Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-15 Info PacketI _ i CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org September 15, 2016 I131 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule SEPTEMBER 20 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Session Agenda IP3 Pending City Council Work Session Topics MISCELLANEOUS IP4 Memo from Neighborhood and Development Services Dir.: Request for Proposal to hire a Form -bases Code Consultant IPS Information from Mayor Pro tem Botchway: US city to replace 'share the road' signs with 'bikes may use full lane' ones IP6 Information from Mayor Pro tem Botchway: Cyclist paralyzed; driver faces $750 fine I137 Information from Mayor Pro tem Botchway: City considering ordinance change to protect bicyclists I138 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show IP9 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker I - Parking Systems I1310 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Animal Care Technician IP11 Bar Check Report —August 2016 IP12 Copy of press release: City Council Listening Post IP13 Information: Building and Crossing Bridges together IP14 Information: Lunch and Learn, Continuation of Conversations on Diversity IP15 Information: Iowa City Human Rights Commission's 33rd Annual Awards Breakfast IP16 Garbage Grapevine 2016 Issue 4 IP17 Memo from Equity Dir.: Racial and Socioeconomic Review Toolkit Email from Becky Hix: Clarification of Boundaries [Distributed as Late Handout on 9/19/16.] DRAFT MINUTES IPI 8 Airport Commission: August 18 o�11r�� �.-.� =1 - CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule SEPTEMBER 20 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Session Agenda 1133 Pending City C uncil Work Session Topics MISCELLANEOUS IP4 Memo from NeighborhoN and Development Services Dir Form -bases Code Cons ant I135 Information from Mayor Pro t Botchway: US city tore 'bikes may use full lane' ones I136 Information from Mayor Pro tem Bo hway: Cyclist I137 Information from Mayor Pro tem Botch ay: City o bicyclists IP8 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show I139 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Mainte nc IP10 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Ani al Ca IP11 Bar Check Report — August 2016 September 15, 2016 for Proposal to hire a 'share the road' signs with driver faces $750 fine ordinance change to protect Worker I - Parking Systems Technician IP12 Copy of press release: City Council Li tening Post IP13 Information: Building and Crossing ridges together IP14 Information: Lunch and Learn, Co tinuation of Conve\Annua ity IP15 Information: Iowa City Human R'ghts Commission's 3Breakfast IP16 Garbage Grapevine 2016 Issu 4 IP17 Memo from Equity Dir.: Raci and Socioeconomic Rev DRAFT MINUTES I1318 Airport Commission: Fjlugust 18 UH -lb -16 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule SP1 AM -. Subject to change September 15, 2016 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 4, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, October 24, 2016 4:00 PM Reception Johnson County Health 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting Human Services Bldg. Tuesday, November 1, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 20, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, January 3, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, January 17, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 7, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 21, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting IP2 I r � Q=' l7 ;�S ffsffia CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Work Session Agenda Tuesday, September 20, 2016 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 5:00 PM • Discuss Affordable Housing Action Plan and provide staff direction on various recommendations [IP # 2 Info Packet of 9/8] • Questions from Council re Agenda Items • Information Packet Discussion [September 8, 15] • Council Time • Meeting Schedule • Pending Work Session Topics [IP # 3 Info Packet of 9/15] • Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations IP3 .emLa�� CITY of IOWA CITY UNESCOC"OFLI MNRE PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS September 15, 2016 October 4E" , 2016 1. Review Strategic Plan Status Report Strategic Plan / Budget Related Topics: 1. Consider amending the City's Annexation Policy to require the provision of affordable housing in new residential/mixed-use areas (September) 2. Provide timely and appropriate input on the ICCSD's planned 2017 bond referendum 3. Significantly improve the Council and staff's ability to engage with diverse populations on complex or controversial topics 4. Set a substantive and achievable goal for reducing city-wide carbon emissions by 2030, and create an ad- hoc climate change task force, potentially under an umbrella STAR Communities committee, to devise a cost-effective strategy for achieving the goal. 5. Identify and implement an achievable goal to reduce disproportionality in arrests 6. Identify a substantive and achievable goal for the provision of affordable housing in Iowa City and implement strategies to achieve this goal (September) 7. Determine scope of Council identified on/off street parking study 8. Determine scope of Council identified housing market analysis of core neighborhoods 9. Determine scope of Council identified complete streets study 10. Determine use of affordable housing funds resulting from the sale of the Court / Linn property (September) Other Topics: 11. Discuss marijuana policies and potential legislative advocacy positions 12. Review the Child Data Snapshot (IP2 2/18) and discuss related strategies with local stakeholders 13. Discuss creation of an ad-hoc committee on social justice and racial equity 14. Continue 8/16 discussion on future actions concerning downtown development CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P4 MEMORANDUM Date: September 13, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Douglas Boothroy, Director Neighborhood & Development Services Department Re: Request For Proposal to hire a Form -based Code Consultant This memo is to update you concerning the Request For Proposal (RFP) process to hire a Form -based Code (FBC) consultant to conduct a feasibility assessment and provide initial concepts for the "Missing Middle Housing" in the South district and Northside areas. The maps defining the study areas are attached. In addition the Consultant will be doing a parking impact study for the near downtown neighborhoods. The RFP (attached) has the following general schedule for FBC Consultant selection and conducting the work: RFP issued ...........................September 21, 2016 RFP due ...........................October 28, 2016 Contract award .......................December 6, 2016 Contract period .......................January 1 —August 1, 2017 The Scope of Services requires the FBC Consultant team to have expertise with development of Form -based Codes, and with parking and transportation in relation to Form -based Codes for both new developing neighborhoods as well as existing neighborhoods. The Scope of Services also includes a parking study to address parking demand concerns in the near downtown neighborhoods. Objectives of the Parking Study include balancing the needs of residence, visitors, and commuters in the larger parking system; accounting for neighborhood residential parking demand; applying a data -driven approach; and recommending strategies that enhance the neighborhood. The FBC Consultants responding to this RFP must also demonstrate expertise in the following areas: • Preparing municipal Form -based codes that regulate development and redevelopment; • Building community consensus to support innovative regulatory structures; • Identifying, evaluating, codifying, and explaining the essentials of community design and character; • Writing and/or implementing municipal land development regulations. Conclusion: Staff intends to move forward with the proposed schedule to hire a FBC Consultant and issue the RFP on September 21, 2016 unless you wish to make any changes. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 1 of 31 DATE: September 21, 2016 REOUEST FOR PROPOSAL: r _ na;,hi h CITYF IOWA CITY 410 East Washingloo Slrcel Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 13191 356.5000 53191356.5009 FAX .W..lcgov.olg #17-51, CONSULTING SERVICES FOR FORM BASED CODE ANALYSIS & CONCEPT PLANS NOTICE TO PROPOSERS: Sealed Proposals will be received at the Office of the City Clerk, until the time and date specified below. ADDRESS PROPOSALS TO: Attention of the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 410 E. Washington St., RM 140, Iowa City, IA 52240-1826. Proposals shall be sealed and clearly marked on the front "Request for Proposal for Consulting Services for Form Based Analysis and Concept Plans, #17-51.^ Faxed and E-mailed Proposals will not be accepted. QUESTIONS: All questions, inquiries, requests for public information and clarifications regarding this Request for Proposal can be answered by e -mailing the following representative. In order to receive a response they must be in written form and be submitted via e-mail no later than October 17, 2016, noon (local time). All questions will be answered on an individual basis. Purchasine• Mary Niichel-Hegwood Purchasing Agent marv-niichel(a).iowa-citv.ore (319) 356-5078 PROPOSALS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN: 2:30 p.m. (local time), October 24, 2016 in the City Clerk's Office. Proposers must submit five (5) written copies of their proposal. The City is not responsible for delays occasioned by the U.S. Postal Service, or other carriers, the internal mail delivery system of the City, or any other means of delivery employed by the bidder. Similarly, the City is not responsible for, and will not open, any proposal responses which are received later than the date and time stated above. Insurance is required for this uroiect as soecif3ed in Section III- B.: No bid security is required for this oroiect. NO CONTACT POLICY. All questions regarding this Request for Proposal must be in written form and must be submitted to the Purchasing Division, as stated above. After the date and time established for receipt of proposals by the City, any contact initiated by the proposer or by a City representative, other than the Purchasing Division representative listed herein, concerning this Request for Proposal is prohibited. Any such unauthorized contact may cause the disqualification of the proposer from the procurement transaction. INDEX: Section I. Proposal Submittal Checklist Section H. Specific Conditions and Instructions to this Proposal Section III. General Conditions and Instructions to Proposers Section IV. Wage Theft Policy Section V. Consultant Agreement Section VI. Company Information Form Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 2 of 31 SECTION I. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Review the following checklist to make sure the contents listed below are included in all five (5) copies of your company's proposal. The proposals shall be limited to no more than twenty-five (25) pages. The required sections and specific content must be organized in the submittedproposal as they are listed below. Tabs must be included in each proposal to identify each section. Section 1 - Executive Summary Letter of submission: Letter shall include the name, address, phone number and email address of the person(s) who will: a) serve as the Project Manager for the project; b) serve as the Principal Contact with the City; and c) make presentations on behalf of the firm. The same information will be required for any sub -consultants working with the primary consultant. Section 2 —Experience with Similar Projects Experience: Clearly indicate the specific experience of the individual/firm relative to projects of similar scale and type as this project. Include descriptions of projects with respect to client, location, common issues and services provided. Section 3 — Disciplines Disciplines: Provide a list of disciplines which will be used with this project and who will provide the services. Section 4- Respondent's Expertise and Subcontractor's Expertise Key Personnel: Provide a complete list of key personnel who will work on the project, and all sub -consultants working on the project, along with their professional experience and their role/responsibility. Section 5 - Proposed Project Work Plan Project work plan: This should include a project plan and time schedule describing the general work tasks and personnel assigned to the project. It shall include estimated task/phrase completion dates and key meeting/presentation dates. Section 6 — Performance of Services Methods and Means: Provide a response that defines the methods and means by which the firm will perform the services outlined in the RFP. In addition, explain your process for ensuring the public involvement goal is met ('tie. types of meetings, number of meetings, number of interviews, etc). Section 7 - References Client References: Provide names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of three (3) client references for projects of similar size. Each listed reference should include a brief description and scope of services that were provided. Section 8 — Project Costs A comprehensive and detailed listing all costs, fees, and reimbursable fees to be incurred as a part of your company's work. All costs for this project must be included in the submitted proposal. Exclusion of any costs for this project will be the responsibility of your company. Section 9 — Company Information Form Complete, sign, and submit the form provided in Section VI. of this Request for Proposal. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 3 of 31 SECTION II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Iowa City is seeking a qualified firm for the development of concept plans and a report with recommendations for implementation of a Form Based Code and `missing middle housing' for undeveloped areas of Iowa City's South District and for the established Northside neighborhood. The selected firm will also be required to provide an analysis of and recommendations to address parking demand issues in near -downtown neighborhoods. In addition, the firm must be able to demonstrate the following: • Experience in preparing form -based codes that regulate development and redevelopment in other communities. • Experience in building consensus to support innovative regulatory structures. • Strong graphic skills. • Strong skills in written and oral communication. • Experience in identifying, evaluating, codifying, and explaining the essential qualities of community design and character. • Experience in writing or implementing municipal land development regulations. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES: The scope of services include mapping and analysis of existing conditions in the two subject areas, meetings with area stakeholders and City staff, public workshops, development of 3-D development models, and a final project direction report outlining the opportunities, obstacles, and recommended direction for implementing a Form Based Code in the subject areas. The parking and transportation scope of services will include analysis and recommendations for balancing residential, commuter and visitor parking demand in near -downtown neighborhoods, and recommendations for street pattern and design in the South District. A consultant team with experience in development of form based codes, and associated parking & transportation expertise is required. C. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD The Northside Neighborhood is located near the center of Iowa City north of downtown and east of the University of Iowa campus. It contains 64 square blocks, plus irregular shaped extensions to the north along Belle Vista Place, a private residential street, and Dodge Street, a state highway (map attached). The neighborhood was laid out in 1839 as part of the Original Town Plat. Square blocks measure 320 feet in length and width. Most of the streets are 31 feet wide within an 80 foot wide right-of-way. Each block is served by a 20 - wide east to west alley. Each block was initially divided into 8, 80' by 150' rectangular lots oriented towards the east to west streets (4 lots north of an alley and 4 lots south). The original lots were later subdivided into smaller lots. Corner lots were often subdivided to form new lots oriented toward the north to south streets, dramatically changing the design of the original plat. When the City adopted a reformatted zoning code in the 1962, most of the Northside Neighborhood was zoned R3A and R313 multi -family districts. Both of these zones allowed a relatively high density of 44 and 58 dwelling units per acre. Given that these areas were developed with approximately 8 to 10 dwelling units per acre, the R3 zoning encouraged redevelopment. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 4 of 31 After a number of apartment buildings were built in the 1970s, citizens lobbied the City to down -zone parts of the neighborhood to discourage extensive redevelopment and protect the City's historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage. As a result of these efforts, the City implemented a number of rezonings to lower the number of dwelling units allowed per acre to be more consistent with existing development, thus encouraging the reuse of existing housing instead of demolition. Today, most of the Northside is zoned to lower -density residential zones (RS -5, RS -8 and RNS-12), which limits development to single family or duplex dwellings. The neighborhood contains the Brown Street and Northside Historic Districts and the northern part of the Jefferson Street Historic District. In addition to listing in the National Register of Historic Places, these areas are designated as local historic overlay zoning districts (Northside Neighborhood Historic and Conservation Districts map attached). The local historic designation requires Historic Preservation Commission approval of demolition, new construction and exterior alterations. Because of historic designation infill development will be limited to a few vacant tracts, or where non-contributing properties to historic districts are allowed to be redeveloped. The Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District covers the southeastern and portions of the center of the neighborhood. Similar to the historic district, Historic Preservation Commission approval is required for new construction or redevelopment, however the conservation district contains a smaller percentage of buildings that qualified for the National Register of Historic Places. Careful consideration of the historic status of individual buildings will be necessary when considering infill development possibilities. The Dubuque Street Corridor, comprised of properties fronting Dubuque Street and those between Dubuque Street and Clinton Street, is zoned RM -44 and PRM, both of which are high density multi -family zones, and as such they have a possibility of being redeveloped. These areas lack historic and conservation district overlays zones, although the Historic Preservation Commission has identified a number of potential landmarks, such as Fraternity Row, that are eligible for the National Register and should be considered for preservation. Commercial zones to the south of Bloomington Street and west of Dodge Street may have some potential for redevelopment. SOUTH DISTRICT GREENFIELD AREA This area (see attached map) is a portion of Iowa City's South Planning District. Located South of Highway 6 and east of the Iowa River, the district extends as far South as the City wastewater treatment facility and east to Snyder Creek. Much of this area is still in agricultural production, but it is an anticipated growth area for Iowa City given recently upgraded public infrastructure and the location of a new elementary school. Open space is, perhaps, the defining physical feature of the South Planning District, which has nearly 380 acres of public land, including eight parks—more than any other planning district in the City. An additional 200 acres of wetlands are preserved in a private conservation area in the southeastern corner of the district. South Iowa City is also home to Friendly Farm—Johnson County's only urban organic farm. This rural, natural aspect is vital part of the district's identity and sense of place. Much of the housing in South Iowa City was developed in the Post WWII period and is characterized by long block lengths and street layouts that lack connectivity. At its north edge, close to the Highway, land uses include big box and strip mall commercial development and multi -family and manufactured housing. To the south, housing is predominantly single family with the most recent subdivisions built out at an average density of 3.0 units per acre. The opening of a new elementary school (2015) located in the far south of the district, the development of a major new natural park (Terry Trueblood Recreation Area), along with the efforts of neighborhood organizations and non- Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 5 of 31 profits have created new interest in South Iowa City as an attractive and affordable place to live. The diversity of its residents—in age, ethnicity, and race—are viewed as an important strength of its neighborhoods. Goals featured in the South District Plan (adopted in 2015) call for a more connected and walkable street and pedestrian network that enables families with children to walk to school and supports the extension of transit service. The plan also called for new neighborhoods with housing for a diverse population, a mix of uses located along a planned east -west arterial street, McCollister Boulevard. Missing Middle housing was identified as a potential way to create the sort diverse and walkable neighborhood called for in the plan, however Iowa City lacks the regulatory framework to realize this goal. The South District Plan can be found here: http://www.iowa-city.org/weblink/O/doc/1504902/Electronic.asvx D. PROJECT TASKS: The following tasks address both project areas and share some tasks for efficiency, resulting in a Project Direction Report that identifies the community's direction for implementing expanded use of Form Based Codes; and strategies for addressing parking issues in the near downtown neighborhoods. Task 1: Proiect Initiation and Visit 1 Preparation: Background Information. Gather background information and prepare base maps for South District and Northside Neighborhoods. Prior to generating the base maps, Consultant will communicate with City staff about the size(s) of the base maps. Analysis Maps of South District. Prepare analysis maps of South District and Northside project areas. Prior to generating the analysis maps, Consultant will communicate with City staff about the topics and content to be analyzed and shown on the maps. Consultant will deliver the maps prior to or at the beginning of Visit 1. Stakeholders. Coordination of stakeholders and groups to be interviewed. Logistics. Coordination of logistics with City staff for Visit 1. Task 2: Visit 1. Listening and Workin¢ Sessions: One -on -One Stakeholder Interviews. Consultant Team will meet with stakeholders such as property owners, builders, City Council, City Manager, and other stakeholders such as bicyclists, environmental, housing, sustainability. Up to three, 4 -hour interview sessions arranged by the City are anticipated. During Task the interviews, the Consultant Team will document these areas by targeted photography and selected measurements. Consultant will coordinate with City staff prior to Visit 1 to confirm the selected areas and topics to be documented. Field Documentation of Northside Neighborhoods and Transition Areas, including a Field Analysis of Existing Parking Demand in Near -Downtown Neighborhoods, and Field Documentation of the South District Working Sessions and Evening Workshops. Each day, Consultant Team will meet with City staff on the direction in the Comprehensive Plan for both project areas, key issues identified by the City and on the feedback received in the stakeholder interviews. Each evening, Consultant will facilitate a community workshop to explain the progress made that day, the key issues being discussed, and the feedback received from stakeholders to further discuss this all with the community for clarity and direction. Working sessions and evening workshops will address both Form Based Code -related topics and parking and transportation topics. Proposed Organization: Day 1. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 6 of 31 • 1st half of day for kickoff meeting and site tour, meetings with City staff. • 2nd half of day for South District stakeholder interviews arranged by City staff. Day 2. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: • 1st half of day primarily for Northside Neighborhood stakeholder interviews (including discussion of near -downtown parking -related issues), and for any remaining South District stakeholder interviews. Interviews arranged by City staff. • 2nd half of day for meetings with City staff. Evening Workshop 1 for South District on input to date for feedback by community to identify key issues, opportunities and priorities. Day 3. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: • I st half of day any remaining Northside Neighborhoods stakeholder interviews arranged by City staff. • 2nd half of day for meetings with City staff. • Evening Workshop 2 for Northside Neighborhoods on input to date for feedback by community to identify key issues, opportunities and priorities. Task 3: Post -Visit 1 Activities: Visit I Summary Memo. Prepare memo summarizing findings, stakeholder interviews, and direction from the community workshops. This memo can be used by City staff to facilitate additional meetings and discussions with stakeholders. Clarification of any content in the memo or addition of content to the memo is to be communicated to Consultant no later than at 30 days prior to the next visit. Analysis Maps for Northside Areas. Prepare analysis maps of Northside Neighborhoods and Transition Areas. Prior to generating the analysis maps, Consultant will communicate with City staff about the topics and content to be analyzed and shown on the maps. Consultant will deliver the maps prior to or at the beginning of Visit 2. Meeting with City. Consultant will facilitate a telephone call with City staff to review the Visit I Summary Memo and discuss progress on the analysis maps. Task 4: Report and Assessment of Northside and South Districts: Assess Mapping of Existing Zoning Districts in Identified Areas. Review existing zoning for the following: current zoning districts and size, # of properties and # of buildings, number of units per lot, buildings with 2-4 units, buildings with 5-8 units, buildings with 9-20 units, buildings over 20 units. Memo Defining Obstacles for Missing Middle Housing. Prepare memo describing each key obstacle to achieving MMH in the Identified Areas, focused on the following: upper single family zoning districts, lower medium density zoning districts, downtown zoning districts. This memo is to include the 3-Dbuildoutinformation from Task 5. Task 5: Graphic Test a Sample of Zoning Districts: 3-D Buildout. Prepare 3-D buildout examples of worst-case scenario allowed by current zoning for up to 4 existing zoning districts and up to 4 lot sizes. Meeting with City. Consultant will facilitate a telephone call with City staff to review the Obstacles Memo. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 7 of 31 Task 6: Visit 2 Preparation: Logistics. Coordinate logistics with City staff for Visit 2. Stakeholders. Coordination of meetings with stakeholders and groups. Task 7: Visit 2. Review Visit 1 Findings and New Information Working Sessions with City Staff. Consultant Team will facilitate working sessions with City staff on key issues identified by City staff and by Consultant. Meetings with Stakeholders and Groups. These meetings are for discussing the results of Visit 1 and any new information in order to refine and clarify the community's direction. Consultant Team will meet a second time with property owners, builders, City Council, City Manager, and other stakeholders identified by the City in general interest or particular areas such as bicyclists, environmental, housing, sustainability: up to three, 4 -hour sessions arranged by the City. Evening Workshops. Each evening, Consultant Team will facilitate a community workshop to explain the progress made that day, how the key issues are being clarified, and the feedback received from stakeholders to further discuss this all with the community for further clarity and direction. Proposed Organization: Day 1. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: Ist half of day for working sessions with City staff. 2nd half of day for South District stakeholder updates arranged by City staff. Day 2. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: 1st half of day primarily for Northside Neighborhoods stakeholder updates and any remaining South District stakeholder meetings. Meetings arranged by City staff. 2nd half of day for working sessions with City staff. Evening Workshop for South District on input to date for feedback by community to identify key issues, opportunities and priorities. Day 3. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: 1 St half of day for any remaining Northside Neighborhoods stakeholder meetings arranged by City staff. 2nd half of day for meetings with City staff. Evening Workshop 2 for Northside Neighborhoods on input to date for feedback by community to identify key issues, opportunities and priorities. Task 8: Visit 3 Preparation: Logistics. Coordinate logistics with City staff for Visit 3. Stakeholders. Coordination of meetings with stakeholders and groups. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 8 of 31 Task 9: Visit 3. Confirm the Community's Direction: Working Sessions with City Staff. Consultant Team will facilitate working sessions with City staff on key issues identified by City staff and by Consultant, including how a FBC can work in both project areas; and on options for addressing parking demand issues in the near -downtown neighborhoods. Meetings with Stakeholders and Groups. These meetings are for discussing the results of Visit 2 to refine and clarify the community's direction. Consultant Team will meet a third time with property owners, builders, City Council, City Manager, and other stakeholders identified by the City in general interest or particular areas such as bicyclists, environmental, housing, sustainability: up to three, 4 -hour sessions arranged by the City. Evening Workshop. At the end of Day 1, Consultant Team will facilitate a community workshop to explain the progress made that day, how the key issues have been clarified, and the final feedback received from stakeholders. It is expected that at the end of this workshop, the community's direction and priorities for both the South District and the Northside neighborhood will be clear for documenting in a Final Report. Proposed Organization: Day 1. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: • 1st half of day for working sessions with City staff. • 2nd half of day for stakeholder updates arranged by City staff. Evening Community Workshop to finalize the direction. Day 2. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows Meetings with City staff to follow up on the prior Evening Community Workshop and for any necessary coordination on the Final Report, including a preliminary outline. Task 10: Proiect Direction Report Create Admin Draft Report. Consultant will use the results of the three visits and final Community Workshop to create the Project Direction Report, including FBC, transportation, and on -street parking elements. Prior to beginning this task, Consultant will confirm the outline for the Report with City staff. Consultant will submit a PDF copy of the Administrative Draft Report for review and comment by City staff. Meeting with City Staff. Consultant will facilitate a teleconference with City staff to review the submitted Project Direction Report. Final Report. Deliverables based on City staff s comments, Consultant will create the Final Project Direction Report and submit a PDF copy of the report to City staff for distribution. Deliverables • Full analysis of existing conditions and flaws with current zoninglconditions as outlined in tasks • Summary of the opportunities the Form Based Code will present • Recommendations based on the analysis of parking issues in near -downtown transition areas • Summary of how a Form Based Code would interact with historic and/or conservation districts to preserve and enhance neighborhood character • Summary documentation and analysis of the conclusions drawn from stakeholder meetings and other public involvement • Final Administrative Draft Report as outlined in Task 10, including recommendations for next steps and a timeline for developing a Form Based Code for the study areas Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 9 of 31 Task 11: Proiect Management: Weekly Coordination Calls with City. Consultant will participate in up to 15 weekly phone calls with City staff to communicate on the following: progress of work, upcoming work, meetings, needs for information, schedule and budget. Notes: • While City Staff will be involved throughout the process, the tasks are designed to involve staff at key points in the process without significantly burdening staff with more work to add to their current responsibilities. • By involving City staff and major stakeholders in the FBC working sessions, the goal is that participants will gain a good understanding of how the eventual FBC for the project areas can work for them. hi addition, these sessions often point out content or organizational ideas for improvement to be addressed when the FBC is created. • The Consultant Team shall include expertise with development of form based codes, and with parking and transportation in relation to form based codes for both new neighborhoods and existing neighborhoods. • Part of the Scope of Services includes an analysis of, or recommendations to address parking demand concerns in near -downtown neighborhoods. The consultant may propose to build the parking study portion of the project into the tasks as outlined, or may propose to conduct this portion of the project separately. At a minimum, the parking study portion of the project must include: o An analysis of current residential parking supply and demand based on field data collection Public outreach, including at least two public meetings Discussion of recommended approaches to improve the supply of on -street parking for residences Objectives for the parking study portion of the project include balancing the needs of residences, visitors and commuters in the larger parking system; accounting for neighborhood residential parking demand; applying a data -driven approach, and recommending strategies that are for and convenient for residents. E. SCHEDULE: The following is an anticipated schedule for consultant selection and the contract period. The City reserves the right to modify this schedule. The consultant, as part of their proposal, shall include a proposed project work plan, that includes a detailed schedule for completing the tasks outlined in the Request for Proposal. Request for Proposal Issued: Questions Due: Proposals Due: Contract Award: Contract Period: F. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: September 21, 2016 October 17, 2016 October 24, 2016 December 2016 January 1, 2017 to August 1, 2017 1. If any proposer is in doubt as to the intent or meaning of any part of this Request for Proposal, the proposer should contact the City representative listed on page one (1) of this document no later than October 17, 2016, noon (local time). All questions will be answered on an individual basis and must be in e-mail form in order to receive a response. 2. Proposers are expected to fully inform themselves as to the conditions, requirements, and Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 10 of 31 specifications before submitting a proposal. The submission of a proposal by a company concludes the company's acceptance of the terms and conditions herein, unless otherwise stated. 3. The format of the company's proposal must be consistent with the specifications listed on the Proposal Submittal Checklist — Section L Each copy must be organized as stated on the checklist and contain all of the required information in order for the City to fully evaluate the submitted proposal. 4. The proposer is responsible for all costs related to the preparation of the submitted proposal, any costs associated with the preparation of additional material, and any required visits to the City during the pre -award process. 5. Any costs associated with this project not specifically set forth in the company's submitted proposal (Section 8 — Project Costs) will be the sole responsibility of the proposer. Price/Cost adjustments presented after the contract has been awarded will not be accepted by the City. 6. All submitted proposals, including any negotiations, submitted shall be binding for one hundred and twenty (120) working days following the due date for the proposal or negotiations, unless the Proposer(s), at the City's request, agrees in writing to an extension. 7. Responses maybe rejected if the proposer fails to perform any of the following: a. To adhere to one or more of the provisions established in this Request for Proposal b. To demonstrate competence, experience, and ability to provide services described in this Request for Proposal c. To submit a response on or before the deadline and complete all required forms d. To fulfill a request for an oral presentation or interview e. To respond to a written request for clarification or additional information 8. Proposers maybe required to submit financial statements subsequent to the opening of proposals together with such information as may be required to determine that a contemplated awardee is fully qualified to receive the award. G. REFERENCE CHECKS AND PROPOSAL CLARIFICATION: The City of Iowa City reserves the right to contact any reference to assist in the evaluation of the proposal, to verify information contained in the proposal, and to discuss the proposer's qualifications. The City of Iowa City reserves the right to obtain and consider information from other sources concerning a vendor such as the vendor's capability and performance under other contracts. H. CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS: The City of Iowa City reserves the right to negotiate specifications and terms and conditions which may be necessary or appropriate to the accomplishment of the purpose of this Request for Proposal. The City of Iowa City may require the Request for Proposal and the proposer's submitted proposal be made an integral part of the resulting contract. This implies that all responses, supplemental information, and other submissions provided by the proposer during discussions or negotiations will be held by the City of Iowa City as contractually binding on the successful proposer. The negotiated contract will provide that any material designed specifically to meet the City's Public project and needs, or any modifications to existing materials for the project will become the property of the City of Iowa City - over which it shall have exclusive property rights. I. EVALUATION PROCESS: Each proposal submitted stands alone and will be evaluated on its own merits in terms of meeting the City's requirements, terms and conditions, and overall responsiveness to the Request for Proposal. The evaluation committee may conduct discussions with any proposer that submits an acceptable or potentially acceptable proposal. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 11 of 31 Proposers shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals. During the course of the discussions, the evaluation committee shall not disclose any information derived from one proposal to any other proposer. The evaluation committee reserves the right to request the proposer to provide additional information during this process. An evaluation committee will independently evaluate the merit of proposals received in accordance with the evaluation factors defined in the RFP. Failure of the proposer to provide any information requested in the RFP may result in disqualification of the proposal and shall be the responsibility of the proposer. Phase I of the evaluation process shall be based on a 100 point scale. It is required that a proposal receive a minimum of 80 points in order to move on to Phase II and be considered for award. The proposal that accrues the highest points shall be recommended for award subject to the best interests of City. Categories have been identified for the evaluation process. Each category shall receive a point value within the specified range based on how well the proposal meets or exceeds the City's requirements. The following table lists the maximum points associated with each category. "The Vendor's submission of a proposal implies vendor acceptance of the evaluation technique and vendor recognition that some subjective judgments shall be made by the City of Iowa City during assignment of points." PHASE ONE - POINT CATEGORY Experience • Firm's Resume • Qualifications/Personnel • Success of Similar Projects Proposed Work Plan Performance of Services Project Costs Total Points Phase One PHASE TWO - POINT CATEGORY Interview/Presentation References • Proven Success of Contracts with Other Clients Total Points for Phase Two Total Points for Phase One and Phase Two dr, 30 20 20 100 ASSIGNED POINTS 30 20 50 150 J. INTERVIEW During the initial evaluation process, the City will request an oral interview with those proposers that appear to meet the requirements for this contract. Proposers selected to participate in an interview with the City will have the opportunity to discuss their qualifications, experience, services that they will provide for this contract, as well as any proposed fee schedule. The request for an interview shall be at no cost to the City. K. CONTRACT AWARD: 1. The submitted proposal must be complete to be considered for award. 2. Award, if made, will be between the City of Iowa City and the proposer. The awarded vendor shall not subcontract any part of this contract without the prior written approval of the City. All subcontractors working on this contract must be employed by and responsible to the awarded vendor; all fees for this project will be paid to the main contractor. Failure to comply with the subcontractor provision will result in termination of the contract. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 12 of 31 3. The City reserves the right to qualify, accept, or reject any or all proposers as deemed to be in the best interest of the City. The City of Iowa City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals and to waive irregularities or technicalities in any proposal when in the best interest of the City. The City of Iowa City reserves the right to accept or reject any exception taken by the proposer to the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal. 4. It is the City's intent to make an award based on the schedule provided; the City reserves the right to adjust the schedule when necessary. 5. Award, if made, will be in accordance with the terms and conditions herein. 6. Award, if made, shall be in the form of a contract issued by the City, which will include the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal, and any additional submittals by the proposer that have been accepted by the City. 7. Any change to the contract must be approved in writing by the Purchasing Agent and the awarded vendor. 8. Consideration may be given to, but not limited to, the firm's qualifications, experience with past and present clients, customer satisfaction and references, proven success of other contracts, firm's financial stability, the firm's ability to demonstrate an understanding of the work to be performed, demonstrated capacity to provide timely and quality deliverables, the firm's ability to comply with the requirements of this Request for Proposal, value of service relative to proposed costs. 9. The awarded vendor will be given the City's Contract Compliance Document to complete and return before the commencement of the contract. 10. By submitting a proposal in response to this Request for Proposal, the proposer acknowledges that the proposal submitted shall become public information after the contract is awarded. 11. Before award of this contract, the selected proposer shall submit a certificate of insurance that shall include professional liability insurance covering the selected proposer's liability for the proposer's negligent acts, errors and omissions to the CITY in the sum of $1,000,000. • The City of Iowa City will be named as additional insured • Project proposal number and project title as the description • Insurance carriers will be rated as A or better by A.M. Best The above conditions and instructions clarify this specific Request for Proposal document, but are in addition to the attached GENERAL CONDITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS (Section III). Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 13 of 31 SECTION III. CITY OF IOWA CITY — PURCHASING DIVISION GENERAL CONDITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS The general rules and conditions which follow apply to all proposals issued by the City unless otherwise specified. Proposers or their authorized agents are expected to fully inform themselves as to the conditions, requirements, and specifications before submitting proposals; failure to do so shall be at the Proposer's own risk. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP): is defined as a request for an offer, by one party to another, of terms and conditions with reference to some work or undertaking. This document constitutes a REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, and is thus a solicitation for responses. Conversely, this REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL is NOT a bid and is not governed by state or federal bidding requirements. Moreover, any acceptance of a proposal shall NOT result in a binding contract between the City and the Proposer, but instead will simply enable negotiations to take place which may eventually result in a detailed and refined agreement or contract between the Proposer and the City. "Proposal date" as referenced herein shall mean the local date and time specified in the proposal documents. A. 1. NO CONTACT POLICY. After the date and time established for receipt of proposals by the City, any contact initiated by the Proposer or by a City representative, other than the Purchasing Division representative listed herein, concerning this Request for Proposal is prohibited. Any such unauthorized contact may cause the disqualification of the Proposer from the procurement transaction. 2. COMPLETENESS/AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSAL. Proposer shall supply all information and submittals required by the proposal documents to constitute a proper proposal. The proposal shall clearly state the legal name, address, telephone number, and fax number of the Proposer. The proposal shall be signed above the typed or printed name and title of the signer. The signer shall have the legal authority to bind the Proposer to the proposal. 3. ADDRESSING OF PROPOSAL. Unless otherwise specified, faxed or e-mailed proposals will not be accepted. Proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope or box clearly marked on the front with proposal number and due date, and unless otherwise specified, addressed to: Attn: City Clerk's Office City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St., RM 140 Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 4. PROPOSAL DEADLINE. Proposer shall be responsible for taking whatever measures are necessary to ensure that the proposal reaches the office of the City Clerk or other specified agent on or before the local time and date specified. The City shall not be responsible for, and may not consider, any proposal delayed in the postal or other delivery service, or in the City's internal mail system, nor any late proposal, amendment thereto, or request for withdrawal of proposal received after the date specified. Proposals received after the time and date specified on the Request for Proposal will not be opened and will not be considered for award. A written request for withdrawal of a proposal or any part thereof may be granted, provided the request is received in writing by the City prior to the specified proposal date. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 14 of 31 5. RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. Unless otherwise required by the Iowa Public Records law, during the process of negotiations, no proposals shall be handled so as to permit disclosure to competing Proposers of the identity of the Proposer with whom the City is negotiating or the contents of the proposal. 6. PROPOSALS BINDING 120 DAYS. Unless otherwise specified, all formal proposals, including any negotiations, submitted shall be binding for one hundred and twenty (120) working days following the due date for the proposal or negotiations, unless the Proposer(s), at the City's request, agrees in writing to an extension. 7. TRADE SECRETS OR PROPRIETY INFORMATION. The laws of Iowa require that at the conclusion of the selection process the contents of all proposals be placed in the public domain and be open to inspection by interested parties. Trade secrets or proprietary information that are recognized as such and protected by law may be withheld. 8. MULTIPLE PROPOSALS. Proposers may submit more than one proposal, provided the additional proposal or proposals are properly submitted on the proposal forms or in the proposal format. 9. COMPETENCY OF PROPOSER. No proposal may be accepted from or contract awarded to any person, firm or corporation that is in arrears or in default to the City of Iowa City upon any debt or contract. Prior failure of a Proposer to perform faithfully on any previous contract or work for the City may be grounds for rejection. If requested, the Proposer shall present evidence of performance ability and possession of necessary facilities, pecuniary resources and adequate insurance to comply with the terms of these proposal documents; such evidence shall be presented within a specified time and to the satisfaction of the City. 10. COLLUSIVE PROPOSING. The Proposer certifies that the proposal is made without any previous understanding, agreement or connection with any person, firm, or corporation making a proposal for the same project, without prior knowledge of competitive prices, and that the proposal is in all respects fair, without outside control, collusion, fraud or otherwise illegal action. 11. OFFICERS NOT TO BENEFIT. Upon signing this agreement, Consultant acknowledges that Section 362.5 of the Iowa Code prohibits a City officer or employee from having an interest in a contract with the City, and certifies that no employee or officer of the City, which includes members of the City Council and City boards and commissions, has an interest, either direct or indirect, in this agreement, that does not fall within the exceptions to said statutory provision enumerated in Section 362.5 12. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY. All Proposers are subject to and must comply with the provisions of the City's EEO policy and applicable local, state and federal antidiscrimination laws. All City contractors, subcontractors or consultants with contracts of $25,000 or more (or less, if required by another governmental agency) must abide by the requirements of the City's Contract Compliance. Emergency contracts are exempt from this provision. 13. WAGE THEFT. All City contractors with contracts of $25,000 or more must abide by the requirements of the City's Wage Theft Policy. Pursuant to the Wage Theft Policy, the City will not to enter into certain contracts with, or provide discretionary economic development assistance to, any person or entity (including an owner of more than 25% of the entity) who has admitted guilt or liability or been adjudicated guilty or liable in any judicial or administrative proceeding of committing a repeated or willful violation of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection law, the Iowa Minimum Wage Act, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act or any comparable state statute or local ordinance, which governs the payment of wages, for a period of five (5) years from the date of the last conviction, entry of plea, administrative finding or admission of guilt. The Wage Theft Policy does not apply to emergency purchases of goods and services, emergency construction or public improvement work, sole source contracts excepted by the City's purchasing manual, cooperative/piggyback purchasing or contracts with other governmental entities. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 15 of 31 B. BONDS AND INSURANCE 1. BID SECURITY. When required, no bid shall be considered unless accompanied by either of the following forms of bid security: a. A certified or cashier's check drawn on a solvent Iowa bank or a bank chartered under the laws of the United States, or a certified share draft drawn on a credit union in Iowa or chartered under the laws of the United States, in an amount equal to a minimum of five percent (5%) of the bid, or b. A bid bond executed by a corporation authorized to contract as a surety in the State of Iowa, in a penal sum of a minimum of five percent (5%) of the bid. The bid security shall be made payable to the TREASURER OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, and shall be forfeited to the City of Iowa City as liquidated damages in the event the successful Proposer fails to enter into a contract within fourteen (14) calendar days and, when required, post bond satisfactory to the City insuring the faithful performance of the contract and maintenance of said work, if required, pursuant to the provisions of the bid documents and other contract documents. The amount of the check, draft or bond shall not constitute a limitation upon the right of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to recover for the full amount of such damage. Security deposits of the lowest two (2) or more Proposers may be retained pending contract award or rejection. All other security deposits will be returned promptly. 2. PERFORMANCE BOND. When required, the successful Proposer shall furnish a bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price, said bond to be issued by a responsible surety approved by the City and shall guarantee the prompt payments of all materials and labor and protect and save harmless the City from claims and damages of any kind caused by the operation of the contract, and shall also guarantee the maintenance of the improvement for a specified period following its completion and acceptance by the City. A letter of Irrevocable Credit from a responsible lending agency approved by the City, for the same guarantee(s) as noted above, may be submitted for approval. The City reserves the right to accept or reject this form of guarantee. 3. INSURANCE REOUIREMENTS. When required, the successful Proposer shall provide insurance as follows: a. Certificate of Insurance; Cancellation or Modification 1. Before commencing work, the Contractor shall submit to the City for approval of a Certificate of Insurance meeting all requirements specified herein, to be in effect for the full contract period. 2. The Contractor shall notify the City in writing at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to any change or cancellation of said policy or policies. 3. Cancellation or modification of said policy or policies shall be considered just cause for the City of Iowa City to immediately cancel the contract and/or to halt on the contract, and to withhold payment for any work performed on the contract. 4. The policy shall be primary in payment, not excess or contingent, regardless of any other coverage available to the City. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 16 of 31 b. Minimum Coverage Any policy or policies of insurance purchased by the Contractor to satisfy his/her responsibilities under this contract shall include contractual liability coverage, and shall be in the following type and minimum amounts: Insurance Requirements Informal Project Specs: Class I (under $1M) Type of Coverage Each Occurrence Aggregate a. Comprehensive General Liability (1) Bodily Injury & Property Damage $500,000 $1,000,000 b. Automobile Liability Combined Single Limit (1) Bodily Injury & Property Damage $500,000 c. Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by Chapter 85, Code of Iowa. The City requires that the Contractor's Insurance carrier be "A" rated or better by A.M. Best. C. SPECIFICATIONS 1. FORMAL SPECIFICATIONS. The Proposer shall abide by and comply with the true intent of the specifications (i.e., not take advantage of any unintentional error or omission). Whenever mention herein is made of a service to be provided in accordance with laws, ordinances, building codes, underwriters' codes or similar expressions, the requirements of these laws, ordinances, etc., shall be construed as the minimum requirements of the specifications. The absence of a written list of deviations submitted with the proposal shall hold the Proposer strictly accountable to the City and to the specifications as written. Any unauthorized deviation from the specifications may be grounds for rejection of the service when delivered. 2. PROPOSED ALTERNATE. When an item is identified in the bid document by a manufacturer's name or catalog number, it is understood that the Proposer proposes to furnish the commodity and/or service so identified by the City unless the Proposer specifically proposes an alternate. In bidding on a proposed alternate, the Proposer shall clearly state on his/her bid exactly what he/she proposes to furnish, and forward with his/her bid, a complete description of the proposed alternate, including brand, model number, drawings, performance and test data, references, and any other information necessary for a complete evaluation. Proposer shall include a statement setting forth any changes in other materials, equipment, or other work which would be required by incorporation of the proposed alternate. The burden of proof of the merit of the proposed alternate is upon the Proposer. The City's decision to approve or disapprove of a proposed alternate shall be final. 3. QUALIFICATIONS. CREDENTIALS AND REFERENCES. The Proposer shall provide a description of qualifications, credentials, experience, and resources as they relate to the provision of the proposal. The Proposer shall also provide a list of clients for whom similar work has been performed within the last two years, including the firm, contact person, address, and phone number of each contact person. 4. ADDENDUM TO SPECIFICATIONS. Any substantive interpretation, correction or change of the proposal documents shall be made by written addendum. Unless otherwise specified the addendum will be posted to the City of Iowa City website: httns://icgov.orglnurchasing-bids Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 17 of 31 Interpretation, corrections or changes of the proposal documents made in any other manner shall not be binding. Such interpretations, corrections or changes shall not be relied upon by Proposer. Any addenda shall be issued by the City within a reasonable time prior to the proposal date. It is the Proposer's responsibility to visit this web -site to insure that they have received all important addenda or revisions to the Request for Proposal prior to bidding. D. SELECTION OF FIRM 1. REJECTION OF PROPOSALS. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals, to waive irregularities and technicalities, and to request resubmission. The City also reserves the right to reject the proposal of any Proposer who has previously failed to perform properly or complete on time contracts of a similar nature, or a proposal from a Proposer who, investigation shows, is not in a position to satisfactorily and timely perform the contract. 2. SELECTION. The City desires to enter into negotiations and ultimately reach an agreement with a Proposer who demonstrates the best combination of attributes to conduct the project, and who also negotiates a project cost with the City that is fair and reasonable. The City may conduct discussions with any Proposer who has submitted a proposal to determine qualifications, for further consideration. Since the initial review by the City will be deemed preliminary in nature, the document and process will be deemed confidential until such time as the successful Proposer is selected. Criteria for selection will include but not be limited to: • The quality, availability, adaptability and life cycle costing of the commodities and/or service. • Guarantees and warranties. • Ability, capacity and skill to provide the commodities and/or service required within the specified time. • Ability to provide future maintenance and service. • Character, integrity, reputation, experience and efficiency. • Quality of performance of previous and/or existing contracts. • Previous and existing compliance with laws and ordinances relating to contracts with the City and to the Proposer's employment practices. • Whether the Proposer is in arrears to the City, in debt on a contract or is a defaulter on surety to the City. • If reasonable doubts arise as to Proposer's solvency, the City reserves the right to require financial information sufficient to show solvency and/or require a performance bond. • Such other relevant information as may be secured by the City. • Cost estimate; the City is not required to accept the proposal with the lowest cost estimate. Once the City has reached an agreement with the Proposer, a purchase order will be issued to the awardee. The purchase order will define the conditions of the contract between the City and the contractor selected to receive the award. 3. CORRECTIONS TO SUBMITTED PROPOSALS. Any changes that are made to this proposal using correction fluid, writing utensils, etc. before submission must be dated and initialed in each area that a change was made. 4. PRICING REQUIREMENTS. All pricing submitted by the Proposer shall be indicated in both words and figures. (Ex. $200.50, Two hundred dollars and fifty cents). 5. PRESENTATIONS. When required and based on an evaluation of proposals submitted, the City may select finalists who will be required to participate in interviews, including key personnel designated for the proposal, and to make presentations regarding their qualifications and their ability to furnish the required service to best serve the needs of the City. Formal presentations will be scored and evaluated by a committee. The evaluation committee will make a Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 18 of 31 recommendation to the City Manager and if required, to the City Council for final approval. Nothing in the proposal can obligate the City to enter into a contract. 6. ERRORS IN PROPOSAL. Any ambiguity in any proposal as a result of omission, error, lack of clarity or noncompliance by the Proposer with specifications, instructions and conditions shall be construed in the light most favorable to the City. Changes in proposals shall be initialed and dated. E. GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS 1. CONTRACT AWARD. Upon City's selection and satisfactory negotiation between City and Proposer on the work to be performed, a written award in the form of a Purchase Order, contract or other instrument shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. The contract shall be on forms provided by the City; or if the Proposer's contract document is used, the City reserves the right to modify any document to conform to the request for proposal and to do so in the light most favorable to the City. 2. INSURANCE. Current Certificate of Insurance in the amounts specified shall be on file with the City before work can commence. 3. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. A contract shall be deemed valid only to the extent of appropriations available to each project. The City's extended obligation on these contracts which envision extended funding through successive fiscal periods shall be contingent upon actual appropriation for the following fiscal year. 4. CHANGE IN LAWS: In the event of a change in law that frustrates the goals of the City relative to this contract, the City will be entitled to terminate the contract upon written notification to the vendor without cost or penalty to the City. 5. CONTRACT ALTERATIONS. The City reserves the right to make changes to the Services to be provided which are within the Project. No assignment, alteration, change, or modification of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and agreed to by both the City and the Proposer. The Proposer shall not commence any additional work or change the scope of the Service until authorized in writing by the City. Proposer shall make no claim for additional compensation in the absence of a prior written approval and amendment of this Agreement executed by both the Proposer and the City. This Agreement may only be amended, supplemented or modified by a written document executed in the same manner as this Agreement. 6. SUBLETTING OF CONTRACT. Proposer shall not assign, transfer, convey, sublet or otherwise dispose of the contract or their right, title or interest therein, or their power to execute such contract to any other person, firm or corporation without the prior written consent of the City, but in no case shall such consent relieve the Proposer from their obligations, or change the terms of the contract. 7. CONTRACT PERIOD. Contract shall remain in force for the full specified period and until all services have been satisfactorily delivered and accepted and thereafter until all requirements and conditions shall be met, unless: a. Extended upon written authorization of the City and accepted by contractor, for a period negotiated and agreed upon by both parties, when in the best interest of the City. b. Terminated due to default, as described below. 8. DEFAULT. The contract may be cancelled or annulled by the City in whole or in part by written notice of default to the Proposer upon non-performance, violation of contract terms, delivery failure, bankruptcy or insolvency, or the making of an assignment for the benefit of creditors. The City reserves the right to grant Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 19 of 31 Contractor a specified cure period during which to cure or remedy the default, which cure period shall be included in the written notice of default. If default is not cured within the specified time, City reserves the right, but is not obligated to, extend the cure period or City may deem the Contract terminated without further notice. In either event, the defaulting Contractor (or his/her surety) shall be liable to the City for cost to the City in excess of the defaulted contract price. Lack of knowledge by the Contractor will in no way be a cause for relief from responsibility. If the Contract is terminated, an award may then be made to the next qualified Proposer; or when time is of the essence, services may be contracted in accordance with Emergency procedures. 9. DELIVERY FAILURES. Failure of a contractor to provide commodities and/or service within the time specified, unless extended in writing by the City, or failure to replace rejected commodities and/or service when so directed by the City shall constitute delivery failure. When such failure occurs the City reserves the right to cancel or adjust the contract, whichever is in the best interest of the City. In either event, the City may purchase in the open market commodities and/or service of comparable worth to replace the articles of service rejected or not delivered. On all such purchases, the Contractor shall reimburse the City, within a reasonable time specified by the City, for any expense incurred in excess of contract prices, or the City may deduct such amount from monies owed the Contractor. If the contract is not cancelled, such purchases shall be deducted from contract quantities. The City reserves the right to accept commodities and/or service delivered which do not meet specifications or are substandard in quality, subject to an adjustment in price to be determined by the City. Acceptance will be at the sole discretion of the City. 10. FORCE MAJEURE. The Contractor shall not be liable in damages for delivery failure when such failure is the result of fire, flood, strike, and act of God, act of government, act of an alien enemy or any other circumstances which, in the City's opinion, is beyond the control of the Contractor. Under such circumstances, however, the City may at its discretion cancel the contract. 11. INDEMNITY. The Proposer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Iowa City and its officers, employees and agents from any and all liability, loss, cost, damage, and expense (including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs) resulting from, arising out of, or incurred by reason of any claims, actions, or suits based upon or alleging bodily injury including death, license, patent, or copyright infringement, or property damage rising out of or resulting from the Proposer's operations under this Contract, whether such operations be by the Contractor or by any Subcontractor or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by either. Proposer is not, and shall not be deemed to be, an agent or employee of the City of Iowa City. Responsibility for Damage Claims - It is specifically agreed between the parties executing this contract that it is not intended by any of the provisions of any part of the contract documents to create in the public or any member thereof a third party beneficiary hereunder, or to authorize anyone not a party to this contract to maintain a suit for personal injuries or property damage pursuant to the terms or provisions of this contract. It is understood that no subcontractor is a third party beneficiary to any contract between the Contracting Authority and the prime contractor. Nothing in any special provision or any supplemental specification shall be construed as eliminating or superseding the requirements of this section. Proposer further agrees to: a. Save the City, its agents and employees harmless from liability of any nature or kind for the use of any copy -right or non -copyright composition, secret process, license, patented or unpatented invention, article, apparatus, or appliance, including any device or article forming a part of the apparatus or appliance of which the Proposer is not the patentee, assignee, licensee or owner, furnished or used in the performance of the contract. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 20 of 31 b. Obtain all permits and licenses required by city, state and federal governments and pay all related fees. The Proposer shall also comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the City, State of Iowa and the Federal Government. 12. ANTI -DISCRIMINATION. Proposer shall not discriminate against any person in employment or public accommodation because of race, religion, color, creed, gender identity, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, marital status or age. "Employment" shall include but not be limited to hiring, accepting, registering, classifying, promoting, or referring to employment. "Public accommodation" shall include but not be limited to providing goods, services, facilities, privileges and advantages to the public. 13. CHOICE OF LAW AND FORUM. The laws of the State of Iowa shall govern and determine all matters arising out of or in connection with this proposal, including but not limited to any resulting Contract, without regard to the conflict of law provisions of Iowa law. Any and all litigation commenced in connection with this proposal shall be brought and maintained solely in Johnson County District Court for the State of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, or in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Davenport Division, Davenport, Iowa, wherever jurisdiction is appropriate. This provision shall not be construed as waiving any immunity to suit or liability in State or Federal court, which may be available to the Agency or the State of Iowa. F. PAYMENT PROVISIONS 1. PAYMENT TERMS. Payment may be made only after inspection and acceptance by the using department. Payment of balances shall be made only after approval and final acceptance by the City. 2. INVOICING. Following acceptance of each payment term, payment shall be made within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of itemized invoice. Before City will pay any invoice, the invoice must first include proposal number, department name, dollar amount, and any other pertinent information. Submit invoice to: Purchasing Division City of Iowa City 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 3. WITHHOLDING PAYMENT. Consideration for withholding payment shall include faulty materials, or worlonanship, failure to meet delivery deadlines, and liens that have been filed, or evidence indicating a possible filing of claims. In all cases, regulations and limitations imposed by the Federal Government and State of Iowa shall prevail. 4. TAXES. The City of Iowa City is exempt from all Federal, State of Iowa and other states' taxes on the purchase of commodities and services used by the City of Iowa City within the State of Iowa. The Purchasing Division shall provide tax exemption certification to out of state suppliers as required. Out of state taxes imposed on purchases of commodities and/or services which are used within another state are applicable and subject to payment. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 21 of 31 SECTION IV. CITY OF IOWA CITY WAGE THEFT POLICY It is the policy of the City of Iowa City, as expressed by City Council Resolution No. 15-364 adopted on November 10, 2015, not to enter into certain contracts with, or provide discretionary economic development assistance to, any person or entity (including an owner of more than 25% of the entity) who has admitted guilt or liability or been adjudicated guilty or liable in any judicial or administrative proceeding of committing a repeated or willful violation of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection law, the Iowa Minimum Wage Act, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act or any comparable state statute or local ordinance, which governs the payment of wages, for a period of five (5) years from the date of the last conviction, entry of plea, administrative finding or admission of guilt. (hereinafter "Wage Theft Policy") I. Application. The Wage Theft Policy applies to the following: a. Contracts in excess of $25,000 for goods, services or public improvements. b. Contracts for discretionary economic development assistance. "Discretionary" economic development assistance shall mean any economic development assistance provided by the City of Iowa City that is not required by law. H. Exceptions. The Wage Theft Policy does not apply to emergency purchases of goods and services, emergency construction or public improvement work, sole source contracts excepted by the City's purchasing manual, cooperative/piggyback purchasing or contracts with other governmental entities. III. Affidavit. The contracting entity must complete the attached affidavit showing compliance with the Wage Theft Policy and provide it to the Contracting Department prior to the execution of the contract. Contract provision: Any contract to which this policy is applicable will include the following contract provision: If the City becomes aware that a person or entity (including an owner of more than 25% of the entity) has admitted guilt or liability or been adjudicated guilty or liable in any judicial or administrative proceeding of committing a repeated or willful violation of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection law, the Iowa Minimum Wage Act, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act or any comparable state statute or local ordinance, which governs the payment of wages, within the five (5) year period prior to the award or at any time after the award, such violation shall constitute a default under the contract. IV. Waivers. If a person or entity is ineligible to contract with the City as a result of the Wage Theft Policy it may submit a request in writing indicating that one or more of the following actions have been taken: a. There has been a bona fide change in ownership or control of the ineligible person or entity; b. Disciplinary action has been taken against the individual(s) responsible for the acts giving rise to the violation(s); c. Remedial action has been taken to prevent a recurrence of the acts giving rise to the disqualification or default; or d. Other factors that the person or entity believes are relevant. The City Manager or Designee shall review the documentation submitted, make any inquiries deemed necessary, request additional documentation if warranted and determine whether a reduction in the ineligibility period or waiver is warranted. Should the City Manager or Designee determine that a reduction or waiver of the ineligibility period is warranted the City Manager or Designee shall make such recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make a final decision as to whether to grant a reduction or waiver. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 22 of 31 SECTION V. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of by and between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the CITY and of , hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT. WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT will develop concept plans and a report with recommendations for implementation of a Form Based Code and `missing middle housing' for undeveloped areas of Iowa City's South District and for the established Northside neighborhood. The Consultant will also provide an analysis of and recommendations to address parking demand issues in near -downtown neighborhoods. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the CITY does now contract with the CONSULTANT to provide services as set forth herein. I. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS CONSULTANT agrees to perform the following services for the CITY, and to do so in a timely and satisfactory manner. A. SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Work shall include mapping and analysis of existing conditions in the two subject areas, meetings with area stakeholders and City staff, public workshops, development of 3-D development models, and a final project direction report outlining the opportunities, obstacles, and recommended direction for implementing a Form Based Code in the subject areas. The parking and transportation scope of services will include analysis and recommendations for balancing residential, commuter and visitor parking demand in near -downtown neighborhoods, and recommendations for street pattern and design in the South District. B. PROJECT TASKS In order to fulfill these requirements the Consultant will be responsible for the following tasks which address both project areas and share some tasks for efficiency, resulting in a Project Direction Report that identifies the community's direction for implementing expanded use of Form Based Codes; and strategies for addressing parking issues in the near downtown neighborhoods. Task 1: Proiect Initiation and Visit 1 Preparation: Background Information. Gather background information and prepare base maps for South District and Northside Neighborhoods. Prior to generating the base maps, Consultant will communicate with City staff about the size(s) of the base maps. Analysis Maps of South District. Prepare analysis maps of South District and Northside project areas. Prior to generating the analysis maps, Consultant will communicate with City staff about the topics and content to be analyzed and shown on the maps. Consultant will deliver the maps prior to or at the beginning of Visit 1. Stakeholders. Coordination of stakeholders and groups to be interviewed. Logistics. Coordination of logistics with City staff for Visit 1. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 23 of 31 Task 2: Visit 1. Listening and Working Sessions: One -on -One Stakeholder Interviews. Consultant Team will meet with property owners, builders, City Council, City Manager, and other stakeholders identified by the City in general interest or particular areas such as bicyclists, environmental, housing, sustainability: up to three, 4 -hour interview sessions arranged by the City. During Task the interviews, the Consultant Team will document these areas by targeted photography and selected measurements. Consultant will coordinate with City staff prior to Visit 1 to confirm the selected areas and topics to be documented. Field Documentation of Northside Neighborhoods and Transition Areas including a Field Analysis of Existing Parking Demand in Near -Downtown Neighborhoods. Working Sessions and Evening Workshops. Each day, Consultant Team will meet with City staff on the direction in the Comprehensive Plan for both project areas, key issues identified by the City and on the feedback received in the stakeholder interviews. Each evening, Consultant will facilitate a community workshop to explain the progress made that day, the key issues being discussed, and the feedback received from stakeholders to further discuss this all with the community for clarity and direction. Working sessions and evening workshops will address both Form Based Code -related topics and parking and transportation topics. Proposed Organization: Day 1. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: • 1 St half of day for kickoff meeting and site tour, meetings with City staff. • 2nd half of day for South District stakeholder interviews arranged by City staff. Day 2. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: • 1st half of day primarily for Northside Neighborhood stakeholder interviews (including discussion of near -downtown parking -related issues), and for any remaining South District stakeholder interviews. Interviews arranged by City staff. • 2nd half of day for meetings with City staff. Evening Workshop 1 for South District on input to date for feedback by community to identify key issues, opportunities and priorities. Day 3. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: • 1 st half of day any remaining Northside Neighborhoods stakeholder interviews arranged by City staff. • 2nd half of day for meetings with City staff. • Evening Workshop 2 for Northside Neighborhoods on input to date for feedback by community to identify key issues, opportunities and priorities. Task 3: Post -Visit 1 Activities: Visit 1 Summary Memo. Prepare memo summarizing findings, stakeholder interviews, and direction from the community workshops. This memo can be used by City staff to facilitate additional meetings and discussions with stakeholders. Clarification of any content in the memo or addition of content to the memo is to be communicated to Consultant no later than at 30 days prior to the next visit. Analysis Maps for Northside Areas. Prepare analysis maps of Northside Neighborhoods and Transition Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 24 of 31 Areas. Prior to generating the analysis maps, Consultant will communicate with City staff about the topics and content to be analyzed and shown on the maps. Consultant will deliver the maps prior to or at the beginning of Visit 2. Meeting with City. Consultant will facilitate a telephone call with City staff to review the Visit 1 Summary Memo and discuss progress on the analysis maps. Task 4: Memo Defining Obstacles for Northside Neighborhoods Missine Middle Housing: Assess Mapping of Existing Zoning Districts in Transition Areas. Review existing zoning for the following: current zoning districts and size, # of properties and # of buildings, number of units per lot, buildings with 2-4 units, buildings with 5-8 units, buildings with 9-20 units, buildings over 20 units. Mento Defining Obstacles for Missing Middle Housing. Prepare memo describing each key obstacle to achieving MMH in the Northside Neighborhoods and Transition Areas, focused on the following: upper single family zoning districts, lower medium density zoning districts, downtown zoning districts. This memo is to include the 3-D buildout information from Task 5. Task 5: Granhic Test a Sample of Zoning Districts: 3-D Buildout. Prepare 3-D buildout examples of worst-case scenario allowed by current zoning for up to 4 existing zoning districts and up to 4 lot sizes. Meeting with City. Consultant will facilitate a telephone call with City staff to review the Obstacles Memo. Task 6: Visit 2 Preparation: Logistics. Coordinate logistics with City staff for Visit 2. Stakeholders. Coordination of meetings with stakeholders and groups. Task 7: Visit 2. Review Visit 1 Findings and New Information Working Sessions with City Staff. Consultant Team will facilitate working sessions with City staff on key issues identified by City staff and by Consultant. Meetings with Stakeholders and Groups. These meetings are for discussing the results of Visit 1 and any new information in order to refine and clarify the community's direction. Consultant Team will meet a second time with property owners, builders, City Council, City Manager, and other stakeholders identified by the City in general interest or particular areas such as bicyclists, environmental, housing, sustainability: up to three, 4 -hour sessions arranged by the City. Evening Workshops. Each evening, Consultant Team will facilitate a community workshop to explain the progress made that day, how the key issues are being clarified, and the feedback received from stakeholders to further discuss this all with the community for further clarity and direction. Proposed Organization: Day 1. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: lst half of day for working sessions with City staff. 2nd half of day for South District stakeholder updates arranged by City staff. Day 2. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 25 of 31 1st half of day primarily for Northside Neighborhoods stakeholder updates and any remaining South District stakeholder meetings. Meetings arranged by City staff. 2nd half of day for working sessions with City staff. Evening Workshop for South District on input to date for feedback by community to identify key issues, opportunities and priorities. Day 3. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: 1 St half of day for any remaining Northside Neighborhoods stakeholder meetings arranged by City staff. 2nd half of day for meetings with City staff. Evening Workshop 2 for Northside Neighborhoods on input to date for feedback by community to identify key issues, opportunities and priorities. Task 8: Visit 3 Preparation: Logistics. Coordinate logistics with City staff for Visit 3. Stakeholders. Coordination of meetings with stakeholders and groups. Task 9: Visit 3. Confirm the Community's Direction: Working Sessions with City Staff. Consultant Team will facilitate working sessions with City staff on key issues identified by City staff and by Consultant, including how a FBC can work in both project areas; and on options for addressing parking demand issues in the near -downtown neighborhoods. Meetings with Stakeholders and Groups. These meetings are for discussing the results of Visit 2 to refine and clarify the community's direction. Consultant Team will meet a third time with property owners, builders, City Council, City Manager, and other stakeholders identified by the City in general interest or particular areas such as bicyclists, environmental, housing, sustainability: up to three, 4 -hour sessions arranged by the City. Evening Workshop. At the end of Day 1, Consultant Team will facilitate a community workshop to explain the progress made that day, how the key issues have been clarified, and the final feedback received from stakeholders. It is expected that at the end of this workshop, the community's direction and priorities for both the South District and the Northside neighborhood will be clear for documenting in a Final Report. Proposed Organization: Day 1. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: 1 st half of day for working sessions with City staff. 2nd half of day for stakeholder updates arranged by City staff. Evening Community Workshop to finalize the direction. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 26 of 31 Day 2. It is anticipated the day be organized as follows: Meetings with City staff to follow up on the prior Evening Community Workshop and for any necessary coordination on the Final Report, including a preliminary outline. Task 10: Proiect Direction Report Create Admin Draft Report. Consultant will use the results of the three visits and final Community Workshop to create the Project Direction Report, including FBC, transportation, and on -street parking elements. Prior to beginning this task, Consultant will confirm the outline for the Report with City staff. Consultant will submit a PDF copy of the Administrative Draft Report for review and comment by City staff. Meeting with City Staff. Consultant will facilitate a teleconference with City staff to review the submitted Project Direction Report. Final Report. Deliverables based on City staffs comments, Consultant will create the Final Project Direction Report and submit a PDF copy of the report to City staff for distribution. Deliverables • Full analysis of existing conditions and flaws with current zoning/conditions as outlined in tasks • Summary of the opportunities the Form Based Code will present • Recommendations based on the analysis of parking issues in near -downtown transition areas • Summary of how a Form Based Code would interact with historic and/or conservation districts to preserve and enhance neighborhood character • Summary documentation and analysis of the conclusions drawn from stakeholder meetings and other public involvement • Final Administrative Draft Report as outlined in Task 10, including recommendations for next steps and a timeline for developing a Form Based Code for the study areas Task 11: Project Management: Weekly Coordination Calls with City. Consultant will participate in up to 15 weekly phone calls with City staff to communicate on the following: progress of work, upcoming work, meetings, needs for information, schedule and budget. Notes: While City Staff will be involved throughout the process, the tasks are designed to involve staff at key points in the process without significantly burdening staff with more work to add to their current responsibilities. By involving City staff and major stakeholders in the FBC working sessions, the goal is that participants will gain a good understanding of how the eventual FBC for the project areas can work for them. In addition, these sessions often point out content or organizational ideas for improvement to be addressed when the FBC is created. The Consultant Team shall include expertise with development of form based codes, and with parking and transportation in relation to form based codes for both new neighborhoods and existing neighborhoods. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 27 of 31 Part of the Scope of Services includes an analysis of, or recommendations to address parking demand concerns in near -downtown neighborhoods. The consultant may propose to build the parking study portion of the project into the tasks as outlined, or may propose to conduct this portion of the project separately. At a minimum, the parking study portion of the project must include: o An analysis of current residential parking supply and demand based on field data collection o Public outreach, including at least two public meetings o Discussion of recommended approaches to improve the supply of on -street parking for residences Objectives for the parking study portion of the project include balancing the needs of residences, visitors and commuters in the larger parking system; accounting for neighborhood residential parking demand; applying a data -driven approach, and recommending strategies that are for and convenient for residents. II. TIME OF COMPLETION The following is an anticipated schedule for consultant selection and the contract period. The City reserves the right to modify this schedule. The consultant, as part of their proposal, shall include a proposed project work plan, that includes a detailed schedule for completing the tasks outlined in the Request for Proposal. Request for Proposal Issued: Questions Due: Proposals Due: Contract Award: Contract Period: III. GENERAL TERMS September 21, 2016 October 17, 2016 October 24, 2016 December 2016 January 1, 2017 to August 1, 2017 A. The Consultant shall not commit any of the following employment practices and agrees to prohibit the following practices in any subcontracts. To discharge or refuse to hire any individual because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. 2. To discriminate against any individual in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. B. Should the City terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for all work and services performed up to the time of termination. However, such sums shall not be greater than the "lump sum" amount of XXXXX. The City may terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to the Consultant. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 28 of 31 C. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, provided that no assignment shall be made without the written consent of all Parties to said Agreement. D. It is understood and agreed that the retention of the Consultant by the CITY for the purpose of the Project shall be as an independent contractor and shall be exclusive, but the Consultant shall have the right to employ such assistance as may be required for the performance of the Project. E. It is agreed by the CITY that all records and files pertaining to information needed by the Consultant for the project shall be available by said CITY upon reasonable request to the Consultant. The CITY agrees to furnish all reasonable assistance in the use of these records and files. F. It is further agreed that no Party to this Agreement shall perform contrary to any state, federal, or local law or any of the ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. G. At the request of the CITY, the Consultant shall attend meetings of the City Council relative to the work set forth in this Agreement. Any requests made by the CITY shall be given with reasonable notice to the Consultant to assure attendance. H. The Consultant agrees to furnish, upon termination of this Agreement and upon demand by the CITY, copies of all basic notes and sketches, charts, computations, and any other data prepared or obtained by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement without cost, and without restrictions or limitation as to the use relative to specific projects covered under this Agreement. In such event, the Consultant shall not be liable for the CITY's use of such documents on other projects. The CITY agrees to tender the Consultant all fees in a timely manner, excepting, however, that failure of the Consultant to satisfactorily perform in accordance with this Agreement shall constitute grounds for the CITY to withhold payment of the amount sufficient to properly complete the Project in accordance with this Agreement. Should any section of this Agreement be found invalid, it is agreed that the remaining portion shall be deemed severable from the invalid portion and continue in full force and effect. K. Original contract drawings shall become the property of the CITY. The Consultant shall be allowed to keep mylar reproducible copies for the Consultant's own filing use. L. Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project will be paid by the CITY. M. Upon signing this agreement, Consultant acknowledged that Section 362.5 of the Iowa Code prohibits a CITY officer or employee from having an interest in a contract with the CITY, and certifies that no employee or officer of the CITY, which includes members of the City Council and CITY boards and commissions, has an interest, either direct or indirect, in this agreement, that does not fall within the exceptions to said statutory provision enumerated in Section 362.5. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 29 of 31 N. The Consultant agrees at all times material to this Agreement to have and maintain professional liability insurance covering the Consultant's liability for the Consultant's negligent acts, errors and omissions to the CITY in the sum of $1,000,000. O. No Modifications to the Scope of Services or other contract terms can be made without the written consent of both parties. For purposes of this clause, e-mail is to be considered a writing. Authority to approve changes from the CITY side is vested solely with the City Manager, unless the City Manager delegates that authority to another named CITY employee in writing. IV. MISCELLANEOUS A. It is further agreed that there are no other considerations or monies contingent upon or resulting from the execution of this Agreement, that it is the entire Agreement, and that no other monies or considerations have been solicited. B. The following documents are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference, in order of precedence: RFP #17-51 for Consulting Services for Form Based Analysis and Concept Plans, the CONSULTANT'S Proposal, and any subsequent written language agreed upon by the parties. FOR THE CITY Title: Title: Date: F.14004..16 FOR THE CONSULTANT Date: Approved by: City Attorney's Office Date Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 30 of 31 SECTION VI. COMPANY INFORMATION FORM Exceptions, Deviations or other Agreements Exceptions/Deviations to this Request for Proposal shall be taken below. Exceptions may not be added to any submittals after the due date. If adequate space is not provided for exceptions/deviations, please use a separate sheet of paper. If your company has no exceptions/deviations, please write "No Exceptions" in the space provided. If you state no exceptions, you may not add your company's terms and conditions or any other documents to your submitted proposal or any submittals after the proposal due date. Prohibited Interest Your firm shall identify any relationship that has existed, or presently exists with the City of Iowa City and its staff that may interfere with fair competition or may be a possible conflict of interest for either party. If no relationship has existed or does not presently exist, the company must make this statement in the space provided below (companies are subject to disqualification on the basis of any potential for conflict of interest as determined by the City of Iowa City). Liens or Unsatisfied Judgments List any and all liens or unsatisfied judgments presently existing against your firm in the space provided below. If your firm has no liens or unsatisfied judgments you must state this also. City of Iowa City Wage Theft Policy Your firm must carefully review the policy included in Section IV. of this Request for Proposal. Any objection that your firm has regarding this policy must be stated in the space provided below. If your firm is in agreement with this policy and is able to uphold the policy, provide a statement in the space provided below. Request for Proposal #17-16, Page 31 of 31 Designated person who can be contacted for information during the period of evaluation and for prompt contract administration upon award of the contract. Provide the following information: Name: Phone Number: E-mail Address: The undersigned proposer, having examined and determined the scope of this Request for Proposal, hereby proposes to supply and deliver the proposed commodities and services as described in the proposal documents at the prices set forth within. The undersigned proposer states that this proposal is made in conformity with the specifications and qualifications contained herein. In the event that there are any discrepancies or differences between any conditions of the vendor's proposal and the Request for Proposal prepared by the City of Iowa City, the City's Request for Proposal shall prevail. The undersigned proposer certifies that this proposal is made in good faith and without collusion or connection with any other person or persons bidding on the project. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Name of Firm: Address: Phone Number: E -Mail Address: Name of Representative: Title of Representative: Signature of Representative: Date Signed: C A r z C) O z ►z MADISON CAPITOL n O m m O m o� 75 PEAR • �.� 1 .. 111 • 111 � .1 ■ , 111 1 • "■��� ■111 1 ■ X111 'lll � 1111 •� 1 11 rim I� i, �11 ■1■■ ■1I' -■� ■1111.1111 a_.■� ���■ X111 �'� 9111+ _Ir1 Fri, El oil In =■7 i■T■ ■1■■ `1■ 1111 �1,� 111 if 11. �, lii M1 U7 111111 .■ 1. ■■ 1. ■ ='+ ,•II 111 ■11co 111 11� 1111 c■� �� on No sm ■111 .11 111 i•1111 ■1■■ 111 a .■ I` � ■■ ■ � C 111.E �•• =_1,� �!1_■ ■�11: X1111 Wim'■■ �1� ME LUCAS GOVERNOR O D EVANS m m D DEWEV OUgUOUE SUMMIT N31HD na 3RL11"d CENTER ST CLEMENT CLAPP i m m RENO _ O mm N y D N Np A m00 = mm TAFT SPEEDWAY Northside Neighborhood Historic and Conservation Districtsij L C U o i m m %17PA!%KRn m z PARK z J N a Q A U `I BELLAVISTA Brown Street Historic District Gilbert -Linn Historic Goosetown/ District Horace Mann Conservation —F=F] District E1_ ■� 001 Eli Minn. RTM _ Jefferson Street Historic District .". JEFFERSJ �— w z z Lu O d z w 0Oi c7 ¢ z IOWA z m j m m = O 7 U p O > O J 0 WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON DODGE STREET cr Z o U � PLEASANT ELIZABETH ROCHESTER m a > g HOTZ W U r 1jGSc a F COURT L ' South • Greenfield Development District== '' am, �p aPork T� Sand N.n. BtvD. Terry Trueblood Recreation Area Gram wood m Eleentary r }au o G� N Alexander Elementary Iowa City Kickers Soccer Park Sycamore Greenway From Mayor Pro Tem Botchway "S l'rh;u1 US city to replace 'share the road' signs with 'bikes may use full lane' ones by Alex Bowden September 3 2016 Signs treat cyclists 'less like potential hazards and more like the legal road users that they are' Cyclists may use Cull lane sign in Ferguson (CC licensed by MoBikeFed via Flicki),jpg The US city of Columbus, Ohio is to phase out yellow "Share the Road" signs in favour of white ones reading "Bikes May Use Full Lane." The city believes that the move will better get across the message that cyclists are entitled to ride in the centre of the lane. Columbus does not necessarily have a reputation for being a trailblazer when it comes to its residents' attitudes to cycling. Earlier this year, organisers of a Fourth of July parade were criticised after allowing a vehicle to take part with a bicycle attached to the bonnet, a pair of legs sticking out through the sunroof, and a message on the door that read, "I'll share the road when you follow the rules." However, one local said that particular move had simply been 'kickback' because the city has a strong cycling community and was at that time in the process of building a number of new cycle lanes and paths. Catherine Girves, executive director of local campaign group, Yay Bikes, welcomed the new signs. She said that Share the Road signs mean different things to different people; that some drivers see them as being aimed at cyclists, telling them that they need to "share the road" with drivers by staying as close to the kerb as possible. The city's Bicycle Coordinator, Scott Ulrich, told Columbus Underground (link is external) that the different shape and colour of the Bikes May Use Full Lane signs also gave a message to drivers. "A yellow diamond sign is for warning drivers of potentially hazardous road conditions, whereas the Bikes May Use Full Lane signs are white rectangles, which are regulatory signs that control lane use. We believe it is more appropriate to treat bicyclists less like potential hazards and more like the legal road users that they are, and to remind other road users of that fact." In July, signs telling drivers "Cyclists Can Take the Lane — Stop Honking" were installed on an Ottawa road. Earlier signage asking drivers to "share the road" didn't work, with drivers honking and harassing cyclists until they moved over. Last year, a cyclist in Oregon produced homemade road signs informing drivers that cyclists are allowed to use the full lane. David Fox, the owner of a local digital printing firm, felt compelled to take action after being told to stay in a non-existent bike lane by an irate driver. Cyclist paralyzed; driver faces $750 fine From Mayor Pro tem Botchway Cyclist paralyzed; driver faces $750 fine MacKenzie Elmer, melin dr dnemgeom 6:35 p.m. =September 11, 1016 (Phot: MacKenzie Elmer rhe Register) SIOUX CITY, IA. — Jared Fenstermacher spent his 32nd birthday in a Sioux City hospital bed unable to move anything below his waist. The Pennsylvania cyclist's cross-country ride to raise money for a cancer foundation (hftps://www.facebook.comAaredsride/) ended Aug. 11 when he was struck from behind by a distracted driver just 23 miles into Iowa. Fenstermacher broke bones in both his arms. He suffered a concussion and sustained a serious spinal cord injury that has left him in a wheelchair. The driver received a traffic citation for following too close to a bicycle and a fine for driving while uninsured. He faces a maximum penalty of $750. Fenstermacher's family is outraged by Iowa's lack of rules protecting cyclists. "He wasn't following my son too closely, he ran him over," Bob Fenstermacher said last week sitting near his son's hospital bed at Mercy Medical Center of Sioux City. The Mohrsville, Pa., father said he was dumbfounded when the Plymouth County Sheriffs Office told him there were no other charges it could file against the driver who hit his son. "Something else has to fit here," he said. RELATED COVERAGE: " Iowa bicyclist's camera catches close call with pickup (/story/news/crime-and-courts2016/08/11/iowa-bicyclists-camera-catches-close-call- Branstad wants to address traffic, cyclist fatalities (/story/news/politics/2016/0725/branstad-wants-to-address-traffic-cvclist- fatalities/87545844/) RAGBRAI rider killed in bicycle -vehicle crash near Glenwood (/story/life/livina-well/raabraV2016/07/24/raabrai-rider-death-iowa-state- patrol/875017421) Drivers in Iowa who hit bicyclists or even kill them rarely serve time behind bars. (/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/04/23/motorists-kill-cyclists-fines- b ut-no-iail/82982570/1 A Des Moines Register review of crash data found 22 bicyclists were killed in collisions (/story/news/gime-and-courts/2016/04/25/22-iowa-bikers-killed- drivers-since-2011/83409482/) with cars from 2011 to April 2016. Only one of those drivers was sentenced to prison time. Jonathan Lewa Rodriguez received 34 years in prison (/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/06/17/driver-sentenced-fatal-bicycle-crash/86029072/) after being found guilty of vehicular homicide and five other charges stemming from the Des Moines collision that killed Wade Franck, 41, and injured two other cyclists in August 2015. Thirteen of the 22 drivers were cited for traffic offenses — the most common being a $250 fine for operating too close to a bicyclist. Eight drivers walked away from those deadly crashes without any charges. Bicycling advocates say that's not enough in a state where cycling is growing in popularity. Ride's mission was to help others It was almost 8:30 p.m. and Jared Fenstermacher was riding east on County Road C60 toward Hinton, about 10 miles north of Sioux City. He had just spent two hours waiting out a torrential rain in a farm shed and was happy to be riding again. He hoped to reach Kingsley, 22 miles away, where he'd planned to spend the night. http://www.desmoinesregister.comistorylnews/crime-and-courts/2016/09/12/cyclist-paralyzed-driver-fac... 9/13/2016 Cyclist Jared Fenstennacher stopped at Yellowstone National Park on his 3,000 -mile journey across the country. (Photo: Jared FenstermachedSpeaal to the Register) $750 fine Page 2 of 5 Fenstermacner was about 7,auu miles ano it days Into its s,uuu-mile trip from Astoria, ure., to ucean City, N.J. He planned to reach the Atlantic by Aug. 25. The fit cyclist was averaging about 100 miles a day, if the weather was right. He carried just 10 pounds in gear and used internet sites to find lodging, or stayed with relatives along his route. He was coming from South Dakota, where he'd stayed with his dad's cousin, Vermillion Mayor Jack Powell. He planned to spend the night with another relative in Kingsley. Fenstermacher was introduced to cycling by his grandfather, who took him on rides as a young boy in his native Pennsylvania. Earl Fenstermacher died from cancer in 2005. His grandson dedicated his cross-country ride to him. 1 have a livestrong bracelet that he wore during his baffle and I will be wearing it with me during my trip," Jared Fenstermacher wrote on a fundraising page dedicated to the ride. "I'm dedicating the ride to his memory." The page raised $11,000 for the nonprofit For Pete's Sake Cancer Respite Foundation, which provides one- week vacations to cancer patients and their caregivers. Jared Fenstennac her rides his bicycle on a 7,000 -mile journey across the country. (Photo: Jared Fensrermacher/Speaa/to the Register) Driver distracted by child in backseat In rural Plymouth County, the shoulder of County Road C60 is just over a foot -wide and gravel, but the road is flat. Fenstermacher was riding in the traffic lane. Michael Vondrak, 29, of Merrill was driving a white Ford F-250 pickup east down the same stretch of road behind Fenstermacher's bicycle. Vondrak told police that he took his eyes off the road for a moment as he turned to his son in the backseat. He turned back just in time to see his truck strike the cyclist. He stayed at the scene as Fenstermacher was carted away to the hospital by the Hinton ambulance service. "I think I let my guard down a little bit because of the RAGBRAI thing in Iowa," Fenstermacher said. "If you would have asked me ahead of time ... if there was a state I thought I'd get hit in, I wouldn't have said Iowa." Vondrak declined to comment for this story. Drivers who kill cyclists rarely serve jail time http://www.desmoinesregister.comistorylnews/crime-and-courtsl2O l6/09/12/cyclist-paralyzed-driver-fac... 9/13/2016 Cyclist paralyzed; driver faces $750 fine vono plea ea not guilty to billowing too close to a Dicycie. mis court nate has not Dean set. Page 3 of 5 Biking advocates lobbied the Legislature to enhance the state's bicycle safety laws during the last session. They pushed a bill that would have required drivers to fully change lanes when passing a cyclist and instituted a $1,000 penalty for a driver who kills a cyclist. The bill died in the Republican -controlled House after passing the Senate 38-12. (/story/news/oolitim/2016/02/24/bicycle-passing-bill-sparks-iowa-senate- debate/80862696/) The main reason the penalties are so low in these instances is Iowa's tightly worded reckless driving law. Reckless driving is one of the toughest things to prove under Iowa law, said Pete Grady, an attorney with the Iowa Attorney General's Office. But it's one of the few ways prosecutors can secure a vehicular homicide indictment that might result in more serious punishment. MORE COVERAGE: The 22 Iowa bikers killed by drivers since 2011 (/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/04/25/22-iowa-bikers-killed-drivers-since- 2011 /83409482/) • When drivers kill cyclists — small fines, no fail (/story/news/crime-and-murts/2016/04/23/motorists-kill-cyclists-fines-but-no-iail/82982570/1 • Editorial: Silent protest Pleads for safe streets (/story/opinion/editorials/2016/05/20/editorial-silent-protest-pleads-safe-streets/84650254f) In July, the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, the state's largest bicycling advocacy group, called for stiffer Penalties and changes to Iowa's reckless driving rules (/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/07/15/iowa-bicycle-coalition-mark-wvatt-reekiess-driving-safe-passing/87128748/1 to curb cyclist deaths. It launched a petition that has more than 5.000 signatures (htto://iowabicyclecoalition.ora/petitioM. "Serious injury or death to others is a real possibility for others in the path of a distracted driver," said Mark Wyatt, the Bicycle Coalition's executive director. "A reasonable person would call that behavior reckless, but the Iowa Code doesn't seem to be in sync with what a reasonable person thinks." Little recourse for family facing medical bills Jared Fenstermacher rides his bicycle on a 3,000 mile journey across the country. (Photo' Jared FenstermacheoSpecial to the Register) The Fenstermachers have hired attorneys both in Iowa and Pennsylvania to explore their options. They considered a civil lawsuit against Vondrak, but since the driver did not have insurance, there is little chance of recouping much money to pay for medical bills, Bob Fenstermacher said. "It would give us more closure if it would have been considered reckless driving," Bob Fenstermacher said. "If you take your eyes off the road and you hit someone you're being reckless. That's my opinion." The Fenstermachem turned to the Iowa Crime Victim Compensation Program for financial support. The program, funded by fines and penalties paid by criminals, helps victims with out-of-pocket expenses related to injuries from violent crimes. But since there were no reckless driving charges filed, Fenstermacher did not qualify for aid. "There are very spec crimes we can cover," said Janelle Melohn, director of the crime victim assistance division with the Iowa Attorney General's Office. Fenstermacher's crash amounts to a traffic accident, she said. It's not viewed as a criminal act. The program pays about $6 million annually in compensation claims. It covers things like lost wages, counseling services and other crime -related costs like residential crime -scene cleanup. "If we covered every traffic accident where people didn't have insurance, we'd be out of money in a day, Melohn said. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/storylnewslcrime-and-courtsl2016/09/12/cyclist-paralyzed-driver-fac... 9/13/2016 Cyclist paralyzed; driver faces $750 fine Page 4 of 5 a iz.l IF AUL- iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllu rk 1P a Jared Fenstermacherwas riding his bicycle through Iowa when a truck hit him from behind. He broke bones in both his arms and is paralyzed. (Photo: MacKenzie Elmer/rhe Register) 'Iowa has not been good to us' Fenstermacher has thousands of dollars in medical bills. His sister set up a GoFundMe Page with a $50.000 coal. (hftps://www.00fundme.com/iaredsreoovery) Bob Fenstermacher said no one in Iowa is advocating for his son. He badgered the Plymouth County Sheriffs Office for weeks to subpoena Vondrak's cellphone records. He wants to know if the man who hit his son was texting at the time of the crash. Plymouth County Attorney Darin Raymond said he could not comment on whether his office is seeking those records. Sgt. Rick Singer with the Plymouth County Sheriffs Office said the charges reflect what the driver said happened. Fenstermacher cannot remember the accident. "There were no other witnesses. It didn't appear speed was a factor or that he was on his phone. Even if he was ... he could legally be using his phone," Singer said. Singer said Iowa's distracted driving laws are horribly written and hard to enforce. In Iowa (/story/news/politics/2015/04/11/iowa-texting-driving-laws- 0000sition/25639875/)officers can issue tickets to drivers for texting but only if they have pulled over the car for another offense (/story/news/politics/2015/04/11 /iowa-texting-d riving-laws-0000sition/25639875R. "How do I know if you're texting or looking at directions on Google maps, which is legal," Singer said. State lawmakers considered changing the state's rules on texting while driving in 2015. The measure would have made telling a primary offense, meaning police could pull over a driver just for texting. But it failed to gain the needed support. When a driver admitted she was textina when she hit and killed a 21 -year-old cyclist in Mitchell County (/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/07/15/grace- harken-ceurtnev-iohnson-bicycle-crash-mitchell-county-iowa/87132140/) on July 29, 2015, the stiffest penalty available was a $1,000 fine and a suspended drivers license. "Iowa has not been good to us; Bob Fenstermacher said. "...You can literally run a guy over from behind (and) get this minimal charge. You get to go on with your life, and my son is potentially changed forever." Fenstermacher left Sioux City on Friday for the Magee Rehabilitation hospital in Philadelphia. Read or Share this story: http://dmrag.co/2cUNhhc http://www.desmoinesregister.com/storylnewslcrime-and-courts/2016/09/12/cyclist-paralyzed-driver-fac... 9/13/2016 City considering ordinance change to protect bicyclists I MLive.com Page 1 of 2 From Mayor Pro Tem Botchway 1P7 Michigan City considering ordinance change to protect bicyclists By Malachi Barrett I mbarretl�live.com on August 18, 2016 at 4:23 PM, updated August 18, 2016 at 5:14 PM KALAMAZOO, MI — When five bicyclists were killed and four injured by a reckless driver, Doug Kirk knew something needed to be done. "We are incredibly vulnerable out there as bicyclists," said the Kalamazoo Bicycle Club newsletter editor and former president. "(Crashes don't result in) a fender bender or a scratched bumper — it's the emergency room or maybe the morgue. Cars do not give us enough room." Prepared by City Attorney Clyde J. Robinson, an amendment to a Kalamazoo city ordinance would require motorists to provide a minimum distance of 3 feet when overtaking and passing a bicyclist, as long as it is reasonably safe. The change was spearheaded by members of the Kalamazoo Bicycle Club, who pushed for action after the June 7 crash and based on similar measures were passed by other cities in Michigan. The Michigan Vehicle Code does not require a safe passing distance for bicycles. In the absence of a uniform state law, Grand Rapids adopted 5 -foot wide passing zone in September 2015, while Battle Creek adopted an ordinance requiring 3 feet of distance in February. Kirk said he was frustrated that the state legislature has yet to act on House Bill 5003, which would require 5 feet of distance when passing bicycles, since it was introduced and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in October 2015. "This an issue that ought to be addressed statewide," he said. "They have their feet stuck in cement; they cant get anything worthwhile done. If you act locally those guys in Lansing will get the idea." While the amendment in its present state would require 3 feet of space, bicycle club representatives Kirk and Dave De Back urged city commissioners at their Monday meeting to adopt a 5 -foot wide passing zone. Robinson said the ordinance was approved for first reading and will return at the next commission meeting for a second reading and action on Sept. 6. If commissioners want the new ordinance to require 5 feet of separation, the proposal will have to be acted upon at the following meeting on Sept. 19. In a memo submitted to the commission, City Traffic Engineer James Hoekstra said a 5 -foot passing distance is simply not possible on some roads, as it would cause vehicles to have to cross a double yellow line into oncoming traffic. He questioned if a larger distance requirement would lead to frustration and aggression by motorists. Kirk doesn't buy it, stating that he frequently sees vehicles pass yellow lines to get around busses. Thirteen states, including Michigan, have no required standard. There are 25 states and the District of Columbia that enacted a 3 -foot wide bicycle -passing zone. No states require a flat 5 feet of separation between bicyclists and passing vehicles, however New Hampshire increases the distance by one foot for every 10 mph more than 30, reaching 5 feet at 50 mph. South Dakota requires 6 feet of separation if the speed limit is more than 35 mph. Ultimately, Kirk said any protection for bicyclists would be better than what the ordinance currently offers. He doesn't expect police to enforce the ordinance with a yardstick; instead the change would make motorists more aware that they should share the road. http://www.mlive.cominewslkalamazoolindex.ssfl2016/08lcity_considers_ordinance_chan... 9/13/2016 City considering ordinance change to protect bicyclists I MLive.com Page 2 of 2 "Its about educating the public and it's a law where if a car does hit a bicyclist, it should be perfectly clear that the vehicle is liable for that," he said. "No one is expecting police to set up traps." Malachi Barrett covers local government for MLive Kalamazoo Gazette. Email him at mbarretl@,mffve.com and follow him on Twitter @polarBarrett or on Facebook. Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy ® 2016 MLive Media Group. Al rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except oath the prior vaitten permission of MI -he Media Group. Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. P Ad Choices http://www.mlive.cominewslkalamazoolindex.ssf/2016/08lcity_gonsiders ordinance chan... 9/13/2016 r iPs t ®�, CITY OF IOWA CITY IN MEMORANDUM Date: September 13, 2016 To: Mayor and City Council 55II From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk �,F� Re: KXIC Radio Show At your September 6 work session, and follow-ups conversations, Council Members agreed to the following schedule for the Wednesdav 8AM radio show. Wednesdav September 14 — Mims September 21 — Botchway September 28 — Thomas October 5 — Throgmorton October 12 — Dickens October 19 — Cole In addition we are adding a 7:15 — 7:45 AM the first and third Friday of each month: Friday September 2 — Botchway September 16 — Dickens October 7 — Dickens and Botchway October 21 — Throgmorton ** Please remember that KXIC is very flexible with taping the Wednesday sessions ahead of the show. It is the intent of the Friday interviews to be live. Uxadioshowappts.doc Jim Dickerson, PGA Golf 319-351-0596 ua-is-iri IP9 r 'owns CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East washinglon Slrc,l Iowa City. Iowa 52240-192(1 13 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5007 FAX wnw.kg0v.0rg September 6, 2016 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker 1 — Parking Systems Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Worker I — Parking Systems. Kyle Acheson IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyr - Dickerson, Chair r IP�o —,! 1 --a.ar._ -Zqftc CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org September 13, 2016 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination - Animal Care Technician Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Animal Care Technician. Jonte Thornton IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra . Dickerson, Chair IP11 Iowa City Police Department FSI and University of Iowa DPS Bar Check Report - August, 2016 2016 S7 -r) i Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges Wt"b 5 are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity Business Name Occupancy (=upancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev12Mo) (Prev12Mo) 2 Dogs Pub 120 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Airliner 223 4 0 0 21 12 4 0.571429 0.190476 American Legion 140 0 0 0 Atlas World Grill 165 0 0 0 Bardot Iowa 1 0 0 20 0 3 0 0.15 Baroncini— 0 0 0 Basta 176 0 0 0 Blackstone` 297 0 0 0 Blue Moose— 436 2 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 Bluebird Diner 82 0 0 0 Bob's Your Uncle `^' 260 0 0 0 Bo -James 200 1 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 Bread Garden Market & Bakery"' 0 0 0 Brix 0 0 0 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556 12 8 4 113 35 28 0.309735 0.247788 Brown Bottle, [The]— 289 0 0 0 (Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar— 189 0 0 0 (Cactus 2 Mexican Grill (314 E Burlin( 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 7 (Cactus Mexican Grill (245 s. Gilbert) 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 2 'Caliente Night Club 498 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 92 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Carlos O'Kelly's— 299 0 0 0 '.Chili Yummy Yummy Chili 0 0 0 Chipotle Mexican Grill 119 0 0 0 (Clarion Highlander Hotel 0 0 0 (Clinton St Social Club 0 0 0 Friday, September 09, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Iowa City Police Department ILE and University of Iowa DPS Bar Check Report - August, 2016 2016 SEP -9 P _y possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges NtCfi re-teflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 20081 =university of lowa Monthly Totals Bar checks Under2l i PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Club Car, [The] 56 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 Coach's Corner 160 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Colonial Lanes- 502 0 0 0 Dave's Foxhead Tavern 87 0 0 0 DC's 120 11 10 1 87 35 12 0.402299 0.137931 Deadwood, [The] 218 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Devotay` 45 0 0 0 Donnelly's Pub 49 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Dublin Underground, (The] 57 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Eagle's, [Fraternal Order ot] 315 0 0 0 Eden Lounge 3 1 0 16 12 2 0.75 0.125 El Banditos 25 0 0 0 EI Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant 104 0 0 0 EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 161 0 0 0 Elks #590, [BPO] 205 0 0 0 Englert Theatre- 838 0 0 0 (Fieldhouse 178 6 1 0 47 9 1 0.191489 0.021277 FilmScene 0 0 0 First Avenue Club` 280 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Formosa Asian Cuisine- 149 0 0 0 (Gabes- 261 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 ]George's Buffet 75 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ]Givanni's- 158 0 0 0 ]Godfather's Pizza 170 0 0 0 ]Graze- 49 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Friday, September 09, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPS Bar Check Report - August, 2016 !.a r ' Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges Numbers -ate refl"tive of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio Pr (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Grizzly's South Side Pub 265 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 Hilltop Lounge, [The] 90 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Howling Dogs Bistro 0 0 0 IC Ugly's 72 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 India Cafe 100 0 0 0 Iron Hawk 0 0 0 Jimmy lack's Rib Shack 71 0 0 0 Jobsite 120 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 Joe's Place 281 3 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 Joseph's Steak House- 226 0 0 0 Linn Street Cafe 80 0 0 0 Los Portales 161 0 0 0 (Martini's 200 4 0 0 48 8 2 0.166667 0.041667 (Masala 46 0 0 0 IMekong Restaurant- 89 0 0 0 IMicky's- 98 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 IMill Restaurant, [The]- 325 0 0 0 IMoose, [Loyal Order of] 476 0 0 0 IMosleys 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Motley Cow Cafe- 82 0 0 0 Noodles & Company- 0 0 0 Okoboji Grill- 222 0 0 0 (Old Capitol Brew Works 294 0 0 0 (One -Twenty -Six 105 0 0 0 (Orchard Green Restaurant- 200 0 0 0 IOyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 87 0 0 0 Friday, September 09, 2016 Page 3 of 5 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPS ILtl tar Check Report - AI 2015 SEP 9ses'sion of Alcohol Under the Legal Age NumlhrsTrg�gftective of Iowa City Police activity a Business Name Occupancy Monthly Totals (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) ®= Universityof Iowa Bar Under2l PAULA Checks ❑ Pagliai's Pizza— 113 0 0 0 ❑Panchero's (Clinton St)- 62 0 0 0 ❑Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)- 95 0 0 0 El Pints 180 5 0 0 ❑ Pit Smokehouse` 40 0 0 0 El Pizza Arcade 0 0 0 El Pizza Hut- 116 0 0 0 ❑Players 114 0 0 0 ❑Quinton's Bar & Deli 149 0 0 0 ❑Rice Village 0 0 0 ❑ Ride 0 0 0 []Ridge Pub 0 0 0 ❑ Riverside Theatre- 118 0 0 0 ❑Saloon 120 0 0 0 ❑Sam's Pizza 174 0 0 0 ❑Sanctuary Restaurant, [The] 132 0 0 0 71 Shakespeare's 90 0 0 0 ❑Sheraton 0 0 0 ❑Short's Burger & Shine` 56 0 0 0 ❑Short's Burger Eastside 0 0 0 [-]Sports Column 400 11 2 2 ❑Studio 13 206 0 0 0 ❑Summit. [The] 736 7 7 2 ❑Sushi Popo 84 0 0 0 ❑Szechuan House 0 1 0 0 ❑ Takanami Restaurant- 148 0 i 0 0 igust, 2016 PAULA) Under 21 Chal nd University of Iowa P Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l, PAULA Checks' 37 0 0 3 u 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 76 47 15 6 0 0 82 45 40 ges dice Activity Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mol 0 0 0 Ga SEC 0 Friday, September 09, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPS Bar Check Report - August, 2016 Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity Business Name Occupancy Monthly Totals Prev 12 Month Totals Under2l PAULA (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prey 12 Mo) Taqueria Acapulco 0 0 0 0J1— ®� TCB 250 2 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 Thai Flavors 60 0 0 0 Thai Spice 91 0 0 0 Times Club @ Prairie Lights 60 0 0 0 Trumpet Blossom Cafe 94 0 0 0 Union Bar 854 12 15 18 97 46 53 0.474227 0.546392 VFW Post #3949 197 0 0 0 Vine Tavern, [The] 170 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 Wig & Pen Pizza Pub- 154 0 0 0 Yacht Club, [Iowa City]- 206 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Yen Ching 0 0 0 Z'Mariks Noodle House 47 0 0 0 44 27 856 249 171 0.290888 0.199766 Totals 89 Off Premise0 0 j 7 0 8 67 0 0 Grand Totals'i 34 238 * includes outdoor seating area exception to 21 oenance Friday, September 09, 2016 Page 5 of 5 co s rcrC a --!>- � 0J1— ®� N Friday, September 09, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Iffin1 Marian Karr From: City of Iowa City<CityoflowaCity@public.govdelivery.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:24 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: City Council Listening Post SHARE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. 10WACITY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: September 13, 2017 Contact: Marian Karr Phone: 319-356-5041 City Council Listening Post The fourth City Council listening post will be held at the Chauncey Swan Farmers Market, 405 E. Washington Street, on Saturday, September 17, from 9:00-11:00 AM. Two Iowa City Council Members will attend each listening post and those two Council members will report back to the entire Council. Members of the community are encouraged to stop by and meet with Council representatives to discuss any community issue. No formal agenda or presentation is planned. The City Council of Iowa City approved the 2013 Equity Report Action Plan and five areas of focus for relationship building. The plan outlined top priorities and new initiatives developed by City staff and Council to promote racial equity and diversity. One of the new initiatives is to host listening posts in various locations throughout the year. Other listening posts are planned in other areas later in the year. For additional information, questions, or suggestions on future locations for listening posts please contact City Clerk Marian Karr at Marian-KarKaDiowa-citv.ora, 319-356-5041; or Equity Director Stefanie Bowers at Stefanie-Bowers(cDiowa-citv.ora, 319-356-5022. ! 1 3 '�►r�1 w�r4� Questions? _ Contact Us CITY 01 101YA CITY tOWSCOcrrror utturua STAY CONNECTED: BUILUINU ANU UKUSSINu BKIDGEs TOGETHER SAVE THE DATE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13 Iowa City Public Library Meeting Room A First Session Second Session 2-5 PM 6-8 PM A fundamental building block of building bridges is dialogue and listening to voices that are often silent. Event leaders aim to combat ongoing hate speech and fear -mongering tactics and rhetoric by bringing residents with diverse backgrounds together to listen and learn from each other and build a stronger community. The first session speakers include: Former Iowa Congressman Jim Le ayor of Iowa City Jim Throgmorton, and Mayor Pro -Tem of Iowa City and Equity Director for the Iowa Cito ity School District Kingsley Botchway. The second session encourages active audience participation through hz6ok-oubwoups where experiences revolving around specific topics willbe discussed and a pAwroposed. Light refresttmmts will be served at both sessions. Spjjjft of Iowa City Human Rights Commission Co -Sponsors of the event: The Muslim Public Affairs Council of Iowa JC Board of Supervisors, UI Center for Human Rights, ACLU -IA, Peace Iowa, United Nation Association of Iowa and Johnson Co, UI Chief Diversity Office, JC Consultation of Religious Communities. E I 11: Bring your lunch and enjoy! For Current City Board and Commission members. The Continuation of Conversations on Diversity By University of Iowa College of Education Professor Katrina M. Sanders. One Will Be Held On: Tuesday, October 25 12-1 pm The Other On: Wednesday, December 7 12-1 pm Both sessions will be held at Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall. Please RSVP to humanrights@iowa-city.org. Dr. g, ►rx tzvE tin Rac est+�c e,no nest Nom,% � a�J ,�(:Q�r,rlg,Wrltrl aMCtlr� JR.CgfrW�e�ts, legt ivWcrrryrttF immeoysw"� Ch,y WfW,rJ r� GaAsoui�F�,,VNrr-crura ,�rtil wJ �e ttttl, Q.. Go; be. r+6J ✓''lRs nr� 4rirr as s car be. o " Gid Negro SPi dr Free a+LA.r Free o+ last �y11� 4 '�unr � .. ,� . yoo kin a t� prt�' " bed rK rrA arJbk Vow; y y YY Sw �rnc�acr m FSev $� ya► d� ass , ,1- pno W Wee,u1U� Art work by Kate Goodvin. Iowa City Human Rights Commission's 33rd Annual Awards Breakfast Diane Finnerty, Assistant Provost for Faculty at the University of Iowa will provide the keynote address, Imagining a World in which Black and Brown Lives Mattered." Wednesday, October 26, 2016 Breakfast begins at 7:15 a.m.; program starts promptly at 7:30 Second Floor Ballroom . University of Iowa Memorial Union • 125 N. Madison Street Ticket price: $20 per person 10 reduced price tickets are available for $10 each on a first come first served basis. Contact humanrights@iowa-city.org to request a reduced price ticket. Tickets can be purchased at htip://33rdawardsbreakfasi.eventbrite.com The deadline to purchase tickets is Friday, October 21, 2016. Tickets will not be available the day of the event. To nominate a person for an award visit www.lcgov.org/11umanitightsNomi nation Form Email humanrights@iowa-cityorg with any questions. uv-15-16- IP16 Marian Karr From: ECICOG <alicia.presto@ecicog.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:50 AM To: Council Subject: Garbage Grapevine 2016 Issue 4 ECIC" The Garbage Grapevine is a bimonthly newslet about solid waste t recycling in the ECICOG Solid Waste Planning Area. This newsletter sponsored by ti Solid Waste l � 0,1s.l . Commissions in In August, ECICOG hosted a two-day landfill compactor training Benton, Iowa, Jon for member sanitary landfills. The training was held at the Benton and Tama Counti County Landfill, and solid waste operators from the Benton, Iowa, and Tama County landfills attended. Jason Todaro of Blue Ridge Services, an industry leader in landfill operations and safety, STAFF CONTACT provided classroom and interactive field training about efficient INFORMATION landfill compaction, equipment maintenance, and safety. Jennifer Fencl Solid Waste & Environmental Services Director 319-365-9941 Ext 131 Email Alicia Presto Solid Waste Planner & Iowa Waste Exchange Resource Specialist 319-365-9941 Ext 121 Email Nicole Van Nelson Public Information Specialist & Media Contact 319-365-9941 Ext 125 Email The training event was possible with the support of a USDA Solid Waste Management (SWM) Grant that ECICOG was awarded for a yearlong education project. The three main components of the project include regular landfill staff training on the topics of safety and operations, HHM program promotion, and developing a protocol for maintaining required documentation at each solid waste facility. 4;9 CINiN• OVAMI '• ADO 2016 ECICOG's project received a 2016 National Association of Development Organization (NADO) Innovation Award. The award program "honors NADO members for their creative approaches to advancing regional community and economic development and improved quality of life. According to NADO, "projects have made significant impacts on their regions and demonstrate the diversity of services and program delivery provided by regional development organizations across the country." 0 For more information about the compactor training or the USDA SWM Grant project, please contact Alicia Presto at alicia.aresto(&ecicog.org or (319) 365-9941 ext. 121. ECICOG, 700 16th Street, NE, Suite 301, Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 SafeUnsubscribeTM councilCa,iowa-citv.ore Forward this email I Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by alicia.nrestoAecicog.ore in collaboration with Gon1SYCJrIt Gxyi C'r,�i� Try it free today CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 15, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Stefanie Bowers, Equity Director Re: Racial and Socioeconomic Review Toolkit Introduction: City staff are advancing social justice and racial equity through several projects that are a part of the City Council's Strategic Plan for 2016-2017 to foster a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City. Background: In November 2015, members of the City Council and City staff attended a one -day training led by Julie Nelson, the Executive Director for the Government Alliance on Racial Equity. The training focused on how local governments can work towards racial equity. Since that time, the Council's Strategic Plan for 2016 and 2017 has prioritized City work plans and organizational infrastructures. One such item is to implement a racial and socioeconomic equity review toolkit to advance social justice and racial equity. Discussion: In July of this year, City staff from Neighborhood and Development Services, Transportation and Resource Management, Police, Human Resources, Human Rights and Finance began work on a one-year pilot use of a racial and socioeconomic review toolkit. A toolkit is a process that involves using a series of questions to review and evaluate programs, policies or initiatives. A racial and socioeconomic equity review toolkit will assist City staff and the City Council in working towards racial equity by providing a process that identifies when the City's policies or practices are causing different outcomes for certain populations. Other cities that currently use similar toolkits include Seattle, Washington and Madison, Wisconsin. The review tool being used by City staff has three stages: What is the impact of the proposal on determinants of equity? II. Who is affected? III. Any opportunities for action? During the pilot, the toolkit will be used to evaluate two current procedures, policies, programs or services and one new procedure, policy, program or service for each of the above listed departments. Interdepartmental teams will further assist in implementing and using the toolkit for the departments. The interdepartmental teams will include staff from all levels of the organization. A year after the pilot implementation, the selected departments, with feedback and input from the interdepartmental teams, will review its progress in a memo to Council. The memo will evaluate the toolkit, outline any recommendations for future use, and determine what departments should be further included in using a toolkit. The following provides the items each department will be reviewing. IP17 September 15, 2016 Page 2 Human Resources 1. Internal iob posting process Determine whether any employee groups are placed at a disadvantage through the current internal job posting process. 2. Advertising/promotion of employment opportunities to the community Determine whether our current methods of job advertisement are effectively informing racially diverse residents in the community of employment opportunities with the City. 3. Redaction of candidate names on application materials (new) Study whether the redaction of names from employment applications may result in an increase in the number of candidates from racially diverse groups being selected for interviews (reducing unconscious bias in screening). Neighborhood & Development Services 1. Utilization of nuisance complaint services Monitor housing complaints throughout fiscal year 2017 and chart by Census Tract to determine if the current complaint procedure is equitably used by neighborhoods, factoring in age and location of housing. 2. Increased notification for rezoning and subdivision applications Notify all households within 300 feet of rezoning and subdivision applications by letter (currently only property owners are notified by letter) to determine whether the notification process reaches all populations in the community equitably. 3. Review public bike rack locations throughout the community (new) Evaluate if public bike rack placements equitably serve the population. Police 1. Juvenile curfew standard operating guideline Review the standard operating guideline on handling juvenile curfew violations to determine if the Department's process of addressing such violations is equitable. 2. Public hours at the Iowa City Animal Care Center Evaluate the public hours at the Animal Care Center and determine whether a change of hours would have an impact on equity or not. 3. Online complaint filing process (new) Determine whether the implementation of an online complaint filing process will have an impact on equity or not. Finance 1. Review utility billing late fee charge and process Determine whether any populations are placed at a disadvantage by the current process. 2. Review request for proposal (RFP) process in purchasing manual This review will evaluate ways to promote fair and equitable treatment of vendors 3. Evaluate a grants management policy (new) This will be an evaluation to identify the impact of grants on equity. Human Rights 1. Track addresses for complaints filed alleging discrimination Monitor complaints filed during fiscal year 2017 by the respondent's address and chart by Census Tract. This will be used to determine in which areas of the City persons feel most discriminated and then increase outreach in those areas to improve outcomes. 2. Complaint Process (new) September 15, 2016 Page 3 Determine whether the implementation of an online submission complaint process will result in an increase in the number of complaints filed by making the process more accessible. Transportation and Resource Management 1. Bus Route Change Procedures Determine that as bus route changes are implemented that there are no adverse impacts to specific populations. 2. Bus Pass Program Evaluate the way bus passes are distributed and when they can be utilized so that they do not adversely impact any groups in how they are distributed or how and when they can be used. 3. Bicycle Sharing Program (new) Determine that as the program expands, access is provided to all community members. z P, , Marian Karr From: Hix, Becky S <becky-hix@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 1:38 PM To: Board@iowacityschools.org Cc: Council Subject: Clarification Of Boundries Attachments: Elementary Attendance Areas -.pdf Please provide clarification on the decision that was made by the board on 9/13/16. I understand that it was voted on to revert back to the previous boundary map that was presented in May 2015. What we need clarification on is if the decision to move Saddle Brook as well as Bon Aire back to Wood (please see the bottom of page 3 of the attachment). This clarification makes a huge difference in where these two neighborhood would be attending Elementary, Junior High and High School. Today we called the Iowa City School and spoke with Lisa Mattingly and was told that "they did not know that the decision conflicted with previous decisions or it was not communicated to the main office" Apparently these has occurred with three different elementary schools. Obviously, this has been a long, drawn out process that we are ready to be done with. I have heard many comments from within our community as well as people outside of the community looking in what a "circus show" the Iowa City School Board has become. It is too bad because being a native of Iowa City and growing up with the Iowa City Schools was one of the reasons our family had decided to stay in this area and have our children attend the Iowa City Schools. Now, I look forward to a day that we can vote in a whole new board and get it back to a place where I feel that the best interest of the kids are put first. Thank you for your time and please update us as well as the Schools website of the correct information on where parents will be sending their children. Regards, Becky Hix Becky Hix CMA University of Iowa Organ Transplant Center 200 Hawkins Drive, SE 400 -GH Iowa City, IA 52242-1086 Tel: 319-467-5007 Fax: 319-384-5086 Email: beckv-hix(&uiowa.edu 4 M__0 � Give thanks. Give life. Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. Elementary Attendance Areas— Decision Rationale Decision: At the May 10, 2016 Board Meeting the Elementary Master Plan included in this document were approved: Mott,;n h vlilnq V Motion to approve the Heme rill Attendance Zone 2019 Master Plan in the Board packet, to use these boundanes for 2017 HS retiodation, and to implement the Hurnflyeber boundanes for the 17118 scl ool year. Motion by Chris Lynch, second by 9nan Kirsdding. Final Resolution: Motion Carnes Yea: LaTasha DeLoach, Ton Yates, Bran Kirsdding, Chns Lynch Nay: Christopher Liebig, Phil Hemingway, Lon RoeHin Link to Board Agenda: http•//www boarddocs com/ia/iccsd/Board nsf/goto?open&id=A8Y3SS085030 Final Approved Maps: 1. Summary of changes and Neighborhood Input: Attachment #1 2. Approved Maps: Attachment #2 Process: 1. Overall Process: See Attachment #3 2. Neighborhood Input Process: See Attachment #4 3. Summary of Themes from Neighborhood Input: See Attachment #5 Background: • Via extensive Community Engagement in Attendance Zones in 2014 and 2015, the Community requested that we strongly link future Attendance Zone changes to the Facilities Master Plan and that we provide a Master Plan for Attendance Zones. So with this in mind the 2016 Elementary Attendance Zone process was created. Map Rationale: Definitions: • Walkers: Defined as Student who live 2 or less miles from their Elementary School as traveled by Public Road. • Green Space: Areas with future development/growth. • Islands: Non -continuous Attendance Zone areas North Elementary Attendance Zones: Penn/Garner/Van Allen/Grant: • First, the Board recognizes this is our highest growth area in the District, and with that there will continue to be change based on this growth. Thus, we created a zone that includes all 4 of these schools. We expect students will attend one of the 4 schools (or a 51h school in this area if required by growth). • In general in the area, given there is not concentrations of imbalance in this area, students were assigned to the closest school until capacity was filled. We also tried to minimize disruption. Penn: • Filled with walkers to capacity. • Cedar Springs assigned to Penn since the entire neighborhood can walk to Penn but cannot walk to Garner. • Aspen Ridge was assigned to Grant since the entire neighborhood cannot walk to Penn. is Given Penn is at capacity, the current Attendance Zone was reduced in size to reduce Green Space. Garner: Assigned walkers within current attendance zone. Cedar Springs moved to Penn. Added green space on Dubuque since school not at future capacity. Van Allen • Assigned all walkers in current attendance zones. • South end of attendance zone moved to Wickham o Students in this area can walk to Wickham but would require a bus to Van Allen o The Stables neighborhood requested Wickham. G ra nt: • Heavily influenced by Neighborhood Choice • Sends walkers to Grant and anyone greater than 2 miles from any school (in the North) to Grant • "North" Wickham and "North" Lincoln assigned to Grant based on walkability and Neighborhood Choice Wickham: • "North" Wickham assigned to Grant based on walkability and Neighborhood Choice. • "South" Van Allen assigned to Wickham based on walkability and Neighborhood Choice. Kirkwood: • Same as today. Change will be required with 2021 expansion. Likely to impact Kirkwood, Coralville Central and Wickham. Coralville Central: • Same as today. Lincoln: • "North" Lincoln to Grant • Most of Mann "Island" to Lincoln o Makes Lincoln Attendance Zone more continuous and eliminates an island o Greatly helps balance at Lincoln Borlaug: a Same as today (for where students reside). Horn: • Horn currently has 500 students vs. its capacity of 410. o Anyone bussed to Horn was moved to Weber. Weber is being renovated and will add +200 student capacity by 2017. o Students closest to Weber and the most equidistant to Weber/Horn were assigned to Weber. This methodology was followed until approximately 90 students were moved. o Options in the "East' Horn area were explored; however, there were not sufficient students in this area and the distance to their new school would have been greatly increased. o TREC is currently being utilized. It might be a future option for capacity in this area if current programming is ever relocated. Weber: • Same as today plus Horn students referenced above. • Weber is currently adding 200 seats of capacity to be completed in 2017. Hills: • Same as today (for where students reside). Shimek: • Same as today plus some of Mann 'Island" • Some of Mann "Island" to Shimek o Attendance Zone continuous and eliminates an island o Helps balance at Shimek Mann: • Maximized Neighborhood Choice • Utilized Iowa Ave. as the southern boundary since this is a long standing division of north vs. south Iowa City. As you move east, if your subdivision entrance was to the north it was assigned to Mann, if to the south it was assigned to Longfellow. • 1' Ave was used as the east boundary • Mann "Island" was eliminated and the boundary reflects a natural north Iowa City neighborhood. Lemme: • Maximized Neighborhood Choice • V Ave was used as the west boundary • The south boundary reflects current Hoover/Lemme boundaries. • The west boundary was determined by neighborhood choice and all others east of Scott assigned to Hoover East • Lemme's capacity is fully utilized. Longfellow: • Maximized Neighborhood Choice • Utilized Iowa Ave. as the northern boundary since this is a long standing division of north vs. south Iowa City. As you move east, if your subdivision entrance was to the north it was assigned to Mann, if to the south it was assigned to Longfellow. • 1A Ave was used as the east boundary • The moves above put Longfellow over capacity, so south of the railroad tracks were moved to Twain which has capacity. • Balance improved. Lucas • All east of Scott assigned to Hoover East (brings Lucas back into capacity and helps balance). • Increased boundary to the south Hoover East: • All students east of Scott except for Neighborhood Choice of students very close to Lemme. • Eliminates Longfellow "Island" and improves balance at many schools. Twain: • Eliminates Twain "Island" by assigning the island to Alexander. Helps future Twain capacity and backfills Alexander capacity. • North boundary moved to railroad tracks. Backfills capacity of "island" move and helps balance. • Smaller, continuous boundary in the end. Wood: • Returns Saddle Brook and Bon Aire to Wood with expansion of+100 seat capacity. While not neighborhood input, there were a number of individual requests to return to Wood. Alexander: • Returns Saddle Brook and. Bon Aire to Wood. • Twain "Island" move to Alexander to better fit local geography and backfill capacity with move above. August 18, 2016 Pagel MINUTES DRAFT IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2016 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Julie Bockenstedt, Minnetta Gardinier, Robert Libby, A. Jacob Odgaard Members Absent: Chris Ogren Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Eric Goers Others Present: Matt Wolford, Melissa Underwood, John Yeomans, Philip Wolford RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. DETERMINE QUORUM: Odgaard called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the July 21, 2016, meeting were reviewed first. Bockenstedt moved to accept the minutes of the July 21, 2016, meeting as presented. Gardinier seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Ogren absent. Next the minutes of the August 5, 2016, meeting were reviewed. Gardinier moved to accept the minutes of the August 5, 2016, meeting as presented. Odgaard seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Ogren absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Farming Operations — Tharp gave Members some background on this agreement. He noted that the agreement is with Farmers National Company, of which John Yeomans is present, representing the farming operations. He added that he is recommending they continue this agreement, and that Yeomans has done a good job of finding tenants for the farming operations at the Airport. Yeomans then addressed Members, giving the new Members some background on what the farming operations have encompassed over the years, from installing gates and fencing to keeping various areas around the Airport mowed and cleaned up. Gardinier noted that recently when she was using the runway she noticed how tall the weeds were getting. After a brief discussion, it was noted that the area in question may typically be taken care of by the FBO. 9- is -ie IP18 August 18, 2016 Page 2 Yeomans, however, noted that he can add weed control to the farming operation's contract if desired. Continuing, Yeomans noted that this is the time of year when the farm operators try to renegotiate their contracts and that he did receive a termination letter from the operator at the Airport. He stated that this means the operator wants to renegotiate the rent he pays, possibly dropping it from $266 to $250 for the farm land. Yeomans will let the Commission know how the negotiations go. Gardinier asked what the impetus for lowering the rent would be, and Yeomans responded that it is most likely commodity prices. Yeomans continued to respond to Member questions regarding the farming operations at the Airport. Tharp stated that he is recommending the Commission approve the farm management agreement per their discussion. Members were encouraged to let Tharp know of anything they would like the farm operator to add to his list of maintenance type items. I. Farm Management Agreement — Gardinier moved to continue the farm management agreement with Farmers National Company. Libby seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Ogren absent. b. Airport Master Plan — Melissa Underwood spoke to Members about the status of the Master Plan. She stated that the Airport layout plan is in the final air space review. She hopes to hear back from the FAA in a few weeks on this. At that point, the conditional approval letter will need to be signed by the Chair. C. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM — David Hughes I. FYI Apron Expansion — Tharp noted that Hughes was unable to attend this evening. In regards to the apron expansion, he noted they are awaiting some clean-up items here. The goal is to have this completed by the next meeting. ii. FYI Obstruction Mitigation — Tharp stated that this is still dependent on the Master Plan completion. Gardinier asked why Hughes has not been at the last several meetings. Tharp responded that he has to travel from Des Moines and that if there are no significant updates, it isn't necessary to travel to Iowa City. He added that he can ask Hughes to attend the next meeting, if Members would like him to do this. FY2017 Iowa DOT Grants — Tharp stated that he does not yet have the grants but that the Transportation Commission did meet August 12th and approved the aviation program for FY17. The Airport's projects include a bathroom facility for the north T -hangars and the taxilane extension on the south side. L Consider a resolution authorizing Chair to accept grant offers from the Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Aviation — Bockenstedt moved to approve Resolution #A16-21, authorizing the Chair to accept grant offers from the Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Aviation. Gardinier seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Ogren absent. e. Jet Air Hangar — Hangar N Proposal - i. Hangar M — Tharp noted that the next few items all deal with the culmination of the conversation on Jet Air building a new 100 X 100 facility. He briefly ran through these issues, noting that basically the Airport will agree to buy hangar M, which is the building Jet Air built in 2012. The cost would be $250,000. The Airport would then rent the August 18, 2016 Page 3 facility to Jet Air. For the first 10 years it would be $500/month, and after that the rent would go back to $1,200/month. This would be a 30 -year lease, according to Tharp. Jet Air would in turn lease ground for a new 100 X 100 facility. Tharp further explained the changes that would be made to the FBO agreement, which include more options for Jet Air. He then responded to Member questions regarding these various resolutions and agreements with Jet Air. 1. Consider a resolution approving a purchase agreement with Jet Air for Hangar M — Gardinier moved to approve Resolution #A16-22, approving a purchase agreement with Jet Air for Hangar M. Libby seconded the motion. The motion carried 4- 0, Ogren absent. 2. Motion to enable Chair to terminate land rental agreement with Jet Air for Hangar M — Gardinier moved to enable the Chair to terminate land rental agreement with Jet Air for Hangar M. Bockenstedt seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Ogren absent. 3. Public hearing — 30 -year rental agreement for Hangar M — Odgaard opened the public hearing at 6:54pm, No Comments Received. Odgaard Closed the Public hearing at 6:55pm. 4. Consider a resolution approving rental agreement for Hangar M — Bockenstedt moved to approve Resolution #A16-23, approving rental agreement for Hangar M. Libby seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Ogren absent. ii. Hangar N —Tharp then explained the Hangar N project, which will be the new 100 X 100 facility. The rental rate will be at 20 -cents a square foot, according to Tharp, which comes to $2,000/year. 1. Public hearing — 30 -year ground lease for Hangar N — Odgaard open the public hearing at 7:01 pm. No comments received Odgaard closed the public hearing at 7:02pm. 2. Consider a resolution approving 30 -year ground lease for Hangar N - Libby moved to approve Resolution #A16-24, approving 30 -year ground lease for Hangar N. Odgaard seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Ogren absent. iii. FBO Agreement — Tharp noted that this agreement has four additional options added to it. 1. Public Hearing — FBO Agreement Amendment — Odgaard opened the public hearing at 7:07pm. No comments received. Odgaard closed the public hearing at 7:08pm. Members asked questions of Tharp and Goers concerning this amended agreement. 2. Consider a resolution approving an amendment to the FBO agreement — Gardinier moved to approve Resolution #A16-25, approving an amendment to the FBO agreement. Bockenstedt seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Ogren absent. f. Airport "Operations" i. Strategic Plan Implementation —Tharp stated that he is looking for some direction from the Commission on this. With the Master Plan process going through the FAA, he noted that there are so far no August 18, 2016 Page a substantial changes to the plan —just a few minor revisions. Tharp asked the Commission how they would like to handle the process for the next five-year strategic plan. He noted that the individual he is interested in using, Regenia Bailey, was recommended by Jeff Davidson, the former City of Iowa City employee who helped facilitate the current plan. Tharp stated that he can invite Bailey to next month's meeting, so that Members can have a conversation with her regarding this plan. Gardinier suggested they also look at who other airports have used in creating their strategic plans. Tharp asked if Members would want to put together a subcommittee that could create an RFP to send out to some firms and see what kind of feedback they get. After some discussion, Members agreed to do an RFP process. Tharp will check with Marion and Storm Lake to see who they used in their recent strategic plan processes, as well as let Bailey know what the Commission's plan is. Gardinier and Libby volunteered for the subcommittee. 1. Strategic Plan Process — ii. Budget — Tharp stated that he does not have much to share here unless someone has specific questions. He noted that the next fiscal year budget process will begin soon, with the draft budget coming to them in the next month or so. November is typically when he and the Chair will meet with the City Manager's office to walk through the draft budget. December is when the city-wide budget gets put together and is given to the City Council to start their review. Bockenstedt then asked some questions regarding the budget, to which Tharp replied. Gardinier asked about budgeting for window blinds on the first floor, similar to what they installed in the conference room upstairs. iii. Management — None. g. FBO / Flight Training Reports — Matt Wolford shared the monthly maintenance reports with Members. Quite a bit of landscaping was done prior to the congressional meeting that was held at the Airport, as well as the purchase of several folding tables for the event. Mowing and storm clean-up have been constants this season. Wolford also noted replacement of ceiling tiles in the main floor lobby area. Members briefly spoke to the overgrown bushes out by the airplane on Riverside Drive. Philip Wolford talked to parking issues, noting that today for example, they were unable to find parking after returning from lunch. Speaking to Jet Air's business, Matt Wolford stated they have been pretty busy lately. He noted that today they had a meeting with a company that will be hangaring and maintaining their Citation VII at the Airport. Jet Air also has had some personnel changes. h. Commission Members' Reports — Libby stated that there was a meeting regarding the disaster drill, but unfortunately he missed it. The date has been set for May of 2017, after graduations. i. Staff Report—Tharp reminded Members that Sertoma is August 28`". He noted that he will be busy getting prepared for that. Then August 29th through the 31St he will be attending the FAA Conference in Kansas City. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: August 18, 2016 Page 5 The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday. September 15. 2016. at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building. ADJOURN: Bockenstedt moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 P.M. Odgaard seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Ogren absent. CHAIRPERSON DATE August 18, 2016 Page 6 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 N N W A v: = 00 NAME EXP. N w �4 0 -` m N 01 O1 (D 0) CD Q) M O1 0) T 07 Oi Minnetta 03/01/19 X X X X X X 0/ X X X Gardinier E Jose 03/01/16 X O/E X N N N N N N N N N N N Assouline M M M M M M M M M M M Chris Ogren 03/01/18 X X X X X 0/ X X X 0/ E E A.Jacob 03/01/18 X X X X X 0/ X X X X Odgaard E Julie 03/01/17 X X X X O/ X X X O/ X Bockenstedt E E Robert Libby 03/21/20 N NM NM N X X X X 0/ X M M E Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time