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