Active SLED Opportunity · CALIFORNIA · CITY OF SANTA CLARA
AI Summary
City of Santa Clara requests proposals for an updated Parks and Recreation Nexus Study and Fee Program Update, including Mitigation Fee Act and Quimby Act fees. Submission deadline is July 28, 2026.
The City of Santa Clara (hereinafter “City”) is soliciting proposals from qualified firms (“Proposer”) to conduct an updated Parks and Recreation Nexus Study and prepare a corresponding Fee Program Update for the City’s park impact fee programs, including fees under the Mitigation Fee Act (“MFA”) fees and Quimby Act parkland dedication and in-lieu fees. **Solicitation Type**: RFQ - Request for Quote (Informal) **Source ID**: PU.AG.USA.2731083.C18837226 **Piggyback Contract**: No **Question Acceptance Deadline**: 07/08/2026 06:00 PM EDT **Questions are submitted online**: Yes **Bid Submission Type**: Electronic Bid Submission **Additional Bidding Instructions**: When submitting questions, please limit one question per form field. Do not bundle multiple questions into a single entry. **Owner Organization**: City of Santa Clara **Solicitation Number**: RFP 25-26-88 **Reference Number**: 0000428286 **Pricing**: No Pricing **Bid Documents List**: | Item Name | Description | Mandatory | Limited to 1 file | |---|---|---|---| | Bid Documents | Documents defining the proposal | Yes | No | **Questions and Answers**: | Question | Answer | |---|---| | Please confirm the official submission method for proposals. Section 2 directs submission via email, while Sections 8 and 9 direct submissions through BidNet Direct. The same is true for questions. Can the City please clarify which method is preferred? | The preferred submission method is through BidNet Direct as stated in Section 8 and 9. However, acknowledging the conflicting language in Section 2, submissions by email that are received prior to the deadline will be accepted. | | What is the desired start and completion date for the project? The contract term is specified as up to three years with two optional years of extension, but what is the desired timeline for the project itself? | The City anticipates that the consultant will submit an administrative draft report for City review within five (5) to six (6) months of the project start date and submit the final report within six (6) to eight (8) months of the project start date. While the City anticipates completion of the consultant's services within eight (8) months, the overall project schedule, including City review and adoption of the updated fees, is expected to be completed within eighteen (18) months of the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The contract term provides sufficient time to accommodate project closeout and any additional services, if necessary. | | Does the City have an adopted parks CIP or identified capital project list with project level cost estimates (and attributable new development share) the study will rely on, or is developing that list within this scope? | Yes. The City has an adopted Parks Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and a proposed five-year capital project list that identifies planned park projects and associated cost estimates. The consultant shall use these documents, along with other available City information and applicable industry practices, as a basis for evaluating future park facility needs and developing the nexus analysis and fee methodology. The consultant shall evaluate the appropriate proportion of project costs attributable to new development and determine which projects and costs may be reasonably incorporated into the park in-lieu fee and parkland dedication fee program, consistent with applicable State law and nexus requirements. This evaluation shall include determining the eligibility of capital projects for inclusion in the fee program, recognizing that projects consisting primarily of maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement of existing facilities may not be eligible for funding through development impact fees. | | Beyond City Council, what City commissions, committees, and stakeholder meetings are applicable/necessary for project final report review and approval? | The consultant's scope of work should include attendance at and presentation to one (1) Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and one (1) City Council meeting to present the findings and recommendations of the nexus study. Proposers should also include attendance at up to two (2) additional Parks and Recreation Commission and/or City Council meetings, if requested by the City, which may include a continuation of an agenda item, additional discussion, or a study session. | | Will the City provide legal counsel support for various specifics of the project’s scope as needed? Or should the project team include specialized legal counsel as part of the project team? | The City Attorney's Office will provide legal review and guidance related to City-specific legal requirements, ordinance provisions, and the fee adoption process, as needed. However, the consultant shall be responsible for preparing a complete and legally defensible park in-lieu fee and parkland dedication nexus study, including ensuring consistency with applicable State laws and requirements, including the California Mitigation Fee Act and the Quimby Act. | | Scope task 2.3.6 - Evaluate built-out land conditions and redevelopment scenarios associated with future park acquisition opportunities. Is the City asking the consultant to identify future parcel specific sites that could be redeveloped into park facilities? | The City is not requesting the consultant to identify specific parcels for future park acquisition or conduct a parcel-by-parcel redevelopment analysis. Rather, the City is seeking a high-level feasibility discussion regarding the potential role of acquiring and converting existing developed properties into parkland as part of the City's future park acquisition strategy. The discussion should address general considerations associated with redevelopment of built-out properties, including potential acquisition costs, demolition and site preparation costs, environmental constraints (including potential site contamination and applicable regulatory requirements), infrastructure needs, operational considerations, and other factors that may affect the feasibility and cost of converting developed properties into park facilities. The consultant should also identify potential advantages, challenges, and lessons learned from similar efforts by other jurisdictions, where applicable. This evaluation is intended to provide the City with a general understanding of the opportunities, constraints, and considerations associated with future park acquisition in a built-out community and is not intended to identify specific acquisition sites or provide site-specific recommendations. | | Scope task 2.7.8 – if fee models are provided as part of the deliverable, is use of those fee models as restricted to City staff use only and not sharable to third parties acceptable? | The City expects the consultant to provide final editable electronic versions of all project deliverables, including the final nexus study report, presentation materials, fee models, and supporting calculations. Fee models and supporting calculations shall be provided in their original editable format (e.g., Microsoft Excel) and shall include formulas, assumptions, data sources, and methodologies used to develop the recommended fees. The City intends to retain these materials to support ongoing administration of the adopted park in-lieu fee and parkland dedication fee program, including future annual fee updates. The consultant shall provide sufficient documentation to allow the City to understand and evaluate the methodology, assumptions, calculations, and structure of the fee models. Documentation shall include the purpose, organization, inputs, assumptions, and functionality of any fee calculation models provided. The consultant shall provide the underlying analytical tools necessary for future fee administration while maintaining transparency and preserving the integrity of the adopted methodology. | | Has the City conducted any surveys to quantify use of park and recreation facilities by commercial development, hotel and transient occupancy related development, and other non-residential development types? | No. The City has not conducted surveys specifically designed to quantify park and recreation facility use by commercial development, hotel and transient occupancy-related development, or other non-residential development types. As part of the nexus study, the consultant shall evaluate whether and how non-residential development types and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), as applicable, should be incorporated into the fee methodology based on their proportional share of demand for park and recreation facilities, consistent with applicable State law and industry practices. | | a. What is the City looking for in relation to the impact fee program regarding “g) maintenance agreements”? | The intent of this task is for the consultant to evaluate whether maintenance agreements or maintenance obligations should be considered as part of the City's impact fee program. This includes identifying any ongoing maintenance responsibilities associated with new park facilities or improvements funded by the developer and/or through development impact fees and providing recommendations on how those obligations should be addressed in the Nexus Study and the City's overall fee program, as appropriate. The City is seeking the consultant's expertise in identifying any maintenance agreement considerations that could affect the implementation or long-term administration of the impact fee program. By way of background, the City is currently negotiating maintenance agreements with developers that require the developers to maintain park improvements in perpetuity, at the developer’s sole cost. However, these agreements do not currently address the long-term replacement of park equipment or other capital assets. The City provides this information as context only and is seeking the consultant’s professional evaluation of its current approach, including recommendations regarding whether maintenance agreements and long-term maintenance and replacement obligations should be modified or otherwise addressed as part of the Nexus Study, the City’s impact fee program, and its overall funding strategy for parks. | | b. For items I) and K) Is the City looking for additional analysis of feasible non-impact fee funding mechanisms for specific projects and existing deficiencies to include special assessments and/or taxes? | Yes. The City would like the consultant to evaluate feasible non-impact fee funding mechanisms for existing deficiencies and capital projects, including, as appropriate, options such as special assessments, taxes, grants, or other funding sources, and provide recommendations regarding their applicability. | | Would the City like resumes for proposed team members included? | Yes. Please include resumes for all proposed key personnel assigned to the project. | | Regarding item 9.4 in the bid document and the minimum font size of 11 points: does this also apply to all graphics and resumes, which are often pre-designed with a readable (but smaller font size) to fit to one page or less? | No, this does not apply to all graphics and resumes. Those will be accepted as currently designed. | | Are you able to share a copy of the most recent Park and Recreation Nexus Study or other documents supporting the current fee methodology? | Yes, a copy will be provided and uploaded to BidNet Direct. Proposers should note that this document is being provided for reference only. Proposers should not rely on the previous study as the basis for their approach, as the selected consultant will be expected to prepare a new nexus study and supporting documentation based on their professional expertise, current legal requirements, and the scope of services outlined in the RFP. | | Does the City have a desired timeline for completion of the draft nexus study documents? | The City anticipates that the consultant will submit an administrative draft report for City review within five (5) to six (6) months of the project start date and submit the final report within six (6) to eight (8) months of the project start date. While the City anticipates completion of the consultant's services within eight (8) months, the overall project schedule, including City review and adoption of the updated fees, is expected to be completed within eighteen (18) months of the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The contract term provides sufficient time to accommodate project closeout and any additional services, if necessary. | | What elements of the current approach are working well for the City and are there any elements that the City is particularly interested in reviewing? | The current Park and Recreation Nexus Study and fee program has provided an adequate framework for fee implementation to date. However, the purpose of this engagement is to conduct a comprehensive review and prepare an updated nexus study that reflects current conditions, legal requirements, and industry best practices. The City expects the selected consultant to evaluate the existing approach and identify opportunities for improvement based on current conditions, applicable legal requirements, and professional best practices. The City is interested in the consultant's recommendations regarding the fee methodology, implementation, administration, and any opportunities to improve clarity, defensibility, and ease of administration. | | How many stakeholder and public meetings does the City anticipate will be needed for this engagement? | The consultant's scope of work should include attendance at and presentation to one (1) Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and one (1) City Council meeting to present the findings and recommendations of the nexus study. Proposers should also include attendance at up to two (2) additional Parks and Recreation Commission and/or City Council meetings, if requested by the City, which may include a continuation of an agenda item, additional discussion, or a study session. | | Should the scope of work and budget assume in person meetings or are virtual meetings acceptable? | Virtual meetings are acceptable. Proposers should include any in-person meetings they believe are necessary to successfully complete the scope of work and identify those meetings in their proposal. | | Is there a budget or budget range anticipated for this scope of work? | The City has not disclosed a project budget for this solicitation. Proposers should submit a cost proposal that reflects the scope of services outlined in the RFP and their recommended approach to completing the work. | **Addendums**: | Addendum | Date | Note | |---|---|---| | Addendum No. 1 | 07/15/2026 05:30 PM EDT | |
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.