HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1997-106 Agreement with Makers Planning ConsultantsRESOLUTION NO. R-97- 1 (,1 tj
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a contract for planning services with
MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design Company
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima has need for planning services to develop
neighborhood plans; and
WHEREAS, the City does not possess adequate in-house staff to perform the
necessary work involved in the development of the plans; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima has complied with the provisions of RCW
39.80 which concerns the procurement of planning and architectural services by a
city; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City to
contract with MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design Company for the planning
services necessary to develop neighborhood plans for the City, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
The City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
execute the attached and incorporated "Agreement" between Makers Architecture
and Urban Des4,gn Company and the City of Yakima together with its attachments.
7 77
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 1'. day of II 4C 7"" 1997.
ATTEST:
xCL� cwc.
City Clerk
ynn Buchanan, Mayor
AGREEMENT
This Agreement, made and entered into this 19th day of August ,
1997, by and between the City of Yakima, Washington, hereinafter call the "CITY", and
MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design Company, Consulting Planners, hereinafter
called "MAKERS", is for professional services for development of two neighborhood
plans within the City.
In consideration of the covenants and agreements contained herein, and the terms and
conditions hereof, the parties agree as follows:
1. SERVICES. MAKERS shall provide services associated with the development of
two neighborhood plans as further provided for in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, attached
hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, along with review meetings with city
staff, and meetings associated with development of the plans, including meetings within
the neighborhoods. MAKERS shall provide the City professional consulting planning
services for the tasks described in Exhibit A, Yakima Neighborhood Plans, Outline
Scope of Work, at the costs stated in Exhibit B, Fee Schedule, attached hereto and by
this reference incorporated herein. It is understood that John Owen, Partner, will be the
lead planner for services provided by MAKERS, and that he will actively participate in all
aspects of development of neighborhood plans, including attending neighborhood
meetings, City staff meetings, writing plan sections, producing required artwork, and
reviewing and approving all work from MAKERS prior to transmittal to the City. It is
further understood that a minimum of 80% of billable hours will be for services provided
directly by Mr. Owen. Unacceptable work will be returned to MAKERS and billing for
same will not be paid until work is deemed acceptable by the City.
2. TIME PERIOD FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES. MAKERS shall
commence such services in accordance with Exhibit A and the time schedule set forth
therein, and shall proceed with the provision of such services in a diligent manner.
MAKERS shall not be responsible for delays caused by factors beyond their control or
which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the parties.
3. PAYMENT TO MAKERS.
A. Fees for Services. MAKERS shall be paid in accordance with Exhibit B, Fee
Schedule. Total payment to MAKERS for tasks performed under this Agreement
shall not exceed $40,000.
B. Renegotiation of Fees. MAKERS reserves the right to renegotiate fees if the
scope of services as specified on Exhibit A is modified by the City or by
conditions beyond the control of the parties hereto. The City and MAKERS shall
agree to such a change in fee and services in writing prior to MAKERS provision
of such modified or changed services.
MAKERS Agreement Page 1
C. Time of Payments. MAKERS shall periodically submit invoices for the un -billed
portion of the services completed to that date. The City agrees to pay the
invoiced amounts within 60 days from the date of receipt of the invoice.
D. Payment in the Event of Termination. In the event of termination of this
Agreement, MAKERS shall be compensated for services performed under this
Agreement to the date of termination in accordance with the terms above.
4. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. MAKERS shall perform services in
accordance with generally accepted consulting standards and shall be responsible for
the technical soundness and accuracy of all work and services furnished pursuant to
this Agreement. All work accomplished by MAKERS will be reviewed by the City for
completeness and accuracy, and will not be accepted until reviewed and approved by
the City.
5. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time upon 30
days written notice to the other party.
6. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. The originals of all documents, including
drawings and maps, prepared by MAKERS shall the property of the City. MAKERS
shall provide to the City a reproducible copy of all final planning documents, drawings
and maps, and computer media containing same if applicable.
7. INDEMNITY. MAKERS shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims or liabilities, including
reasonable attorneys fees, resulting out of the performance of this Agreement.
8. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In the event suit or legal action is instituted to enforce any
of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, venue shall be in Superior Court for
Yakima County. The losing party shall pay to the prevailing party, in addition to the
costs and disbursements allowed by statute, such sum as the court may judge
reasonable as attorney's fees in such suit or action, in both trial and appellate courts.
9. ADDITIONAL SERVICES. At the City's option and direction, MAKERS shall
provide additional planning services as authorized by the City.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend MAKERS at all times be an
independent contractor and not an employee of the City, and shall not be entitled to
compensation or benefit of any kind except as specifically provided for herein.
11. GOVERNING LAWS. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of
Washington.
12. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This agreement and referenced attachments
contains the complete and integrated understanding and agreement between the
parties and supersedes any understanding, agreement or negotiation, whether oral or
MAKERS Agreement Page 2
written, not set forth herein. Amendments, changes, or modifications hereto shall not be
valid unless they are in writing and duly executed by both parties.
13. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. The agreement gives no rights to anyone
other than the City and MAKERS, and has no other third -party beneficiaries.
14. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party to this Agreement shall assign the Agreement, or
any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other. MAKERS, with the
City's consent, shall be authorized to employ or subcontract with any other party or
entity it deems necessary for the performance of any of the services to be provided by
MAKERS pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
15. SEVERABILITY OF AGREEMENT. In the event any of the terms or clauses of
this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by any court or arbitrator, the
remaining clauses and terms shall continue in full force and effect and shall be
enforceable.
16. MINORITY AND WOMAN OWNED BUSINESS: CITY -SPECIFIED
SUBCONTRACTORS. MAKERS shall comply with the City's directives in utilizing the
services of City -specified subcontractors and/or minority and women -owned
businesses. The firm selected by MAKERS to meet said directives will be subject to
approval by the City.
MAK
ohn Owen; Partner
MAKERS Agreement
CITY OF YAKIMA
By Richard A. Zais r.
City Manager
ATTEST:
th_e-
By
Karen S. Roberts
City Clerk
CITY CONTRACT NO 97 -
RESOLUTION
`RESOLUTION NO:
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Yakima Neighborhood Plans
Scope of Work
The consultant will complete the following tasks:
1. Meet with City staff to obtain base maps, aerial photos, and available background materials.
Discuss a survey. Coordinate with the City regarding sections 1-5 of the Neighborhood Plan
Outline. This tasks will be done for both neighborhoods. Mid August
Product: Citizen participation program. (Neighborhood Plan Outline Section 6.)
2. Conduct a field inventory and prepare base maps with the information. Incorporate City -
developed data. Mid -late August
Product: Field information and base information illustrated on base maps and compiled in
a brief community profile to help give citizens some basic facts about their community.
3. Meet with the Task Force in each neighborhood to verify the work plan. Discuss roles and
responsibilities. (The City will organize the Task Forces.) Late August
4. Conduct an open house in each neighborhood to establish goals and objectives. (The City
and the Task Forces will arrange for advertising and space.) Mid September
• Describe neighborhood planning activities and give examples of other communities'
work.
• Present background information (profile).
• Conduct exercises to identify needs and goals and frame a vision statement.
• Compile open house results.
Product: Brief report for each neighborhood compiling open house results, goals, and
vision statement. (Portions of Sections 7 and 9 in the Neighborhood Plan Outline.)
5. Work with the two Task Forces to develop options for projects, programs, and regulation
changes (e.g., look at alternate land use changes, park improvements, housing program
changes, etc.). This includes an on-site work session with each Task Force. Late
September - early October
Product: For each neighborhood, a list of possible neighborhood planning actions to
achieve neighborhood goals. Ifpossible, these will be organized into alternative
revitalization strategies. (Draft of Section 8 of the Neighborhood Plan Outline.)
MAKERS architecture and urban design
?-b
Outline Scope of Work
9723SOW.DOC - 8/21/97
Page 1
6. Refine options into "alternatives" that can be evaluated in a public open house. October
Product: For each neighborhood, a refined list of options framed as alternative
revitalization concepts. Each concept will include proposals for capital improvements,
regulations, civic programs, and an implementation strategy.
7. Conduct an open house for each neighborhood to evaluate alternatives. November
(planned around thanksgiving and other events)
• Present options.
• Conduct exercises to obtain public participants' preferences and comments.
• Compile results.
Product: For each neighborhood, a brief report compiling participants' responses to the
evaluation open house and describing preferred elements of the various alternatives.
8. Work with the Task Forces to combine preferred actions into a sketch neighborhood plan
concept for each neighborhood. Work with City staff to identify implementation measures.
This includes a work session with each Task Force and with City staff. Late November
Product: Sketch of preferred concept for each neighborhood, outlining the basic elements,
based on which elements received the highest ratings in the open house.
9. For each neighborhood, refine the concept into a neighborhood plan with recommended
actions and implementation measures. December
Product: A draft neighborhood plan for each neighborhood, with Sections 6 through 10 as
enumerated in the Neighborhood Plan Outline. The plans will include sections on
objectives, public participation process, current conditions, plan concept, recommended
actions, implementation strategy, and visualizations.
10. Review the plans with the Task Forces and the City and then present them to the public at
open houses. Conduct exercises to refine priorities. Mid January
Product: Presentation materials for the open houses.
11. Revise the draft documents as per Task Force and open house input. Work with the City to
prepare the final document for each neighborhood. Late January - early February
Product: Draft final report for each neighborhood incorporating all sections of the
Neighborhood Plan Outline.
12. Make final edits to the documents. Submit a camera-ready (and/or electronic) copy of both
plans to the City for printing. Late February
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Outline Scope of Work
9723SOW.DOC - 8/21/97
Page 2
EXHIBIT B
Yakima Neighborhood Plans
Fee Schedule
9723S0W.XLS - 8/21/97
HOURS
C. Maggio
@ $47.20/hr
D. Goldberg
@ $50.15/hr
J. Owen
@ $80/hr
TOTAL
1. Meet with City and obtain materials
a. Both neighborhoods
4
4
4
709.40
2. Conduct inventory and prepare base maps
a. Northeast Neighborhood
40
8
8
2,929.20
b. Southeast Neighborhood
40
1,888.00
3. Meet with Task Forces in each neighborhood
a. Northeast Neighborhood
4
4
508.80
b. Southeast Neighborhood
4
4
508.80
4. Conduct goals open houses
a. Northeast Neighborhood
8
4
697.60
b. Southeast Neighborhood
8
4
697.60
5. Develop options for projects, programs,
and regulations
a. Northeast Neighborhood
40
30
16
4,672.50
b. Southeast Neighborhood
40
30
16
4,672.50
6. Refine options into "alternatives" that can
be evaluated in a public open house
a. Northeast Neighborhood
40
5
12
3,098.75
b. Southeast Neighborhood
40
5
12
3,098 75
7. Conduct alternatives open houses
a. Northeast Neighborhood
8
4
697.60
b. Southeast Neighborhood
8
4
697.60
8. Prepare sketch concept (Includes work
session with each Task Force and City staff)
a. Northeast Neighborhood
4
4
508.80
b. Southeast Neighborhood
4
4
508.80
c. City staff
4
4
508.80
9. Refine concept into neighborhood plans
a. Northeast Neighborhood
36
20
3,299.20
b. Southeast Neighborhood
36
20
3,299.20
9723S0W.XLS - 8/21/97
HOURS
C. Maggio
@ $47.20/hr
D. Goldberg
@ $50.95ihr
J. Owen
@ $80/hr
TOTAL
10. Review plans with Task Forces and City
and present them at open houses
a. Northeast Neighborhood
b. Southeast Neighborhood
11. Revise documents
a. Northeast Neighborhood
b. Southeast Neighborhood
12. Make final edits
a. Northeast Neighborhood
b. Southeast Neighborhood
10
10
12
12
12
12
4
4
6
6
4
4
792.00
792.00
1,046.40
1,046.40
886.40
886.40
Project Subtotals
Reimbursable Expense (printing of large -format materials
and incidental review copies)
436
82
172
$38,451.50
1,500.00
PROJECT TOTAL $39,951.50
9723S0W.XLS - 8/21/97
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO. / 0
FOR MEETING OF: August 19. 1997
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Resolution for approval of Agreement with Makers
Planning Consultants for Neighborhood Planning
SUBMITTED BY: Glenn J. Valenzuela, Director of Community & Economic
Development, 575-6113
CONTACT PERSON / TELEPHONE: John Elsden, Senior Project Planner, 575-6162
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
On June 6, 1997, the neighborhood planning consultant selection panel, consisting
of Council member Berger, Don Videgar, Hector Franco, Mary Harris, Regional
Planning Commission Member Kara Kondo, and James Parks, selected Makers
Consultants to develop neighborhood plans for the Northeast Neighborhood and
Southeast Neighborhood.
The attached memorandum dated June 25 for City Council information presented
three alternatives for citizen participation during the planning process. Alternative
#1, the recommended Alternative, emphasizes consensus building and a free flow
of information and interaction between the neighborhood residents, neighborhood
associations, staff, and planning consultant. This "grassroots" approach enables the
Continued»>
Resolution X Ordinance_ Contract _ Other (Specify) Agreement
Funding Source: CDBG funds as budgeted Council
APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL:
Ci y Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution to approve Agreement
BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Neighborhood planning consultant selection panel
selected Makers Consultants on June 6, 1997.
COUNCIL ACTION:
plan to come from the neighborhood, thereby creating ownership in the plan.. The
staff and consultant will draft the document, while the contents will come from the
neighborhood's residents. Neighborhood Associations will host meetings in
conjunction with schools, churches, and other associations. These associations and
groups will help notify residents of activities, and provide a neighborhood focal
point for the process. City Council members have informally indicated their
preference for Alternative #1, in order to insure a fair and equitable citizen
participation process.
The Work Program included with the attached Agreement includes two
neighborhood plans, one for northeast Yakima, and one for southeast Yakima. Both
plans will be under development during this process.
Approval of the attached Resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute the
attached Agreement with Makers Consultants to proceed with development of the
two neighborhood plans, as budgeted for by Council for 1997.
Memorandum
June 25,1997
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Yakima City Council
Richard A. Zais, City Manager
From: Glenn Valenzuela, Director, CED
Don Skone, Planning Manager
Subject: Neighborhood Plans: Request for direction re request from Mr. Franco, et. al.
On June 6, 1997, the neighborhood planning consultant selection panel, consisting of
Council member Berger, Don Videgar, Hector Franco, Mary Harris, Regional Planning
Commission Member Kara Kondo, and James Parks, selected Makers Consultants to
develop neighborhood plans for the Northeast Neighborhood and Southeast •
Neighborhood.
On June 18, 1997, Mr. Hector Franco, Ms. Bev Luby-Bartz, and Mr. Polo Aguilera met with
the City Manager and Council members Puccinelli, Klingele, and Buchanan to express
concerns about the neighborhood plan development process. Mr. Franco was in favor of a
single neighborhood plan spanning the entire east side of Yakima. He also suggested that
the budgeted neighborhood planning funds be directed to the neighborhood for their
management and use in retaining a consultant. The alternative of providing planning
funds to neighborhoods had previously been recommended by the Planning staff but was
not selected. Mr. Franco also recommended that a committee of 20-30 persons be
established to manage and oversee the planning process. In a broader context, Mr. Franco
recommended a community education process and City funding of community
organizations.
The Department does not recommend a single neighborhood plan for the east side. The
Northeast and Southeast neighborhoods have each established their own unique
identities and face their own issues and challenges. Combining these neighborhoods does
not respect the identity and organizations they have developed and weakens the ability of
each to discuss and prioritize their recommendations on a neighborhood specific basis.
The concept of providing planning funds to neighborhood organizations is currently
being tried in Seattle, WA. We are unaware of this approach being tried anywhere else in
the nation, successfully or otherwise. In this regard, the jury is still out on funding
neighborhood organizations.
With regard to the proposed committee to manage the planning process, we agree with
Mr. Franco that the process must be structured and provide equal access and opportunity
to all to participate in the planning process. The organizational structure selected by the
Department emphasizes consensus building on a level playing field open to all, a sort of
grass-roots approach. The Council will recall the success of this neighborhood meeting
approach as it was used in the guidance and development of the City's GMA Plan and
Downtown Core Plan. The neighborhood plans would be reviewed by the Regional
Planning Commission prior to Council consideration. This structure is represented in
attached Alternative #1. Two other organizational alternatives are depicted by
Alternatives #2 and #3. Each alternative is further described as follows:
Alternative #1, the preferred structure, emphasizes consensus building and a free flow of
information and interaction between the neighborhood residents, neighborhood
associations, staff, and planning consultant. This "grassroots" approach enables the plan
to come from the neighborhood, thereby creating ownership in the plan. The staff and
consultant will draft the document, while the contents will come from the
neighborhood's residents. Formalization of the process would not occur until a draft plan
reached the Regional Planning Commission_ Neighborhood Associations will host
meetings in conjunction with schools, churches, and other associations. These
associations and groups will help notify residents of activities, and provide a
neighborhood focal point for the process.
Alternative #2, a variation of Alternative #1, would include a committee to watch the
process and, at public review and adoption time, confirm or not confirm the fairness,
equity and thoroughness of the planning process. This committee would not direct nor
manage the process, although members might individually partidpate in plan
development.
Alternative #3 would establish formal neighborhood plan management and a review
committee. This
committee would direct and manage th® planning process including the
activities of the 1 'n staff consultant The ressuitir►g plans would be developed
ttt2 planning stat• and consultant . .. i77 r
and 'owned' by the committee and referred to the City Council for adoption.
Neighborhood meetings were held throughout the City during 1993 and 1994 as an
integral part of the development of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. This met the GMA
requirement for early and cTrtinuous citizen participation, and generated the content of
the plan. Neighborhood planning is a continuation of this process. If a change from the
Department's neighborhood approach is desired, it is important to remember that the
neighborhood plans supplement our Growth Management Plan. Therefore, it is
imperative that the process pay particular attention to public participation. RCW
36.70A.140 requires "early and continuous" citizen participation during the planning
process, including "broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for
written comments, public meetings and effective notice, provision for open discussion,
communication programs, information services, and consideration of response to public
comments." Regardless of which alternative is chosen, the public participation process
must be open to all citizens.
Each neighborhood within the City has different needs and issues. Neighborhood plans
identify these needs and issues and prioritize actions to address them. Neighborhood areas
need to be small enough to reach the issues that make each neighborhood different.
Alternative #1 will allow for the identification of neighborhood needs, since this
Alternative supports a broad-based grass-roots approach for the planning process.
Individual planning processes for both the Northeast and Southeast neighborhoods will
enable identification of specific needs for each of these areas, which would not be
accomplished with a single plan for the entire east side. Overall, neighborhood plans will
help refine comprehensive plan goals and policies for each neighborhood, to better meet
the needs of our community.
CC Memo -Neighborhood Planning Page 2
•
Alternative 1
Grass -Roots Consensus Building
Revisions
Revisions
City Council
A
RPC Recomendation
Association
Responsibilities.
Provide leadership to
nei hborhood members by
g meetings and
g residents notified
an informed.
Residents
Responsibilities.
Become involved with
the Neighborhood
Association
so that their ideas and
concerns can be addressed
in the neighborhood plan.
City Planning Staff
Responsibilities.
Assist the Neighborhood
Association and residents
by gathering and
providing information
required to make
important decisions. Set
up meetings, give proper
notices, and make general
arrangements.
Private Consultant
Responsibilities.
Work with the
Neighborhood
Association to provide
ideas and present
challenges to
neighborhood residents.
Assist with neighborhood
plan drafts.
•
•
Revisions
Alternative 2
Committee Oversight
Revisions
City Council
RPC Recomendation
Neighborhood
Committee
Overseeing
Committee
Responsibilities.
Look over the entire
neighborhood planning
process to ensure that it is
performed fairly.
Association
Responsibilities.
Provide leadership to
neighborhood members by
o1 ting meetings and
' g residents notified
ormed.
Residents
Responsibilities.
Become involved with
the Neighborhood
Association
so that their ideas and
concerns can be addressed
in the neighborhood plan.
City Planning Staff
Responsibilities.
Assist the Neighborhood
Association and residents
by gathering and
providing information
required to make
important decisions. Set
up meetings, give proper
notices, and make general
arrangements.
Private Consultant
Responsibilities.
Work with the
Neighborhood
Association to provide
ideas and present
challenges to
neighborhood residents.
Assist with neighborhood
plan drafts.
•
Alternative 3
Neighborhood Committee Management
Revisions
Revisions
City Council
RPC Recomendation
T
Recomendation
NeighbOrhk)udl Plan
Committee
Responsibilities.
Manage and direct the
preparation of the
neighborhood plan, and
present the plan to the
RPC.
Neighborhood Committee_
Review
A
A
A
Lith' ria'1r1L1g,
•
•
City Planning Staff
Responsibilities.
Assist the Neighborhood
Association and residents
by gathering and
providing information
required to make
important decisions. Set
up meetings, give proper
notices, and make general
arrangements.
•
Residents
Responsibilities.
Become involved with
the Neighborhood
Association
so that their ideas and
concerns can be addressed
in the neighborhood plan.
Association
Responsibilities.
Provide leadership to
neighborhood members by
hosting meetings and
keeping residents notified
and informed.
Private Consultant
Responsibilities.
Work with the
Neighborhood
Association to provide
ideas and present
challenges to
neighborhood residents.
Assist with neighborhood
plan drafts.