An effective
development review process requires regular communication and
coordination between staff from various disciplines involved in a
complex series of tasks.
Moorpark has a staff-level Development Review Committee (DRC)
whose role it is to inform the City Council, Planning Commission and
City Manager about the technical merits of development projects that
require discretionary review. This role could be expanded to include an
interdepartmental staff review of pre-submittal, condition and mitigation
measure setting, and condition compliance phases of development
review. As the DRC’s role is expanded, it will also be important to
ensure clarity about the project manager’s duties in relation to the DRC.
Our process maps indicate what we view as an appropriate role for the
DRC.
In addition to reviewing individual development projects, we believe the
DRC should lead the annual omnibus process for reviewing and
reporting to the City Council on updates to legislation, policy,
procedures, programs and related matters. As a practical matter, this
process will be overseen by the Community Development Director, who
should also have the authority to delegate certain tasks to other
departments.
Expand the role of the Recommendation 10.
Development Review Committee to cover the
pre-submittal, condition and mitigation
measure setting, and condition compliance
279
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
21
phases of development review, and oversee
the annual omnibus review process.
Another concern we heard during the process mapping session is that not
all pertinent staff members are part of the Development Review
Committee, nor are they involved early enough in the technical reviews.
DRC membership should be expanded to include staff who can provide a
review of integrated waste management, stormwater and affordable
housing.
Expand membership of the Recommendation 11.
Development Review Committee to include
coverage of integrated waste management,
stormwater and affordable housing.
After the department implements this new development process, and
works with it for some time, it would be appropriate to examine the
process further and identify additional ways to improve it.
280
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
22
Business Technologies
This section summarizes our recommendations regarding technology,
intended to increase efficiency of the development process.
EnerGov
The City purchased the EnerGov land management system and its web-
based portal to help streamline reviews and allow staff and customers to
access the status of development projects and plan review comments.
Expectations for a quick and smooth implementation of this system were
dashed after the contractor substituted personnel responsible for system
roll-out, the City was late in delivering process information, and the
implementation budget was depleted.
Now back on track under the guidance of the City Manager’s Office, staff
plan for the EnerGov system to be operational by late 2019. One of the
outstanding matters is to ensure the process steps and workflow
contained in the EnerGov system are consistent with the steps and
workflow in the City’s revised development review process.
Complete the configuration, Recommendation 12.
beta-testing and roll-out of the EnerGov
system. In so doing, provide licenses for staff,
conduct staff training, publicly announce a launch
date, and provide a user-friendly guide on the
City’s website for access to and use of the system.
Embed the process steps Recommendation 13.
and workflow identified in the process maps
within the EnerGov system.
Electronic Plan Review
Staff expressed interest in implementing other business systems that
would allow customers to use electronic tools such as Blue Beam or
Adobe Pro to submit applications and plans electronically. Most of these
tools provide for two-way electronic forwarding of technical drawings
281
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
23
and reports, red-line mark-ups on plan sets, as well as the electronic
archival of such, at a considerable savings of paperwork, time, cost and
space. Management Partners’ experience and working with many public
agencies has convinced us that use of these technologies in local
government is a “when” not “if” proposition.
Procure and integrate an Recommendation 14.
electronic application submittal, distribution
and plan review business system.
Transition to Paperless System
Many large and small cities throughout California are currently engaged
or have recently completed transitions to a paperless development review
process. Examples are Encinitas, Carlsbad, Newport Beach, Roseville, and
Folsom. Paperless systems cannot be implemented overnight. They
require a deliberate and programmed transition for both staff members
and customers. To be successful, the transition needs to break long
established behaviors of working with paper in exchange for the
efficiencies from electronic tracking, communication and archiving.
Implementation of the EnerGov system must first be completed, as would
the transition to an electronic plan review system. We also see the move
to a paperless system for development review as a “when” not “if”
proposition. Implementing a paperless system would require staff
training, the validation of electronic signatures, the provision of electronic
kiosks for customers, as well as integration with outside agencies.
Examples are Caltrans, Ventura County Fire Protection District, Ventura
County Watershed Protection District and Wastewater District.
Develop a timeline for Recommendation 15.
future transition to a paperless development
review system.
Enterprise Resource Planning Software
The City Manager’s Office is overseeing an enterprise resource planning
(ERP) project, which will integrate multiple business functions such as
planning, finance, human resources and procurement through
technology. The use of an ERP system has become common in local
governments for business efficiency and as a way to innovate, given
limited staffing resources that are typical among smaller cities.
Plan for continued Recommendation 16.
investment in system upgrades and ERP
282
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
24
integration of business systems. Particular
attention needs to be provided to the
integration of the EnerGov system with the
Geographic Information System and digital
application submittal and plan review software.
City Website and Handouts
A variety of guides, application forms and checklists are available on the
City’s website and at the public front counter. The various resolutions
that comprise the General Plan and the Zoning Code are also posted
online.
However, the City’s website needs updating. Searching for a routine
question, such as the process for securing a sign permit, requires multiple
steps rather than the industry standard of “1-2-Click.” It was noted by a
staff member that it is easier to obtain a copy of the Zoning Clearance
form by using the Google search engine instead of the City’s website.
Another interviewee remarked, “Redesign it so we don’t have to flip through
several pages to figure out the City’s submittal requirements.”
Changes that should be considered include replacing the department’s
webpages with application guides and checklists by type of project,
readily available to the user on the website. The guides and checklists
should cover items such as:
• Zoning requirements;
• Lot split/subdivision requirements;
• Sign permit requirements;
• Process steps;
• Fees (including a fee calculator);
• Staff contacts;
• Method to track an application, such as an applicant’s use of the
EnerGov system; and
• Other helpful resources.
The Development Review Handbook, which was previously
recommended (Recommendation 8), should also include these additional
materials. Further, implementing these changes would require assigning
responsibility to a staff position to update the website and handout
materials on a semi-annual schedule. This would ensure that customers
have the most current information on processes, requirements and public
access points to data, information, public notices and project status.
283
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
25
Update the website to focus on Recommendation 17.
providing application guides and other electronic
information, such as the Development Review
Handbook.
284
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
26
Management System
Managing a community development department well requires a variety
of technical skills, an ability to provide clear direction to staff and a
commitment to being accessible and providing good service to customers.
Tools in the form of systems, policies, timeframes, procedures,
performance measures, analytic capacity, and other checks and balances
are also needed for effective management. We call these collective tools
the management system.
This section focuses on the various components of the department’s
management system.
Cycle and Task Times
The State’s Permit Streamlining Act provides benchmark standards for
processing of development projects. However, discretionary projects
involving a legislative decision (such as General Plan Amendments,
Zoning Code/Map modifications, and development agreements) are
exempt from these timeframes. Many projects in Moorpark, including
virtually every large project, involve one or more of these legislative
actions.
It may appear that having no time standards is an advantage to the City
because staff and policymaker review of projects is not constrained by
deadlines. However, lack of time standards can lead to unhappy
customers, dysfunctional systems, and inefficient work.
The lack of established time standards, or cycle times, contributes to
staffs’ inability to advise customers about what to expect and how long
things will take. Improving Moorpark’s development process will require
setting timeframes and managing the work within them.
Cycle times and task times. Implementing and managing timeframes in
a development process also requires differentiating between cycle and
task times. This is important because the development process in most
cities is iterative, starting when a customer submits an application and set
of plans. Staff then review what was submitted, preparing and sending
285
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
27
comments to the customer explaining the changes to the project that are
necessary. A new cycle begins again when the customer revises plans and
resubmits them for further review. Obviously, limiting the number of
cycles of review is critical from a time management standpoint.
Our experience is that cities should aim to complete the development
process after two cycles of review. This is impeded in Moorpark by
several factors, as follows:
• Imprecise or unclear General Plan or Zoning Code policy that
leads customers to submit projects that are not in compliance.
• Lack of information that helps customers understand the review
process and a city’s requirements.
• Inaccessible (or a lack of) staff to answer questions promptly.
• Lack of or unclear policies and procedures that leave staff
uncertain about how to advise customers. (A related problem is
inconsistent implementation of policies and procedures by
different staff members or for different projects.)
• Lack of onboarding or training for staff about the entire
development process.
• Unclear applications and submittal requirements that do not
provide a comprehensive list of what is necessary when projects
are submitted.
• Lack of communication with customers (website, informational
materials, public counter, telephone) about which city department
is responsible for what review task.
• Ineffective internal coordination of the reviews by various
departments (e.g., where one or more departments do not conduct
a thorough review which results in a customer getting “last-
minute” or piecemeal comments).
Limiting the number of review cycles is a key step in improving the
development process. Another key step is to clearly identify and tightly
manage task times. Of course, by task we refer to one of the numerous
discrete steps in each review cycle. Examples of tasks might include:
• Circulating plans to the various reviewing departments after the
project has been submitted;
• Reviewing the development plans;
• Consulting with external agencies (e.g., school district, Caltrans);
• Conducting an environmental review pursuant to CEQA;
• Determining whether significant off-site improvements will be
necessary; or
286
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
28
•Reviewing the type of construction to identify major building
code problems.
Need to set realistic timeframes. Managing tasks requires setting realistic
timeframes for each staff member to complete their portion of the review
and ensuring all staff members are conducting their reviews
concurrently. The project manager discussed earlier in this report is the
key to keeping a project on schedule because their role is to analyze,
communicate and coordinate with City staff and the customer.
The following are other timeframes that should be established.
•Completeness task time. The Permit Streamlining Act requires
determinations on application completeness be made within 30
days of application submittal.
•Tenant improvement cycle time. Establish a cycle time for review
of office/commercial tenant improvements of 20 calendar days.
•Discretionary project cycle time. Establish cycle times for review
of all other discretionary development projects within 45 calendar
days of the application completeness determination.
•CEQA cycle/task time. The CEQA process should run
concurrently with discretionary project review but recognizing
that CEQA review involves separate statutory timeframes for
public review and comment.
Establish cycle and task Recommendation 18.
times for the entitlement review of
development projects. Track timeframes and
share results with staff on a monthly basis.
Measuring Performance
The EnerGov platform is capable of producing data that will allow the
department to prepare management reports that measure cycle times and
other metrics by project type (e.g., residential tract development,
commercial or industrial development, infill or revitalization of highway
corridor centers, etc.), by permit type (e.g., Use Permit, Tentative Tract
Map, etc.), by geographic area of the city, as well as by staff position or
department. The system can also provide workload data for purposes of
strategic planning, budgeting, and deploying staff resources.
Using EnerGov data to measure performance will require programming
and formatting of standardized reports. Some land management systems
require these standardized reports to be created through third-party
287
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
29
software such as SAP’s Crystal Reports software. Department leaders
should confer with the City’s IT staff and the EnerGov vendor to clarify
how this standardized reporting will be accomplished.
Department leaders will need to identify the types of metrics and reports
it needs to allow a continual assessment of the development review
process and department operations. Examples of typical metrics are
shown below.
• Percent of DRC reviews completed within the timeframe goal;
• Average number of days required to complete DRC reviews;
• Number of projects submitted with discretionary applications;
• Average number of review cycles conducted for:
a. discretionary projects, and
b. plan check;
• Average number of days from discretionary application submittal
to action by the Planning Commission and City Council;
• Total number of plan check submittals;
• Average number of plan check resubmittals;
• Average number of days required to complete plan check reviews;
• Number of building permits issued;
• Number of building inspections performed;
• Percent of building inspections performed within timeframe goal;
• Number of customers served:
o By telephone, and
o At public counter;
• Number of code enforcement cases filed;
• Average number of days for inspection after code enforcement
cases are filed; and
• Average number of days to resolve and close code enforcement
cases.
Establish a system of Recommendation 19.
performance reports and metrics to analyze
the development process and Community
Development Department operations.
Standardized Conditions
All discretionary entitlements in Moorpark include a 47-page list of
standard conditions of approval. Standard conditions and checklists are
effective because they ensure that important requirements or steps are not
overlooked, and they help to ensure consistency from one project to
another.
288
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
30
However, many of the standard conditions in Moorpark may not be
applicable or scaled properly to their respective projects. Nonetheless,
they are required pursuant to City of Moorpark Resolution 2009-2799.
Several of the conditions in the City’s list recite regulatory requirements
already built into the development review process through state and local
laws, making them unnecessary. Further, we understand these standard
conditions can be confusing and costly for stakeholders. Worse, the
conditions could constitute an overreach when misapplied to mid-sized
projects, and this could be a “deal killer.”
A best practice is to have a scalable list of standard conditions of approval
that staff can choose from which are relevant to the development project
at hand.
Edit the standard conditions Recommendation 20.
to remove redundant requirements that
appear in state or local laws.
Amend Resolution 2009-Recommendation 21.
2799 to clarify that standard conditions of
approval are to be applied and scaled
commensurate with each development project.
Staff Engagement and Training
It is evident that Moorpark has quality, committed employees at every
level of the organization who are supportive of and even eager to begin
using new approaches to improve the development process and the
department. It is also clear the department has effective leadership.
Engaging staff in implementing changes, and in their professional
development, will be important to the success of improved development
processes.
The Community Development Department’s prior focus has been on
project review rather a broader approach that emphasizes timeliness,
clarity, predictability and customer service. The narrower project review
approach led to lack of coordination and a perception by customers of
289
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
31
little sense of urgency.3 Management Partners notes that the only process
that had some structure in Moorpark was related to CEQA, and that was
due to State mandates. A “start-to-finish” type of project management
was not evident.
Under the new processes recommended in this report, staff at all levels of
the department will need to participate in the workflow and ownership of
their assigned development projects.
Key ingredients will include the following:
Expanding staff roles to include anticipating pinch-points in the
process, greater problem-solving with one another and the
customer, and actively working to keep forward momentum for
projects at each step of the development review process.
Enhancing an understanding of the customer’s perspective that
each project is important and urgent to that customer.
Moving from working on parts of a project to managing for
project outcomes.
Obtaining new skills in analytical methods and strategic
approaches to workflow management, as well as skillful use of the
business systems that can assist the staff team.
Conducting annual performance reviews that are focused on
professional development, establishing goals for the coming year,
clarifying expectations, and identifying what will be most helpful
for each staff person’s success.
With regards to performance evaluations, we learned that they have been
inconsistent or even overlooked within the department in the past. This is
not particularly unusual in organizations, but it is a missed opportunity.
The timing for the annual performance evaluations can be set in a variety
of ways, such as based on the employee’s anniversary date, or all
evaluations conducted at the same time once a year. The latter timing can
be useful as a way to clearly incorporate the department’s goals and
3 Urgency implies a priority, where something is important enough to warrant swift,
persistent and earnest action. However, it is not the same thing as emergency, which is
characterized by a need for immediate, drop-what-you-are-doing action.
290
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
32
expectations into individual performance goals and evaluations so that
there is meaningful feedback to each employee in a way that reflects on
the progress of the entire team and its goals for the coming year.
Regardless of the schedule, the important thing is for the department to
provide a structured, annual performance evaluation for each staff
member. Additionally, staff members should be provided regular,
specific feedback to support their success, along with training, coaching
and support.
Conduct annual evaluations Recommendation 22.
for each member of the department. Goals
established in performance evaluations should
identify specific ways for each team member to
advance the department’s efforts to improve the
development process and customer service.
Provide customer service Recommendation 23.
training that emphasizes workflow
management. The annual performance review
is key to setting expectations for behavioral
norms, particularly as the department’s culture
transitions to become more team-oriented and
outcome-focused.
Use of On-Call Consultants
Many cities use on-call contractors to assist with specialized tasks or to
assist during periods of peak workloads. The Community Development
Department has started doing this in two important ways.
1. The department has established on-call contracts with two
environmental firms to prepare CEQA reports for the City. Developer-
prepared environmental documents are no longer accepted for
processing, which was an important step by the City. Having on-
call contracts reduces the time required for the CEQA review.
2. The department has established an on-call contract with an estate
advisory firm to perform economic and related analysis as a part of
reviewing projects where development agreements are proposed. Again,
having this firm under contract allows the department to be
nimbler in responding to development proposals.
On-call contracts are sound practices because a department this size (in
fact, even much larger departments) would seldom have among their
staff the special expertise these firms offer. Using these experts ensures
291
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
33
quality analysis and representation for the City of Moorpark.
Additionally, the cost of this expert assistance can be recovered through
fees, reimbursement agreements, and similar arrangements.
Other steps can be taken. Additional measures could also be considered,
such as the following.
Hiring consultants to assist with updating building permit and
development impact fees would also ensure a high-quality
analysis and that the costs and impacts on the community are
being properly addressed.
Engaging on-call contract with a planning firm(s) that provides
project-processing help is another good approach for addressing
periods of peak workload, rather than incurring the cost of hiring
staff for the peak, which is not affordable for most cities. Having
consultants on call allows the department to use the resources
when workload warrants it. The cost of these on-call services can
also be recovered from the applicants who benefit from the
service.
Expand consulting services Recommendation 24.
to include additional on-call economic and
planning casework assistance, as well as
services to analyze building permit fees and
development impact fees.
The City of Moorpark uses an engineering consultant to provide various
civil engineering services including participating in the development
review process. Unfortunately, the management of these services was
roundly criticized by stakeholders. The criticism centered on lax
oversight by the City’s consultant, particularly in the areas of cycle times
and cost containment.
Management Partners is not able to advise whether stakeholders’
perceptions regarding the contract engineering services are valid because
such an assessment is beyond our scope of work. However, it is clear
these matters are considered problematic by the stakeholders we
interviewed. Other complaints from stakeholders are that the engineering
function is not managed effectively and that there is a lack of
responsiveness to customers. These concerns warrant further review by
City staff.
292
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
34
Conduct a focused Recommendation 25.
assessment of the civil engineering program,
including on-call engineering services.
Analytic Capacity
The system changes needed to improve the development process, and the
technology being implemented now or planned, will require additional
analytical capacity in the department. Additionally, the accounting
functions required within Community Development need additional
capacity. The lack of a position to provide this capacity means that the
director and managers are responsible for the various analytic tasks, and
time available for customer issues, complicated development projects and
overall management is strained.
Among the tasks needing attention are the following:
Collecting and analyzing data, and tracking performance;
Preparing the budget;
Managing the cost center system;
Ensuring proper accounting of various developer funds;
Coordinating the department’s efforts with other departments,
especially the Finance Department;
Problem solving issues from customers or staff, such as those
about deposits; and,
Assisting with implementing improvements to the development
process.
Problems with accounting and monitoring. We understand that requests
of an administrative or financial nature usually take a backseat to other
important work in the department. For example, an accounting inquiry
from a customer (or staff member) about a deposit account can take quite
some time to answer. We heard of instances where this took as long as
one year. A related problem pertains to the commingling of developer
funds used for improvements required by conditions of approval or
mitigation measures.
The cost center system was assigned to the Finance Department at some
point in the past. This is understandable at first blush since the cost center
system is an accounting function. However, after examining it further we
think this may have been misguided.
While Finance staff are typically skilled at accounting and monitoring
financial records, doing so for the Community Development Department
is particularly complicated because of the numerous projects, complex
293
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
35
timeframes, infrastructure requirements, conditions of approval and
several other variables. These factors complicate the accounting tasks.
Further, the Community Development Department is responsible for two
types of accounts: development processing deposit accounts and impact
fee or condition of approval funds used for various improvements or
requirements. Each project may have one account of the first type and
another account of the second type.
It would be difficult for Finance staff to spend the required time learning
and monitoring all the requirements and project variables in addition to
their regular work. Our experience is that effective community
development departments often have a dedicated analyst position to help
meet these needs yet maintain thorough accounting records consistent
with finance guidelines.
The department does not have an effective system for managing the types
of analytical, administrative and accounting challenges discussed above.
We believe a central problem is that there is no one single person
responsible for this work. Creating an analyst role in the department
would address this matter.
Create an analyst position in Recommendation 26.
the Community Development Department.
Fees, Cost Recovery and Cost Center Management
We understand there is a plan to conduct a study of administrative
processing fees in the near future. We have found wide variability in
development review fee schedules throughout California, both by region
and by purpose, such as incentivizing developers to seek pre-submittal
review of projects. While the City’s fee consultant will provide analysis
and specific recommendations, we offer some best practices and broad
recommendations below.
Pre-Application Reviews and Fees
The department’s website identifies two types of pre-submittal reviews.
“Pre-Submittal Review” is focused on discussing City requirements
before plans are prepared. It appears this process is free. “Pre-
Application” is a process where applicants can meet with and obtain
feedback from various City representatives. The fee for Pre-Application is
$1,400. Both processes are scheduled by appointment.
Early review of projects is good for customers and City staff because it
establishes clear communication at the beginning of the development
294
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
36
review process. It also discourages ill-conceived concepts from being
submitted and then languishing in the review process. Making this
process easy, fast and cheap is in everyone’s interest.
However, having two similar processes is confusing and unnecessary.
Combining them into a single process would simplify things for
customers and staff. Of course, the department could continue offering
other informal consultations on request.
Some cities provide pre-application reviews on a regular schedule. The
advantage is a standardized process, timeframes and stakeholder/staff
expectations. It also helps address the problem of departments coming to
a pre-application meeting unprepared.
Combine the two pre-Recommendation 27.
application reviews into a single process and
determine whether they will be conducted on
request or on a regular schedule.
Establish a nominal (or no) Recommendation 28.
fee for pre-application review.
Cost Recovery
The cost of most of the work of the department is recoverable through
processing fees (e.g., fees for building permits, conditional use permits,
variances, zone changes, general plan amendments, and subdivisions).
However, it is common that cities are not able to recover certain types of
expenses because they cannot be attributed to new development.
The key is to build an understandable fee schedule that encourages
efficient service delivery and fee transparency. Establishing a cost
recovery policy is a recommended first step.
The principle of cost recovery is that the individuals or businesses who
receive a benefit from a city in the form of entitlements should bear the
cost of providing those services. When development review fees do not
recover a city’s costs, the result is that the cost burden is shifted
elsewhere, typically to the General Fund. The result of artificially low
development review fees is that other taxpayers subsidize new
development.
City Council policy. Cost recovery begins with a City Council policy that
establishes the intent to recover the City’s full cost of providing services
to development applicants, and whether some (or no) project types
should be subsidized. For example, some cities subsidize permit costs for
295
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
37
project types they want to attract, such as affordable housing, because
they deem them important for the community’s general welfare.
Develop and recommend an Recommendation 29.
appropriate cost recovery policy to the City
Council.
Recovering external costs incurred by the City. Moorpark has a complex
system for reviewing project compliance with conditions of approval,
mitigation measures, infrastructure requirements, and subdivision
agreements. Some but not all costs for this work can be recovered
through projects’ cost center accounts. However, the City needs to ensure
that other costs, like consultant-related civil engineering costs and staff
preparation of Subdivision Improvement Agreements, are also recovered.
Cities can also incur other external costs for processing development
projects. Examples of these include costs for consultants to prepare
environmental documents, prepare third-party economic analysis, or
provide other technical or legal assistance.
Some cities enter into reimbursement agreements with applicants to
recover these costs. Another approach is to wait until the City receives a
proposal from the consultant and then require the applicant to deposit
the entire amount with the City in advance. Whichever option Moorpark
chooses, a clear and well-documented reimbursement process will be
useful when projects involve additional costs.
Prepare a policy and Recommendation 30.
procedure related to reimbursement of all
external City costs.
Basis for Calculating Building Fees
Moorpark, like most cities in California, has a series of building fees to
cover the cost of plan check, issuing permits and obtaining an inspection.
Cities typically use one of two basic approaches for calculating these fees.
• Project valuation, or
• Analysis of time/motion.
Project valuation is an approach that sets fees based on the cost to build
the project. To ensure uniformity, cities typically use project valuation
data published by a well-accepted authority such as the International
Code Council (ICC).
296
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
38
The second approach is what Moorpark is using now. It is a more
detailed analysis of the actual work involved in issuing a permit,
performing a plan check, or conducting an inspection. This method then
multiplies the average hours required for the task by the fully burdened
rate of the employees performing the tasks. Moorpark’s other entitlement
fees are rooted in this time/motion method because a developer pays for
the time staff spend to process their project.
The project valuation method is a simpler approach, and is widely used,
but can be less defensible because the relationship between a project’s
cost and the task performed by the staff member(s) is not linear. In
contrast, a time/motion method is more complex to set up but can be
more accurate because it studies the actual work performed and
determines the fee on this basis.
As previously recommended, the City should seek the advice of a well-
qualified building permit fee consultant.
Determine whether Recommendation 31.
building fees are to be calculated on the basis
of project valuation or the estimated time for
completing each task.
Implement Surcharges to Recover Business System Costs
Cities incur substantial costs to procure, manage, license and update
business systems and policies such as land management systems (e.g.,
EnerGov), geographic information systems, general plans, and zoning
ordinances. Other miscellaneous business systems also include recording,
imaging and archival services related to maintaining public records. Since
these systems and policies exist to guide and support new development,
a significant portion of their costs can be recovered through application
and permitting fees.
A common way of recovering these costs is to establish surcharges on
each permit, approval or entitlement the City issues. In this way, the City
will recapture the costs incrementally over time and have sufficient
funding to offset large cost outlays to update these systems in the future.
Of course, these surcharge funds must be segregated for accounting
purposes to ensure they are spent for the intended purposes.
Establish a system of Recommendation 32.
surcharges on permits, approvals and
entitlements to recover costs of business
systems and policy documents.
297
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Workplace Environment Management Partners
39
Workplace Environment
The most prominent face of Moorpark City Hall is the small, 10-foot wide
public counter in the portable, dimly lit building that houses the
Community Development Department and portions of the Public Works
and Parks and Recreation departments. This is the public’s only access to
City Hall because other departments and offices are located behind
locked gates.
There are a number of issues related to the current physical space,
including:
The facilities are small and uncomfortable in terms of reviewing
large plan sets with customers and doing the other work of the
Community Development Department;
The public queueing space is inadequate for the volume of users
during peak times in the morning;
Public restrooms are located three buildings away and down a
hill;
The portable building is accessed by a steep ramp from the
parking lot that may not meet the standards of the Building and
Safety Division it houses; and,
Noise attenuation is a problem.
By comparison, the internal operating departments, Administration,
Human Resources, Finance, IT, City Clerk and the City Manager’s Office
are housed in a well-lit, air conditioned and nicely furnished modern
office building next door. This building, however, is inaccessible to the
public, despite the fact that it provides 40-feet of front counter space,
substantial queueing space and restrooms adjacent to the unused front
counters.
Moreover, all City Hall walk-in customers are directed to the Community
Development front counter. All telephone calls are also directed to the
Community Development Department, and specifically to an
administrative assistant who is seated next to the public counter. During
lunch and breaks, other administrative staff in the portable building
298
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Workplace Environment Management Partners
40
provide backup relief for the primary staff who handle these tasks. When
asked about this situation, staff members explain it as a vestige of frugal
times to avoid layoffs.
This workplace environment is not conducive to a contemporary business
model that provides comfortable, business-like facilities for customers
and staff and multiple, direct points of public access to services at City
Hall.
Since our assessment was focused on the Community Development
Department and the development review process, we will focus on how
the inadequate facilities impact customers and staff in terms of providing
a business-friendly environment. In fact, most cities strive to create “one-
stop” centers for permitting with facilities and amenities designed around
the customer. These factors should be considered as Moorpark weighs its
facility needs in the future.
Conduct a facility needs Recommendation 33.
assessment to determine options for relocating
development review functions to City Hall, or
remodeling facilities to provide a modern and
workable office environment.
New counter schedule needed. The Development Services front counter is
open to customers on Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
for a total of 45 hours per week. The schedule does not provide downtime
to process paperwork or enable staff to accomplish other assigned tasks.
Moreover, the schedule does not afford attendance by all staff at
department-wide meetings and/or job-specific trainings, unless closure of
the public counter is authorized by the City Manager.
Many cities establish public counter hours that recognize the need for
mobilization and demobilization time in the morning and late afternoon.
Although large organizations may find coverage from other departments
or divisions for staff meetings, training and other important
administrative functions, this is often not possible in smaller
organizations.
Our experience is that the early morning hours are typically the most
valuable to contractors and others seeking permits so opening the public
counter at 8:00 a.m. could work so long as it closes early in the afternoon
for demobilization. For instance, closing the counter at 4:00 p.m. would
provide staff time to close out files, finish recordkeeping tasks and other
functions so they can start the next morning focused on that day’s work.
299
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Workplace Environment Management Partners
41
Develop a counter schedule Recommendation 34.
that provides time for mobilization and
demobilization each day, as well as time for
meetings, training and other important
administrative functions.
300
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
42
Conclusion
The City of Moorpark is in a transitional period of change that includes
efforts to improve the City’s development review process and to ensure
the Community Development Department’s structure, staffing and
operations are optimized for the future.
The City has an opportunity to move from its current ad hoc
development review and land use system to one that is grounded in
policies that allow for predictability, consistency, timeliness and clarity
for development applicants. The current approach to development makes
providing information to customers difficult if not impossible.
Technology investments are underway, and more are planned, and more
system improvements will be needed to create an efficient development
process review system. Practices over the years have resulted in staff
members having a narrow scope of responsibilities, which complicates
their ability to assist customers effectively and impedes having a well-
integrated and coordinated development system across the organization.
It also works against professional development, which is critical in
maintaining top talent and keeping staff well trained.
Improving the development process will require establishing a
comprehensive framework of land use policies and regulations by
updating the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance/Map. With these
policies and regulations in place, the process maps prepared by
Management Partners will serve as a foundation for establishing a clear
and predictable development process.
Implementing the recommendations in this report will take time and
budgetary resources. City leaders, along with the enthusiasm and
dedication of staff, can establish a high-functioning development process
that customers appreciate, staff feel part of, and the community benefits
from.
301
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
43
Attachment A – List of Recommendations
Conduct annual meetings with local development community leaders Recommendation 1.
to obtain feedback about the development review process and identify steps for continued
improvement.
Conduct a comprehensive update to the General Plan and Zoning Recommendation 2.
Ordinance/Map.
Conduct a nexus study to determine the infrastructure and Recommendation 3.
improvements required to serve new development and analyze their costs in relation to new
development projects.
Adopt impact fees based on the nexus study. Recommendation 4.
Establish a uniform development review process, using the process Recommendation 5.
maps as a foundation.
Establish the role of project manager for each project that includes a Recommendation 6.
discretionary application.
Prepare comprehensive internal checklists by project type for staff Recommendation 7.
members and applicants.
Communicate the steps of the development review process, standards Recommendation 8.
and deposits/fees in a Development Review Handbook that is provided to customers.
Establish an annual omnibus process for adopting and updating land Recommendation 9.
use policies, regulatory code standards, programs, and administrative processes, including
the procedures for managing the cost center program.
Expand the role of the Development Review Committee to cover the Recommendation 10.
pre-submittal, condition and mitigation measure setting, and condition compliance phases of
development review, and oversee the annual omnibus review process.
Expand membership of the Development Review Committee to Recommendation 11.
include coverage of integrated waste management, stormwater and affordable housing.
Complete the configuration, beta-testing and roll-out of the EnerGov Recommendation 12.
system.
Embed the process steps and workflow identified in the process maps Recommendation 13.
within the EnerGov system.
Procure and integrate an electronic application submittal, distribution Recommendation 14.
and plan review business system.
Develop a timeline for future transition to a paperless development Recommendation 15.
review system.
Plan for continued investment in system upgrades and ERP integration Recommendation 16.
of business systems.
302
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
44
Update the website to focus on providing application guides and other Recommendation 17.
electronic information, such as the Development Review Handbook.
Establish cycle and task times for the entitlement review of Recommendation 18.
development projects. Track timeframes and share results with staff on a monthly basis.
Establish a system of performance reports and metrics to analyze the Recommendation 19.
development process and Community Development Department operations.
Edit the standard conditions to remove redundant requirements that Recommendation 20.
appear in state or local laws.
Amend Resolution 2009-2799 to clarify that standard conditions of Recommendation 21.
approval are to be applied and scaled commensurate with each development project.
Conduct annual evaluations for each member of the department. Recommendation 22.
Provide customer service training that emphasizes workflow Recommendation 23.
management.
Expand consulting services to include additional on-call economic and Recommendation 24.
planning casework assistance, as well as services to analyze building permit fees and
development impact fees.
Conduct a focused assessment of the civil engineering program, Recommendation 25.
including on-call engineering services.
Create an analyst position in the Community Development Recommendation 26.
Department.
Combine the two pre-application reviews into a single process and Recommendation 27.
determine whether they will be conducted on request or on a regular schedule.
Establish a nominal (or no) fee for pre-application review. Recommendation 28.
Develop and recommend an appropriate cost recovery policy to the Recommendation 29.
City Council.
Prepare a policy and procedure related to reimbursement of all Recommendation 30.
external City costs.
Determine whether building fees are to be calculated on the basis of Recommendation 31.
project valuation or the estimated time for completing each task.
Establish a system of surcharges on permits, approvals and Recommendation 32.
entitlements to recover costs of business systems and policy documents.
Conduct a facility needs assessment to determine options for Recommendation 33.
relocating development review functions to City Hall, or remodeling facilities to provide a
modern and workable office environment.
Develop a counter schedule that provides time for mobilization and Recommendation 34.
demobilization each day, as well as time for meetings, training and other important
administrative functions.
303
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
45
Attachment B – Draft Process Maps for Major Discretionary
Projects
304
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
46
Attachment C – Draft Process Maps for CEQA Review
305
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan
October 2019
ATTACHMENT 2,
EXHIBIT A
306
Making the Most of the Draft Implementation Action Plan
Management Partners has developed this draft Implementation Action Plan to assist the Moorpark Community Development
Department with the phasing and scheduling of 34 recommendations. The work involved in implementing the recommendations
must be integrated into the other work of the departments and divisions tasked with their completion, along with appropriate
assignments of responsibility and with identification of specific planned completion dates. The draft Action Plan begins that process
with guidance about a recommended priority assignment. Priority 1 recommendations are those that we believe are the most
important to accomplish without delay or are easy to accomplish. Priority 2 have less importance in the near term or have an added
element of complication to complete or require a significant amount of resources (perhaps internal and external) to assist with
completion. Priority 3 are the least urgent to complete, either because they require action by a third party over which the City has no
direct control, or due to complexity, or their relative importance to department goals.
We suggest that you use this document to prepare a final Action Plan for the City of Moorpark. In doing so, the management team
will need to identify specific target dates for completing implementation. Additionally, you may want to modify the described
activities for implementing an individual recommendation based on internal knowledge of what will be required for completion, or
to adjust the assignment of responsibility based on pending or future workload or other considerations. Prudent implementation of
most recommendations requires “circling back” after the work of completing strategies has begun and fine-tuning the results based
on experience. The step to do that is not spelled out for each recommendation in this document on the assumption that it would be
part of your normal management system.
To turn this draft into the Action Plan you can use to manage implementation, replace the column entitled “Priority” with the
dates for planned completion. A target date can be specific (e.g., September 1) or by month or quarter (e.g., 3Q 2020), as appropriate
to the individual action.
Management Partners remains available to consult with you in this process in whatever way we can be helpful. All of the work to
implement the recommendations is in addition to the normal work of involved city staff. Management Partners can provide extra
capacity to expedite completion of many of the recommendations. Please do not hesitate to contact Jay Trevino at 714-926-1515 if we
can be of assistance. Jay can be reached by email at jtrevino@managementpartners.com.
The discipline of successful project planning is basic to successful execution of the work ahead. We hope that you find the d raft
Action Plan useful in that regard.
307
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
1
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
1 Conduct annual meetings with local
development community leaders to
obtain feedback about the
development review process and
identify steps for continued
improvement.
• Identify staff and community leaders who will be
invited to attend the meetings
• Determine and publicize meeting date and location
• Notify stakeholders of purpose and objectives for
these meetings
• Appoint responsibility for meeting agenda and note-
taking/distribution
• Set a schedule for meetings to occur annually
1 Community
Development
Director
2 Conduct a comprehensive update to
the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance/Map.
• Update the General Plan to ensure it supports
Council’s vision and goals
• Update the Zoning Ordinance and maps to ensure
they serve to implement the goals and objectives of
the General Plan
• Review updates with City Manager
• Communicate updates to staff
• Set up a process to provide regular briefings for
development community
2 Community
Development
Director
This is a high priority but will
take significant time and
resources to complete.
3 Conduct a nexus study to determine
the infrastructure and improvements
required to serve new development
and analyze their costs in relation to
new development projects.
• Assign team members responsibility for nexus study
• Apportion costs for new infrastructure and
improvements to new development, based on project
impact and need
• Review results with City Manager and Community
Development Director
2 Public Works
Director
This is a high priority but will
take significant time and
resources to complete.
4 Adopt impact fees based on the
nexus study.
• Collect and review sample/peer impact fee structures
• Establish impact fees based on the results of the nexus
study
• Communicate new fees to staff
2 Public Works
Director
This is the culmination of work
resulting from
Recommendation 3 above.
1 Priority 1: Important to accomplish without delay and/or easy to accomplish.
Priority 2: Second tier of importance to accomplish and/or may involve some complexity or time to complete.
Priority 3: Least urgent to complete and/or may take longer to set-up or to execute.
2 To establish clear accountability there should be a single manager assigned responsibility for completing implementation of each recommendation. Where more than one manager is
identified in this column, responsibility should be clarified when the Final Action Plan is prepared.
308
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
2
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
5 Establish a uniform development
review process, using the process
maps as a foundation.
• Review the process maps developed as part of the
development process review project
• Establish a clear and uniform development review
process
• Communicate expectations for the review process to
staff
• Set a schedule to review the process maps annually, to
keep them current and make changes, as needed
2 Community
Development
Director
Review of process maps
should coincide with
Recommendation 9.
6 Establish the role of project manager
for each project that includes a
discretionary application.
• Determine which planning staff will take on the role of
project manager
• Communicate new roles and responsibilities to
affected staff
• Market the new project manager system to the
development community
1 Community
Development
Director
7 Prepare comprehensive internal
checklists by project type for staff
members and applicants.
• Collect and review sample/peer checklists
• Develop a checklist that identifies all key process steps
and requirements
• Train staff on using checklists as a project
management tool
• Offer checklists to customers, to serve as a project
guide
• Set a schedule to review the checklists annually
3 Planning Manager Though a high priority, this
will require completion of
Recommendation 2 first. Also,
review of checklists should
coincide with
Recommendation 9.
8 Communicate the steps of the
development review process,
standards and deposits/fees in a
Development Review Handbook that
is provided to customers.
• Draft a Development Review Handbook
• Review with Community Development Director and
City Manager
• Finalize handbook
• Distribute handbook to all staff for review
• Upload handbook to the department’s website and
make hard copies available to customers at the permit
center
2 Planning Manager
309
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
3
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
9 Establish an annual omnibus process
for adopting and updating land use
policies, regulatory code standards,
programs, and administrative
processes, including the procedures
for managing the cost center
program.
• Establish a set time each year to conduct the annual
review and updates
• Provide briefing for the City Manager
• Communicate the purpose and objectives of the
annual comprehensive review to staff
1 Community
Development
Director
This process will be useful
now but become even more
meaningful once
Recommendation 2 is
completed.
10 Expand the role of the Development
Review Committee to cover the pre-
submittal, condition and mitigation
measure setting, and condition
compliance phases of development
review, and oversee the annual
omnibus review process.
• Determine what additional responsibilities the
Development Review Committee will take on (i.e.,
more phases of development review, annual omnibus
process) and prepare draft Charter describing the
responsibilities of the Committee
• Clarify the project manager’s roles and responsibilities
• Clarify change of duties and reporting relationships of
other affected positions
• Communicate new roles to department staff
1 Planning Manager
11 Expand membership of the
Development Review Committee to
include coverage of integrated waste
management, stormwater and
affordable housing.
• Establish an interdepartmental team to serve on the
Development Review Committee
• Communicate goals and expectations for the
committee
1 City Manager
12 Complete the configuration, beta-
testing and roll-out of the EnerGov
system.
• Finish the configuration and implementation of the
new software
• Provide software licenses to staff
• Conduct EnerGov training to staff
• Develop and distribute a user guide
1 Assistant to the
City Manager
This should be a collaboration
with the Community
Development and Public
Works Departments.
13 Embed the process steps and
workflow identified in the process
maps within the EnerGov system.
• Ensure the process steps and workflow that is input
into EnerGov is consistent with the City’s new
development review process
• Provide training for affected staff
1 Assistant to the
City Manager
This should be a collaboration
with the Community
Development and Public
Works Departments.
310
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
4
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
14 Procure and integrate an electronic
application submittal, distribution
and plan review business system.
• Research electronic plan review software options and
other organizations that have implemented such
systems (in California that might include the cities of
Auburn, Encinitas, Hayward, Visalia, Roseville, and
Santa Barbara County; Albany, Oregon; and in Texas,
the cities of Plano and Sugarland)
• Review options and costs with the City Manager
• Select and procure the technology
• Prepare user guides for staff and customers
• Hold a training session for staff and customers
• Implement new electronic plan review
• Market these improvements to the development
community
3 Community
Development
Director
Though the Community
Development Director should
be responsible, this is likely to
require approvals by the City
Manager and City Council.
15 Develop a timeline for future
transition to a paperless
development review system.
• Create a master timeline that estimates completion of
the EnerGov system, electronic plan review, and then
the implementation of a paperless development
review system
• Include action items such as validation of electronic
signatures, staff training, electronic kiosks, and
integration with outside agencies
• Review options and costs with the City Manager
3 Community
Development
Director
16 Plan for continued investment in
system upgrades and ERP integration
of business systems.
• Develop integration plan for EnerGov, GIS and related
business systems
3 Assistant to the
City Manager
17 Update the website to focus on
providing application guides and
other electronic information, such as
the Development Review Handbook.
• Assign responsibility for updating the website and
hand-out materials on a semi-annual schedule
• Review change of duties with affected positions
• Organize the department’s website with application
guides and checklists by type of project
• Upload the Development Review Handbook and other
electronic materials to provide easy access to
customers
2 Planning Manager This will require coordination
with IT staff.
311
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
5
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
18 Establish cycle and task times for the
entitlement review of development
projects.
• Review sample/peer cycle and task times
• Agree upon and document cycle and task times
• Provide a briefing for the City Manager
• Implement mechanism for monitoring activity
• Establish a procedure to track times and review with
staff on a monthly basis
3 Community
Development
Director
Though a high priority, this
will require completion of
Recommendation 2 first.
19 Establish a system of performance
reports and metrics to analyze the
development process and
Community Development
Department operations.
• Based on best practices, determine which
performance measures will be tracked (i.e., workload,
efficiency, and effectiveness measures)
• Review the list of performance measures with the City
Manager
• Set up mechanisms/systems to track and report
performance measures
• Set a schedule to review and analyze measures on a
regular basis
1 Community
Development
Director
The metrics tracked today will
change over time as
Recommendation 2 is
completed and related
process improvements are
implemented.
20 Edit the standard conditions to
remove redundant requirements
that appear in state or local laws.
• Make edits to the standard conditions of approval list
to remove redundancies
• Review edits with department head
• Distribute revised standard conditions to staff and
customers
1 Planning Manager
21 Amend Resolution 2009-2799 to
clarify that standard conditions of
approval are to be applied and scaled
commensurate with each
development project.
• Confer with the City Attorney and revise the
resolution
• Provide briefing for the City Manager
• Distribute revised resolution to staff and provide
direction about implementation
• Market the improvements to the development
community
1 Community
Development
Director
22 Conduct annual evaluations for each
member of the department.
• Train managers and lead supervisory personnel on
consistent and effective methods of evaluating
performance and empower them to recognize good
performance and take action in response to poor
performance, when appropriate
1 Community
Development
Director
312
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
6
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
• Establish performance goals for individual employees
• Determine annual schedule for performance
evaluations
23 Provide customer service training
that emphasizes workflow
management.
• Develop customer service training materials that
include departmental behavioral norms and
performance goals
• Communicate purpose and objectives of the training
to department staff
• Hold training sessions
1 Planning Manager
24 Expand consulting services to include
additional on-call economic and
planning casework assistance, as well
as services to analyze building permit
fees and development impact fees.
• Determine which additional services the department
will use consultants for (i.e., analyzing fees, on-call
project processing)
• Prepare and circulate a request for qualifications
• Select the appropriate consultants and finalize
contracts
2 Community
Development
Director
25 Conduct a focused assessment of the
civil engineering program, including
on-call engineering services.
• Develop a list of the critical tasks required of the civil
engineering program
• Conduct a confidential internal survey of key staff
members to determine strengths and weaknesses of
current operations
• Establish key performance goals for the civil
engineering program and implement methods to
measure success
• Monitor program area for a reasonable timeframe to
determine whether further changes are necessary
1 City Manager
26 Create an analyst position in the
Community Development
Department.
• Gain budget approval for the new position
• Develop a job description in consultation with Human
Resources
• Advertise position
• Review and interview top applicants
• Offer position and finalize paperwork
1 Community
Development
Director
313
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
7
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
27 Combine the two pre-application
reviews into a single process and
determine whether they will be
conducted on request or on a regular
schedule.
• Combine the two reviews into a single process
• Document the new process in a process map
• Determine whether the reviews will be conducted by
request or on a regular basis
• Review streamlined process with department staff
1 Planning Manager
28 Establish a nominal (or no) fee for
pre-application review.
• Determine whether pre-application reviews will have
no fee, or a nominal fee
• Modify the fee schedule accordingly
1 Community
Development
Director
29 Develop and recommend an
appropriate cost recovery policy to
the City Council.
• Review sample/peer cost recovery policies
• Based on best practices, establish a cost recovery
policy that will recover most of the department’s
work, encourages efficient service delivery, and is
transparent
• Provide briefing for the City Manager
• Recommend the policy to Council
2 Community
Development
Director
30 Prepare a policy and procedure
related to reimbursement of all
external City costs.
• Determine which approach the City will take regarding
external cost reimbursements from developers
• Create a concise document that outlines the City’s
reimbursement policy and process
2 Community
Development
Director
31 Determine whether building fees are
to be calculated on the basis of
project valuation or the estimated
time for completing each task.
• Obtain advice from a building permit fee consultant
about the revenue implications of the alternatives
• Provide a briefing for the City Manager
• Determine whether the City will use project valuation
or actual costs for calculating building fees
2 Community
Development
Director
32 Establish a system of surcharges on
permits, approvals and entitlements
to recover costs of business systems
and policy documents.
• Propose a surcharge fee on permits, approvals, and
entitlements to recapture business systems costs
• Gain Council approval
• Edit the fee schedule to include the surcharge fees
• Communicate new surcharge fee to staff and
customers
2 Community
Development
Director
314
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
8
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
33 Conduct a facility needs assessment
to determine options for relocating
development review functions to City
Hall, or remodeling facilities to
provide a modern and workable
office environment.
•Consider whether public counter staff and functions
could be relocated to City Hall, or if the current facility
could be remodeled
•Assess which options would be most conducive for
assisting customers in a comfortable, professional
environment
•Determine the feasibility of providing a “one-stop”
center for customers
•Provide a briefing for the City Manager
2 Community
Development
Director
This will require collaboration
with directors from the other
departments whose staff or
operations could be affected.
34 Develop a counter schedule that
provides time for mobilization and
demobilization each day, as well as
time for meetings, training and other
important administrative functions.
•Evaluate options for counter hours that maintain focus
on customers but provide balance for common
administrative functions
•Provide a briefing for the City Manager
•Publicize the new front counter schedule
1 Community
Development
Director
315
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR
2021/22 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $41,555 FROM CDD
ADMINISTRATION (1000-160-00000-59010) FOR A COST
ALLOCATION PLAN, IMPACT FEE STUDY, AND DEVELOPER
FEE STUDY
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2021, the City Council adopted the Operating and Capital
Improvement Budget for Fiscal Year 2021/22; and
WHEREAS, a staff report has been presented to the City Council recommending
award of an agreement to ClearSource Financial Consulting for a Cost Allocation Plan,
Impact Fee Study and Developer Fee Study and requesting a budget amendment in the
amount of $41,555 from the CDD Administration (1000-160-00000-59010) to fully fund
the agreement; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, describes said
budget amendment and the resultant impact to the budget line item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A budget amendment in the amount of $41,555 from CDD
Administration (1000-160-00000-59010), as more particularly described in Exhibit “A”,
attached hereto, is hereby approved.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall
cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of February, 2022.
_____________________________
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Ky Spangler, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Budget Amendment
ATTACHMENT 3
316
Resolution No. 2022-_____
Page 2
FUND BALANCE ALLOCATION:
Fund-Account Number Amount
1000-160-00000-59010 731,335.00$
CONSULTANT IMPACT FEE STUDY 2200-161-00000-51000 60,000.00$
Total 791,335.00$
TRANSFER ALLOCATION
Account Number Current Budget Revision Amended Budget
1000-160-00000-59010 731,335.00$ (41,555.00)$ 689,780.00$
2200-161-00000-51000 60,000.00$ 41,555.00$ 101,555.00$
-$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
Total 791,335.00$ -$ 791,335.00$
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATION:
Account Number Current Budget Revision Amended Budget
2200-161-00000-51000 60,000.00$ 41,555.00$ 101,555.00$
-$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$
Total 60,000.00$ 41,555.00$ 101,555.00$
EXHIBIT A
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
COST ALLOCATION PLAN, IMPACT FEE STUDY AND DEVELOPER FEE STUDY
Fund Title
FY 2021/22
CDD ADMINISTRATION
317
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Carlene Saxton, Community Development Director
DATE: 02/02/2022 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Agreement with ClearSource Financial Consulting for a Cost
Allocation Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study for
$101,555 and Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget
CORRECTION TO REPORT ATTACHMENT
Subsequent to the preparation and publication Agenda Packet, it was identified that the
most recent Exhibit to the draft agreement, Exhibit C, was not incorporated into the staff
report attachment. A corrected copy of the draft agreement and associated exhibits is
attached.
Attachment: Professional Services Agreement with ClearSource Financial Consulting
Item: 9.C.
SUPPLEMENTAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MOORPARK AND
CLEARSOURCE FINANCIAL CONSULTING FOR
COST ALLOCATION PLAN, IMPACT FEE STUDY,
AND DEVELOPER FEE STUDY SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and effective as of this _____ day of January, 2022,
between the City of Moorpark, a municipal corporation (“City”) and ClearSource Financial
Consulting, a corporation (“Consultant”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and
conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
WHEREAS, City has the need for cost allocation plan (Plan), impact fee study
(Impact Study), and developer fee study (Developer Study) services; and
WHEREAS, Consultant specializes in providing such services and has the proper
work experience, certifications, and background to carry out the duties involved; and
WHEREAS, Consultant has submitted to City a Proposal dated January 25, 2022,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, benefits , and
premises herein stated, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution to completion of
the work identified in the Scope of Services and in conformance with Exhibit C, unless
this Agreement is terminated or suspended pursuant to this Agreement.
2.SCOPE OF SERVICES
City does hereby retain Consultant, as an independent contractor, in a contractual
capacity to provide cost allocation plan, impact fee study, and developer fee study
services, as set forth in Exhibit C. In the event there is a conflict between the provisions
of Exhibit C and this Agreement, the language contained in this Agreement shall take
precedence.
Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit C. Consultant
shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth
in Exhibit C.
Compensation for the services to be performed by Consultant shall be in
accordance with Exhibit C. Compensation shall not exceed the rates or total contract
value of one hundred one thousand five hundred fifty-five dollars ($101,555) as stated in
Exhibit C, without a written Amendment to the Agreement executed by both parties.
Payment by City to Consultant shall be in accordance with the provisions of this
Agreement.
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 2 of 15
3. PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of their ability,
experience, standard of care, and talent, perfo rm all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by
persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in
meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. MANAGEMENT
The individual directly responsible for Consultant’s overall performance of the
Agreement provisions herein above set forth and to serve as principal liaison between
City and Consultant shall be Terry Madsen, and no other individual may be substituted
without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
The City’s contact person in charge of administration of this Agreement, and to
serve as principal liaison between Consultant and City, shall be the City Manager or the
City Manager’s designee.
5. PAYMENT
Taxpayer ID or Social Security numbers must be provided by Consultant on an
IRS W-9 form before payments may be made by City to Consultant.
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit C, based upon actual time
spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed one hundred one thousand five
hundred fifty-five dollars ($101,555) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional
payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with
its performance of this Agreement, which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless
such additional services and compensation are authorized, in advance, in a written
amendment to this Agreement executed by both parties. The City Manager, if authorized
by City Council, may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
amount of the Agreement.
Consultant shall submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter
as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within
thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. Any expense or
reimbursable cost appearing on any invoice shall be accompanied by a receipt or other
documentation subject to approval of the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee .
If the City disputes any of Consultant’s fees or expenses, City shall give written notice to
Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 3 of 15
6. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION WITHOUT CAUSE
The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend , or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least
ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise.
If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement, such suspension or
termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
The Consultant may terminate this Agreement only by providing City with written
notice no less than thirty (30) days in advance of such termination.
In the event this Agreement is terminated or suspended pursuant to this Section,
the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of
termination or suspension, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon
termination or suspension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will
submit an invoice to the City pursuant to this Agreement.
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
The Consultant’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of
this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consulta nt
for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate or suspend this
Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the
Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes
beyond the Consultant’s control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall
not be considered a default.
If the City Manager or his/her designee determines that the Consultant is in default
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall cause
to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default. The Consultant shall
have thirty (30) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by
rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its
default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and
without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under
this Agreement.
8. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
There are no liquidated damages under this Agreement.
9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales,
costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 4 of 15
records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All
such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide
free access to the representatives of City or the City’s designees at reasonable times to
such books and records; shall give the City the right to examine and audit said books and
records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; an d shall allow
inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activi ties related to this
Agreement. Notification of audit shall be provided at least thirty (30) days before any such
audit is conducted. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be
maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension without cause of
this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files,
surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to
be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permi ssion of the
Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City,
at the Consultant’s office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary
computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compi ling, transferring, and
printing computer files.
10. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
Indemnity for professional liability: When the law establishes a professional
standard of care for Consultant’s Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its
officials, employees, and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all
losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable legal counsels’
fees and costs to the extent same are caused by any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any agency
or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the per formance of
professional services under this Agreement.
Indemnity for other than professional liability: Other than in the performance of
professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify,
protect, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its officials, employees, and
agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration
proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or
costs of any kind, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs, court costs,
interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, pertain to,
or are in any way attributable to, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by
any individual or agency for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to
officers, agents, employees or subcontractors of Consultant.
Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions
identical to those set forth here in this Section from each and every subcontractor, or any
other person or entity involved by, for, with, or on behalf of Consultant in the performance
of this Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 5 of 15
others as required here, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms
of this Section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no
additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder.
This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors,
assigns, or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the termination of this Agreement or this
Section.
City does not and shall not waive any rights that it may have against Consultant by
reason of this Section, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any
insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. The hold harmless
and indemnification provisions shall apply regardless of whether or not said insurance
policies are determined to be applicable to any losses, liabilities, damages, costs , and
expenses described in this Section.
11. INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this
Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
12. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
Contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Neither
City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in
this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any
of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers or employees, or agents
of the City except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not incur or have the
power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability against City, or bind City in any manner.
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereunder.
13. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Consultant shall keep itself informed of local, state, and federal laws and
regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it o r in any way affect the
performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times
observe and comply with all such laws and regulations, including but not limited to the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws
and regulations. The Consultant shall comply with and sign Exhibit B, the Scope of Work
Requirement for Professional Services Agreements Compliance with California
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 6 of 15
Government Code Section 7550, when applicable. The City, and its officers and
employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant
to comply with this Section.
Should the Scope of Services include work that is considered a public work to
which prevailing wages apply, the public work project is subject to compliance monitoring
and enforcement by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Consultant
agrees to comply with and be bound by all applicable terms, rules and regulations
described in (a) Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the
California Labor Code, including without limitation Labor Code Section 1771 and (b) the
rules and regulations established by the DIR implementing such statutes, as though set
forth in full herein, including any applicable amendments made thereto during the term of
this Agreement. For every subcontractor who will perform work on this project, Consultant
shall be responsible for subcontractor’s compliance with (a) and (b), and Consultant shall
take all necessary actions to ensure subcontractor’s compliance. Labor Code Section
1725.5 requires all contractors and subcontractors to annually register with the DIR before
bidding or performing on any public work contract.
14. ANTI DISCRIMINATION
Neither the Consultant, nor any subconsultant under the Consultant, shall
discriminate in employment of persons upon the work because of race, religious creed,
color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition,
genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age,
sexual orientation, or military and veteran status; or any other basis protected by
applicable federal, state, or local law, except as provided in Section 12940 of the
Government Code. Consultant shall have responsibility for compliance with this Section.
15. UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used
against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City in connection with the award,
terms, or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion,
confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the
City will receive compensation, directly or indirectly from Consultant, or any o fficer,
employee, or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any
work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a
material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in
equity.
16. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of the City, or their designees or agents, and no
public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Services
during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect,
in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in
connection with the Services performed under this Agreement.
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 7 of 15
17. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Consultant covenants that neither they nor any officer or principal of their firm have
any interests, nor shall they acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict
in any manner or degree with the performance of their services hereunder. Consultant
further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, they shall employ no person
having such interest as an officer, employee, agent, or subconsultant. Consultant further
covenants that Consultant has not contracted with nor is performing any services directly
or indirectly, with the developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or
partnership(s) and/or public agency(ies) owning property and/or processing an
entitlement application for property in the City or its Area of Interest, now or within the
past one (1) year, and further covenants and agrees that Consultant and/or its
subconsultants shall provide no service or enter into any contract with any developer(s)
and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) and/or public agency(ies)
owning property and/or processing an entitlement application for property in the City or
its Area of Interest, while under contract with the City and for a one (1) year time period
following termination of this Agreement.
18. NOTICE
Any notice to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing, and all such
notices and any other document to be delivered shall be delivered by personal service or
by deposit in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, with
postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for whom intended as follows:
To: City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
To: Terry Madsen
ClearSource Financial Consulting
7960 B Soquel Drive, Suite 363
Aptos, CA 95003
Either party may, from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a
different address or contact person, which shall be substituted for the one above
specified. Notices, payments, and other documents shall be deemed delivered upon
receipt by personal service or as of the third (3rd) day after deposit in the United States
mail.
19. CHANGE IN NAME
Should a change be contemplated in the name or nature of the Consultant's legal
entity, the Consultant shall first notify the City in order that proper steps may be taken to
have the change reflected in the Agreement documents.
20. ASSIGNMENT
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 8 of 15
Consultant shall not assign this Agreement or any of the rights, duties , or
obligations hereunder. It is understood and acknowledged by the parties that Consultant
is uniquely qualified to perform the services provided for in this Agreement.
21. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force
and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services in this
Agreement.
22. VENUE AND GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement is made, entered into, and executed in Ventura County, California,
and any action filed in any court or for arbitration for the interpretation, enforcement or
other action of the terms, conditions, or covenants referred to herein shall be filed in the
applicable court in Ventura County, California. The City and Consultant understand and
agree that the laws of the state of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties,
and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this
Agreement.
23. COST RECOVERY
In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement of, or the
declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement or as a result of any
alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover its costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, from the losing party, and any
judgment or decree rendered in such a proceeding shall include an award thereof.
24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contain the entire understanding
between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement.
All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and
statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further
force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the
representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own independent investigation of
any and all facts such party deems material.
25. CAPTIONS OR HEADINGS
The captions and headings of the various Articles, Paragraphs, and Exhibits of this
Agreement are for convenience and identification only and shall not be deemed to limit
or define the content of the respective Articles, Paragraphs, and Exhibits here of.
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 10 of 15
Exhibit A
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of Work, Consultant will maintain
insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will use
existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not
meet requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement , or endorse
the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance coverage
and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage
required. Any insurance proceeds available to the City in excess of the limits and
coverage required in this Agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be
available to the City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office (ISO)
“Commercial General Liability” policy form CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense
costs must be paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims
or suits by one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less
than $1,000,000 per occurrence for all covered losses and no less than $2,000,000
general aggregate.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 including
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no event
to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Consultant owns no vehicles, this requirement
may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability policy
described above. If Consultant or Consultant’s employees will use personal autos in any
way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of pers onal auto liability for each
such person.
Workers’ Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer’s liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written
on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the Consultant and “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the
policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy limit
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must “pay on
behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer’s duty to
defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this
Agreement.
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit requirements,
shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages.
Coverage shall be provided on a “pay on behalf” basis, with defense costs payabl e in
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 11 of 15
addition to policy limits. Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time
insured’s liability is determined, not requiring actua l payment by the insured first. There
shall be no cross liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one insured
against another. Coverage shall be applicable to the City for injury to employees of
Consultant, subconsultants, or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage
provided is subject to approval by the City following receipt of proof o f insurance as
required herein. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $2,000,000
aggregate.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurers that are
admitted carriers in the State of California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A - or better
and a minimum financial size of VII.
General conditions pertaining to provision of ins urance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and the City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability
coverage required herein to include as additional insureds the City, its officials,
employees, and agents, using standard ISO endorsement CG 2010 and CG 2037
with edition acceptable to the City. Consultant also agrees to require all contractors
and subcontractors to do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shal l
prohibit Consultant, or Consultant’s employees, or agents, from waiving the right
to subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights
against the City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to
require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or
applicable to this Agreement are intended to apply to th e full extent of the policies.
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or
its operation limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been
first submitted to the City and approved in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to
eliminate so-called “third party action over” claims, including any exclusion for
bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification, and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or
reduction of discovery period) that may affect the City’s protection without the
City’s prior written consent.
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 12 of 15
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates
of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured
endorsement to Consultant’s general liability policy, shall be delivered to city at or
prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance
is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled or reduced
at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, the City has the right, but
not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests
under this or any other Agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid
by the City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from
sums due Consultant, at the City’s option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide thirty (30) days notice to the
City of any cancellation or reduction of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its
insurer to modify such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that
failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation or reduction of coverage
imposes no obligation, or that any party will “endeavor” (as opposed to being
required) to comply with the requirements of the certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this Agreement that all insurance coverage
required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply
first and on a primary, non-contributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self-insurance available to the City.
10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with
the Work who is brought onto or involved in the Work by Consultant, provide the
same minimum insurance required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor
and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such
coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant
agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and others engaged
in the Work will be submitted to the City for review.
11. Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that
it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer, or other entity
or person in any way involved in the performance of Work contemplated by this
Agreement to self-insure its obligations to the City. If Consultant’s existing
coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-
insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time, the City shall review
options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the
deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other
solutions.
12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the Agreement to change
the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90)
days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increased benefit to the City.
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 13 of 15
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed
to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that
can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part
of the City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with an insurance requirement
in no way imposes any additional obligations to the City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually for five years after the
Agreement is canceled or terminated. Termination of this obligation is not effective
until the City executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from
Consultant’s insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications
applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to the City within
five days of the expiration of coverage.
17. The provisions of any Workers’ Compensation or similar act will not limit the
obligations of Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not
to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to the City,
its employees, officials and agents.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are
not intended as limitations on coverage, limits, or other requirements nor as a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all -
inclusive.
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any
other provision in this Agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20. The requirements in this section supersede all other sections and provisions of this
Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts or impairs the
provisions of this section.
21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any
party involved in any way with the Work reserves the right to charge the City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this
Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to the City. It is
not the intent of the City to reimburse any third party for the cost of comp lying with
ClearSource Financial Consulting Page 14 of 15
these requirements. There shall be no recourse against the City for payment of
premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.
22. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against
Consultant arising out of the work performed under this Agreement. The City
assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty)
to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve the
City.
C-1
The City of Moorpark (City) is engaging ClearSource Financial Consulting (Consultant) to perform a Cost
Allocation Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study. (ClearSource will engage a subconsultant,
Harris & Associates, for certain elements of the project.) Extracted from the ClearSource-Harris proposal
is the following description of the services to be provided by the Consultant to complete the project.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Overall Project Elements
The City of Moorpark is initiating a Cost Allocation Plan, Impact Fee Study, and Developer Fee Study.
This type of project is focused on the ethic of “the costs to serve” from different, yet intertwined,
perspectives:
What are the costs of central services within the municipal organization, and how do those costs
relate to the array of direct services provided to the community? What are the cost recovery
opportunities for these administrative, management, and support services of the agency? (This is
accomplished through a Cost Allocation Plan.)
What are the projected costs of ensuring public infrastructure is available and operating at
necessary levels of service as the community grows and changes? What development impact fees
are justified to target cost recovery of these capital investments from the development generating
increased demands for public service? (This is accomplished through an Impact Fee Study.)
What are the costs of development regulation services provided to the community, which
currently have or may be eligible for a user or regulatory fee? What are the cost recovery targets or
policies of the City as to the amounts that should be paid for those who request or cause these
services? What is the impact to the source funds – typically the General Fund – of changes to
user/regulatory fees? (This is accomplished through a Developer Fee Study.)
City Project Objectives
The City of Moorpark has outlined the following objectives for each element of study:
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Ensure the City is accurately accounting for the true cost of providing various services by
departments through the use of a well-documented and defensible plan.
Ensure the City has a valid basis for calculating and administering comprehensive overhead rates
which are used for internal budgetary transfers and expenditures in addition to billable rates for
federal and state grants, user fees, cost recovery, and reimbursements from other government
agencies.
IMPACT FEE AND DEVELOPER FEE STUDIES
Develop defensible fee justifications and nexus report that complies with Proposition 218.
EXHIBIT C
C-2
City Services for Study
USER FEES
It is expected that the direct, fee-related services under review in this element will focus on services
eligible for user fee methodology, as well as identification during this study of any relevant additions for
services performed without a fee or for under-quantified or ineffectively structured fees.
The City is limiting this analysis to services related to development and construction for which a user or
regulatory fee is or can be imposed can be included as desired. This can encompass activities managed
by the Department that may include generally:
Regulatory activities, such as review and inspection of land development, construction/building, and
improvements to infrastructure, and other areas of code review, compliance, and enforcement
Permitting, such as special events and use of public facilities, infrastructure, and services
Facility rentals and use of public spaces
Program participation
Operations and services of individual benefit/request or in response to individual action
Licensing, billing, records management, and administrative service
Hourly rates for direct-billing City staff time
Revenue streams generally excluded from this type of methodology due to differing authority,
implementation and analytical methodologies, and approval procedures would include: utility rates and
other property-related fees subject to Proposition 218 proceedings, assessments, in-lieu fees, fees
intended and codified more as “taxes,” punitive fines/penalties, and general taxes.
From the City’s existing Schedule of Fees and Charges Effective March 17, 2021, our team expects the
following broad categories of fees to fall under review in the Developer Fee Study:
Planning – Counter Services
Planning – Development Services
Public Works – Engineering Services
Public Works – Counter Services
Building & Safety
Vector Control/Animal Control Services
Police Services
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The City of Moorpark has an adopted Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. According to the City’s
latest Annual report, the City imposes fees for:
C-3
Traffic Systems Management
Citywide Traffic Mitigation
Crossing Guard
Library Facilities
Open Space Maintenance
Tree & Landscaping
Art in Public Places
Park Improvement and Recreation Facilities
Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution
Tierra Rejada Road/Spring Road Area of Contribution
Casey Road/Gabbert Road Area of Contribution
Fremont Storm Drain AOC
Walnut Canyon Traffic Noise Attenuation
Police Facilities
The City desires to complete an analysis of the City’s needs and establish a new development impact fee
program. In addition to those existing fees, the City also wishes to:
Update the City’s Parking In-lieu fees for the downtown area
Establish Truck Impact Fees for LA Avenue
CENTRAL SUPPORT SERVICES
While cost recovery for the above listed direct services are the focus of the two fee studies, a Cost
Allocation Plan focuses on potential cost recovery for the “indirect” services of the municipal
organization. Indirect services represent City budget units commonly found in the General Fund that
might include:
Legislative and general governmental activities
Organization-wide management and administration
Central services outside of internal service funds
EXHIBIT 1 |REVISED PRICING DETAIL BY STUDY TASK/MILESTONE FOR THE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN, IMPACT FEE STUDY, AND DEVELOPER FEE STUDY
C-4
C-5
WORK PLANS BY STUDY ELEMENT
Cost Allocation Plan
ClearSource presents the following work plan to complete the Cost Allocation Plan envisioned by the
City of Moorpark.
TASK 1 | STUDY ORIENTATION
To commence the study on solid ground, ClearSource will generate common understanding of
objectives, known issues that must be addressed by study end, participant roles, expected procedural
requirements, schedule and pre-established dates, and data collection and development procedures.
Subtasks include:
Facilitate project kick-off event(s)
Assess prevailing cost allocation models, methods, and applications. Particular attention will be paid
to annual procedures, internal opinions and impacts, and balance of workload with the
requirements of the City’s uses for overhead, including internal transfers/reimbursements and
external agency reimbursement.
Review readily available budgetary documents to gain a working knowledge of City structure and
accounting practices.
Determine a plan for generating current indirect cost allocations for the host of uses identified by the
City. This will likely include development of a new Excel-based model in alignment with current needs
but may include modification of existing tools if City personnel prefer to sustain existing tools.
ClearSource will remain flexible.
TASK 2 | FINANCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL INPUTS
ClearSource will develop the necessary foundation for subsequent quantitative analysis. Particular focus
will be generating necessary data and documentation of inputs and assumptions as required by the
application of plan outcomes. (For example, an OMB 2 CFR Part 225 compliant plan requires a specific
inventory of information that may not be as essential if applications are entirely internal to the City.)
Subtasks include:
Access organizational and line-item detail to support costs, allocation factors, workload metrics, and
accounting structure in the cost allocation model.
Acquire and parse statistics that may be useful as bases for distributing costs and where necessary,
develop and document alternate data sets to serve as distribution methods.
Conduct targeted engagement with representatives from support services departments if useful to
influence data accessibility and relevance in the cost allocation plan, such as work order records,
inventories, and other volumetric or organizational tools.
TASK 3 | COST ALLOCATION MODEL
C-6
ClearSource will generate the quantitative model in Microsoft Excel to allocate indirect costs Citywide.
The model will be built to accommodate change in the organization: the ability to add or remove direct
and indirect costs and to adapt to a range of activities, from simple to complex. Structure and detail of
the final model will be dependent upon the ultimate application of its results, as a plan submitted for
cognizant agency approval in compliance with OMB 2 CFR Part 225 and/or the State Controller’s Office
for Cost Claiming will require aspects unnecessary in applications where cost recovery is expected to be
entirely internal to the agency. The model is expected to identify:
Citywide fund and accounting structure and fiscal year data for allocation outcomes
Allocable indirect service centers
Allocation bases and related distribution factors for indirect service centers
Direct service centers
Primary and secondary allocations
Resulting annual cost allocations
Resulting indirect service rates
Resulting interfund transfers
The model will provide for future in-house updates utilizing annual inflators or revision of underlying
assumptions for personnel costs, contracted service inflation, etc. where allowed and recommended as
feasible/reasonable.
ClearSource will also generate a comparison of outcomes under the updated Cost Allocation Plan to
prior year outcomes, including explanation for substantive differences.
TASK 4 | REPORTING AND DELIVERABLE TOOLS
ClearSource will provide the formal documentation encompassing the work and outcomes of the study,
as well as deliver the tools developed throughout the study for the City’s ownership and future use,
including preparation or inclusion of:
A narrative description of the study, describing key data and assumptions, and impacts.
Tables and charts to explain findings
The complete quantitative analysis as the justification for updated indirect cost allocations and
associated rates and transfers.
For a cost allocation plan in compliance with OMB 2 CFR Part 225, the report/quantitative analysis will
include:
Description of each allocated central service
Identification of the units rendering services and the units receiving services
Items of expense included in the allocated cost of service
C-7
Method used to distribute the cost of service to benefitted units
Schedule showing the allocation of each service to the specific benefitting units
Organizational chart
Upon review and feedback from the City staff, consultants will revise the draft report and accompanying
outcomes to incorporate direction received. The final report will be issued for the City’s implementation
and as a data source for incorporation in the Cost of Services Study. Reports will be issued in PDF for
digital distribution and any necessary printing by the City beyond the requested bound (3) and unbound
copies delivered by consultants.
Upon issuance of the final report, ClearSource will deliver editable versions of all models,
documentation, and associated work papers to the City for future use. Models will be delivered in
Microsoft Excel and PDF. Documentation will be delivered in Microsoft Word and PowerPoint and in
PDF. Additional work papers developed will be delivered in the format in which they were created and in
PDF.
Consultants will provide training to City staff on the development and future in-house update of the
delivered electronic tools and various reports.
TASK 5 | ENGAGEMENT
ClearSource will facilitate a meaningful level of interaction between consultants, City personnel, and City
Councilmembers:
At least two interim review points to engage with designated City personnel managing cost
allocation practices
At City management discretion, an event with the City Council to present the draft report and
receive feedback and direction on cost allocation proposals that would impact the City’s budgetary
and financial practices.
Consultants will prepare materials for these sessions, present the plan (or elements relevant), and
respond to inquiries. Consultants will be available to City staff in the future to advise on the cost
allocation plan.
Impact Fee Study
Harris & Associates presents the following work plan to complete the Impact Fee Study envisioned by
the City of Moorpark.
TASK 1 | KICK-OFF MEETING
Harris will attend a kick-off meeting with City staff to review the objectives of the analysis, to agree on
methodology, to exchange information, to set the schedule for all tasks, and to determine further
information needed from City staff. Harris will work with City staff to refine the scope, purpose, uses,
and goals of the City and for the project.
TASK 2 | RESEARCH AND FEE STRUCTURE
C-8
Harris will participate in calls with individual members of City staff to gain an understanding of the
purpose and use of the fees and any concerns staff have with the current fee program. It is anticipated
that up to eight (8) calls will be required.
Harris will review the existing fee studies and background documentation including the existing fee
studies, ordinances and resolutions, any master plans, the City’s general plan, and any other available
studies that identify the City’s goals and required infrastructure needs. The goal of this task is to better
understand the needs and goals of the City for each impact fee category and to gather the information
that will serve as the basis for the fees.
Once all documentation has been reviewed, Harris will meet with staff to discuss the validity of the
current fees and any fee categories that the City may wish to pursue developing as part of the update.
We will discuss any missing information and how the supporting documentation can be developed.
Harris will recommend any changes to the current fee structure to facilitate better collection and
administration of the program. Harris will also discuss AB602 and whether the City wishes to collect
fees based on house size in accordance with the new bill, or continue collecting on a per unit basis. If
new categories of fees are identified or documentation to support the fees is not available, a scope
amendment may be necessary.
TASK 3 | DRAFT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Harris will gather the City’s growth projections and will gather other assumptions such as persons per
household, existing city population and employment, and future population and employment.
Harris will work with City staff to understand the facilities and supporting infrastructure (i.e. equipment
and vehicles) needed to serve future development. We will develop the project lists and cost estimates
utilizing the City’s existing plans, discussions with City staff, and level of service analysis. Where future
facilities may not be able to be determined, such as with parks or public safety facilities, a level of
service analysis can be completed that sets funding at levels that maintain the City’s existing level of
service (i.e., acres of parks or square feet of Fire Stations).
When the land use assumptions and the identification of the needed facilities are completed, Harris will
determine the methodology to allocate the infrastructure costs in each fee category to the various land
uses based on the additional residents and employees that these new developments generate.
Based on this information gathered, Harris will calculate the recommended fee for each land use type in
compliance with the requirements of Section 66000 of the Government Code. An administrative fee will
also be calculated to fund impact fee studies, annual administration, City staff administration, and
reporting requirements
Harris will prepare a comparison of the development impact fees from surrounding jurisdictions. Up to
six jurisdictions will be included and will be based on input from the City as to which cities are to be
included. The comparison will include fees for single family residential, multi-family residential,
commercial, and industrial development to current and proposed fees in the City.
Harris will prepare the draft fees and fee comparison for review with the City.
TASK 4 | DRAFT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
C-9
Once all parties agree on the fees, Harris will prepare the Nexus Study. The Nexus Study will be prepared
in an organized fashion with an executive summary and will contain all required legal and technical
documentation including additional information required under AB602. The study will include all
background information, the methodology used to determine the fees, all supporting information,
calculations that demonstrate the legal nexus between the recommended fees and the impact created
by new development, the relationship between the fee’s use and the type of project on which the fee
would be imposed, the purpose of the fee, how the fees would be used, and a description of the
relationship between the need for any additional facilities and the type of development project on
which the fee would be imposed. In addition, the report will discuss annual fee update procedures,
credit and reimbursement policies and will outline the required administrative procedures including
online reporting requirements required under SB1483. We will also incorporate the legal methodology
for calculating fees for accessory dwelling units.
Harris will meet with the City to discuss the report and incorporate one set of consolidated comments to
create final draft report.
TASK 5 | STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
Harris will prepare and lead a meeting with BIA, development community and other stakeholders.
Obtaining the development community’s support is best achieved when their input is included in the fee
analysis. Harris will discuss any recommendations that come out of this meeting with the City and
incorporate relevant feedback into the study.
Harris will prepare and make presentations on the methodology, findings, and implications of the
proposed impact fees at City Council and/or planning commission meetings to facilitate the
understanding of the impact fee analysis. The presentations will be prepared in a clear and concise
manner. Harris will answer any questions and document any concerns or requested changes. Two
presentations are assumed. Harris will assist the City with the preparation of the staff report and
resolution for City Council adoption. An automatic inflation factor will be included in the resolution. It is
assumed that the City will notice all meetings and provide a legal review of the documents. Revisions to
the report will be completed based on input received from the City Council and the final report provided
to the City.
TASK 6 | FINAL REPORT
Once the report is adopted, Harris will provide three (3) bound paper copies, and an electronic pdf, excel
fee schedule model that can be updated.
Developer Fee Study
ClearSource presents the following work plan to complete the Developer Fee Study envisioned by the
City of Moorpark.
TASK 1 | STUDY ORIENTATION
To commence the study on solid ground, ClearSource will generate common understanding of
objectives, known issues that must be addressed by study end, participant roles, expected procedural
requirements, schedule and pre-established dates, and data collection and development procedures.
C-10
Most significantly, this task includes a major upfront effort to examine prevailing fees for known issues
and to discuss initial and potential modifications to structures and practices. Subtasks include:
Facilitate project kick-off event(s)
Assess prevailing fees and methods to understand effectiveness of current structures, including
perceived cost recovery, perceived equity, alignment of fee categories with the manner in which
work is performed, perceived competitiveness in the region, and feasibility or accuracy of billing
within current capabilities
Draft initial user/regulatory fee structures, where remodeling is predicted, to direct down-stream
data development steps
TASK 2 | FINANCIAL AND LABOR TIME INPUTS
Consultants will develop the necessary foundation for subsequent quantitative analysis, focusing this
initial work to prepare the body of data that will inform every downstream element of the fee study. To
develop financial inputs, consultants will gather and/or prepare and model financial data, including:
Current and historical fee revenues,
Personnel and contractor costs and organization,
Adopted line-item expenditures,
Forecasted periodic outlays, and
Allocated indirect/overhead costs via new or existing plan.
To develop and test labor time inputs, based on prevailing and future business processes, consultants
will gather and develop expressions of time several ways:
Utilize any existing labor time-tracking data,
Conduct interviews to estimate a distribution of annual time across core functions of service,
Develop service time questionnaires linked to remodeled fee structures to estimate average or a
range of service times for fee-related services,
Apply industry experience to populate under-developed or unavailable time estimates, particularly
from prospective changes in workflow resulting from the project,
Analyze any existing data sets that inform workload/activity/use levels and project profiles for fee-
related services, and
Reconcile annual time, service time estimates, and service volumes to test reasonableness of critical
assumptions.
TASK 3 | LABOR TIME VALUATION
ClearSource will develop fully burdened hourly labor rates in each department/division participating
directly in the provision of services associated with a fee under review. Rates will be built to encompass
labor costs, non-labor operating costs, departmental and/or divisional administration, central
C-11
services/general City administration, and periodic investments. Rates will be expressed by function of
direct and indirect service within each department/division, where applicable and to enable cost
recovery considerations for certain fee categories. Rates may be expressed as composite for the
department/division, for the position class, and/or by individual position.
C-12
TASK 4 | FEE DESIGN
ClearSource will apply the outcomes from Tasks 1 and 2 – an assessment of existing fees and interaction
with City staff to understanding current practices and work flow – to ensure cost of service analysis
aligns with the fee structures recommended from that work, which may include elements of prevailing
fees, recommendations based on prevailing business processes, system capabilities, and relevant market
or industry practices applicable to City work flow. Consultants will prepare a working model of a master
fee schedule.
TASK 5 | COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
ClearSource will prepare a cost of service model to join fully burdened hourly labor rates, time estimates
associated with current work flow and business processes, and existing or any redesigned fee structures,
in order to calculate the full unit cost of service associated with each fee category and layers within
them.
The full cost of service informs the maximum fee amount allowed under California framework for
establishing user/regulatory fees by City Council action.
The full cost of service at the fee-based activity level or the programmatic level is composed of:
Direct labor and non-labor costs,
Indirect labor and non-labor costs,
Periodic outlays or investments of direct or indirect benefit,
Departmental overhead, and
Citywide overhead.
Analysis will include modeling of activities with under-developed or no fee imposed but where one is
warranted and practical to improve the City’s cost recovery from private benefit activities.
TASK 6 | COST RECOVERY AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
Consultants will recommend cost recovery targets for fee-based services or work with City staff in
developing cost recovery policy to inform final fee amounts, particularly where full cost recovery is
deemed undesirable. Development of cost recovery policy and practices will optimize the City’s array of
funding sources considering public/private benefits, market sensitivity, compliance and behavior
modification, and fiscal constraints.
Consultants will develop a master fee schedule for the City, useful in presenting proposals, as well as
communicating fee descriptions, fee amounts, and charge bases to other City departments, who may
have responsibility for maintaining Citywide schedules of fees. As desired, the master fee schedule
developed can also include a tool for subsequent annual inflationary adjustments to the established fee
structures.
Final proposed fee amounts will be applied in the master fee schedule alongside information useful in
communicating fees to the public. To the extent existing data systems enable it, revenue estimates
C-13
based on historical or projected performance will be attempted. Finally, comparison to prior fees will be
completed in targeted service categories to assist in explaining impacts of changes.
Consultants will prepare a comparison of fees to other municipalities in targeted service categories as
needed, likely by creating profiles for an array of “typical” uses in addition to one-for-one comparisons.
Consultants will review associated fee practices, including waivers, deposit amounts, fee/deposit
collection practices, and economic incentive practices.
Where needed, consultants will provide recommendations and industry information regarding relevant
fee policies and practices which may impact cost recovery, including the use of waivers, any billing and
deposit management procedures, and collections.
TASK 7 | REPORTING AND DELIVERABLE TOOLS
ClearSource will prepare the administrative record for pursuing implementation of revised fees. This
focuses on the draft and final reports of cost of service findings, including assumptions, critical data, and
discussion of expected impacts. Analytical detail will be included, as well as executive summary and
infographics useful in public presentation and legislative processes.
Consultants will deliver the analytical models used to develop fees in Microsoft Excel format for future
update and management, including the working master fee schedule and its publishable version.
For reporting and the delivery of all tools, subtasks include:
Deliver formal documentation and tools for the City’s ownership and future use in editable formats
(e.g., Microsoft Office suite) and publishable format (PDF)
Draft and final draft report iterations
Presentation/summary materials for communicating proposals
Assistance with staff report and public hearing noticing
Document the statutory and legal framework and annual and five-year reporting requirements
Discuss best practices to ensure better collection of the fees
Final report, including all background information, methodology, supporting justification,
calculations, and administrative processes
Delivery of technical models and work papers
Training event for City staff in annual updates and analytical use of delivered models
TASK 8 | REVIEW AND ENGAGEMENT
ClearSource will facilitate a meaningful level of interaction between consultants, City personnel, and City
Councilmembers with the goal of successful approval, implementation, and ongoing maintenance of
study proposals. Subtasks include:
Departmental interaction – to develop data and provide interim reviews points by lead service
areas.
C-14
City leadership interaction – to receive direction on proposals and outcomes prior to pursuit of
approval.
City Council engagement – to present the final draft report and receive direction.
City Council / public hearing – to adopt the proposed fees contained in the final report.
Stakeholder outreach – as needed to facilitate successful implementation of proposals.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Timeline by Tasks / Milestones
The ClearSource-Harris team anticipates the following timeline for delivery of final draft reports for
each element of this project:
Cost Allocation Plan: 90 Days
Impact Fee Study: 150 Days
Developer Fee Study: 120 Days
Upon delivery of the draft reports in each study element, the City may schedule City Council
engagements to review recommendations, consultants may issue final reports, and public hearings may
be scheduled following the City’s preferred timing and legislative or community priorities. Total
estimated project timing and calendar is illustrated in Figure 1.
C-15
FIGURE 1 | PROJECT TIMELINE BY STUDY ELEMENT AND MAJOR TASK / MILESTONE