Loading...
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.