The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWORK ORDER - RFP - P952 LAND USE MODELWORK ORDER FORM PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION & AIR QUALITY PLANNING COUNCIL AND EDAW, Inc. DATED: November 1, 2004 Work Order Number Purchase Order Number: 30 Project Title: Land Use Allocation Model — FY05 Portion only Commencement Date: November 1, 2004 Completion Date: September 30, 2005 Maximum Fee: (time and reimbursable direct costs): NOT TO EXCEED $ 52,628.00 -FY05 portion (Notice to proceed for FY06 portion of $10,000 will be on separate work order in FY06) Project Description: See Attached Scope of Services: See Attached Acceptance: ` \ se Professional agrees to perform the services identified above and on the attached forms in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein and in the Professional Services Agreement between the parties. In the event of a conflict between or ambiguity in the terms of the Professional Services Agreement and this work order (including the attached forms) the Professional Services Agreement shall control. Professional: By: Date:_ t r I t l of The attached forms consisting of eight (8) pages are hereby accepted and incorporated herein, by this reference, and Notice to Proceed is hereby given. North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planping Cound By. ZI Date: r!i/� /QV/ 7— NORTH FRONT RANGE MRII010lRAN RWNIN40A 17AMON Vendor EDAW, Inc. 240 E. Mountain Avenue Ft. Collins, CO 80524 North Front Range MPO 235 Mathews Street Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Purchase Order Ship To North Front Range MPO 235 Mathews Street Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Date P.O. No. 11/4/2004 30 Terms Net 30 Qty Description Budget Charged Rate Amount Land Use Allocation Model FY05 Portion (11/1/04-9/30/05) - $52,628 FY06 Portion (10/l/05-4/30/06) - $10,000 Total Contract $62,628 5002.5262 62,628.00 62,628.00 FTOtal $62,628.00 Phone # Fax # E-mail Web Site (970) 416-2638 (970) 416-2406 gfoos@nfrmpo.org www.nfrmpo.org NORTH FRONT RANGE MPO LAND USE ALLOCATION MODEL TASK ORDER 1 The issuance of the original RFP represents a commitment by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) to implement a technology that will undoubtedly help planners make more informed decisions. A substantial amount of work has been done to date. The following Task Order responds to this RFP and outlines the steps necessary to develop a functioning land use allocation model. The proposal includes three phases: • Phase 1- Project Initiation / Management • Phase 2- System feasibility • Phase 3- Data Preparation and Design PHASE 1- PROJECT INITIATION / MANAGEMENT Task 1.1- Project Management Team Kickoff EDAW will meet with the NFR MPO staff to review the first task order, discuss the schedule, plan the upcoming internal workshop, assign work tasks and organize the data transfer of information needed for initial review. Deliverables: Meeting minutes and task order revision, if needed Task 1.2 - Data and Model Review Based on an initial review of available data as well as information received, a meeting will be held with NFR MPO staff to better understand the existing model and the adequacy of the available data. Deliverables: Meeting minutes and memo summarizing existing model functionality and shortcomings and review of available data Task 1.3 - Project Team Workshop A key event will be the initial workshop. The EDAW team will meet with NFR MPO staff to gain a solid understanding of project expectations and needs. The format of this first meeting will be a 3 hour interactive workshop focused on clearly defining the organization's needs and desired outcomes for application of the model. October 29, 2004 1 During the meeting, the EDAW team will review the status of the current model. Our understanding is that the current land use model uses CommunityViz Scenario Constructor software running on an ESRI platform. This model is actually two models - one for households and the other for employment. Weighting factors influencing the location of new development were gleaned from surveys of local planning directors throughout the region. These weighting factors include proximity to major roads or existing employment centers; location in floodplains; and proximity to housing. The comprehensive plans of all communities in the region were used to create a land use GIS layer. Some smaller communities did not have a land use plan; in those cases, zoning ordinances were used instead. Communities were consulted in cases where land use plans overlapped and an educated guess was made as to probable land use type. Potential employment and households were determined by multiplying acres (from the land use layer) by employment per acre or households per acre. The employment per acre and households per acre were derived using the estimates of future employment and households per acre from the comprehensive plans. The original model was found to give good results for communities with good planning information. Less accurate results were found for the smaller, fast-growing communities with little existing data. Significant discrepancies were found between model results and community projections. Absolute numbers compared well, but the distribution of households and employment was inaccurate. Certain areas were weighted differently and the model was run again with improved results in some locations, but it was decided that manual adjustment would be required in order to run the results in TransCAD. The employment model was corrupted and needs to be either recreated as it was originally designed or rebuilt for a 2005 base year. The household model needs to be adjusted to replicate the manual adjustments or, again, rebuilt for a 2005 base year. The workshop will be designed to address these issues in an interactive manner, including identification and review of issues encountered in prior modeling efforts and development of preliminary strategies for addressing these issues. It is anticipated that a variety of potential strategies will be considered, including: rebuilding the existing employment model to account for manual manipulation; using Community -Viz to develop a different type of model structure; or proposing a different software platform and model structure entirely. Careful consideration will be given to the relative time and cost requirements for each possible course of action, as well as what option most efficiently meets the NFR MPO's objectives. October 29, 2004 2 The workshop should also be used to identify desired outputs and formats from the model. EDAW has budgeted out-of-state travel costs for Richard Schwien, EDAW's firm -wide technology specialist to attend this meeting and review information. Deliverables: Workshop summary and definition of preliminary strategies for addressing issues and desired model outputs and formats. Task 1.4 — Project Coordination EDAW will also provide ongoing assistance to NFR MPO staff either in person or by phone. Deliverables: On -going technical support and assistance. We have budgeted 24 hours of meeting time for this task. Internal Team Meetings PHASE 2— SYSTEM FEASIBILITY Task 2.1— Economic Evaluation Inputs to the models include ES202 (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages) data for the employment model, and Weld and Larimer County Assessor's Office building data to locate households. US Census Bureau tract data was used to verify the location and number of households. Employment and population forecasts for 2010, 2020 and 2030 were obtained from the Center for Business and Economic Forecasting (CBEF), working in conjunction with NFR MPO staff and representatives across the region. The land use model summarizes household and employment information for the years 2000, 2010, 2020, and 2030 for each of 797 TAZ's as inputs for TransCAD. The EDAW team, working in conjunction with NFR staff will refine this information. This process will begin with redefining the base year to 2005. A number of techniques will be evaluated to update the base year, whether using building permits, assessors office data, aerial photography or other methods. Some methods will require assistance from the NFR MPO for data input. The team will create a series of control totals, beginning at the County level and then for each City. If appropriate, control totals will be established for subareas within cities. These control totals will assist in improving the accuracy of the model. Finally, the types of output and their accuracy will be evaluated based on the source data. The ability to provide household types, income categories and employment industry classifications classes will be evaluated and a final approach identified. The final methodologies for accomplishing these items will be included in Task 2.2. October 29, 2004 3 Deliverables: A process for updating base year household information, generating control totals and creating suitable outputs. Task 2.2 - System Feasibility Report Based on previous tasks and phases, the EDAW team will develop a system feasibility report to outline the tasks required to either repair or replace the current land use allocation model. Preliminary time lines, hours and work assignments will be developed. Examples of the issues that could be addressed might include interface design, improved calibration, model stability, model factors speeding up run times, quality assurance routines, employment and housing categories, output formats, control totals, data base designs, using parcels as a foundation, and software platform. The report will include a description of the prototype model's functionality, as well as applicable screenshots of interface design. Deliverables: System Feasibility Report Task 2.3 — Project Team Meeting Following review of the feasibility report, we will meet with NFR MPO staff to review the system feasibility report and confirm the direction for Phase 3. Deliverables: Meeting Minutes and revisions to System Feasibility Report PHASE 3— DATA PREPARATION AND DESIGN Task 3.1— Data Preparation and Design We will meet with NFR MPO staff to discuss the work assignments for the data preparation effort. This will include enhancing key datasets and additional data collection. We anticipate that the NFR MPO will take a lead role in data preparation. However, the EDAW team will work with NFR MPO to enhance key datasets necessary to improve the model and achieve the desired results. EDAW has assigned 40 hours to assist with database preparation. Key tasks could include improving land use classifications, upgrading base years, capitalizing on existing parcel databases and assigning control totals. Deliverables: Datasets October 29, 2004 4 PHASE 4—APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT Task 4.1— Pilot Development Based on the feasibility report, programmers from the EDAW team will proceed with either repairing or rebuilding key model functionalities. Initially, we anticipate focusing on the use of data sets for subareas to test functionality. Various factors that influence growth will be reevaluated and reassigned for each small area. However, EDAW will closely evaluate these factors to see if they truly add to the model to increase its complexity. The result will be a pilot application to test system functionality. EDAW will also calibrate the model for small area to determine if the model is working correctly. Deliverables: Pilot Model Task 4.2 — Project Team Meeting Our team will meet with NFR MPO staff to examine the results of task 4.1. The meeting will be used to discuss recommendations for improving model results. Deliverables: Meeting Minutes Task 4.3 Application Development The land use allocation model will then be modified to assign the regional projections to small areas. The capacity of each small area will be estimated. The various factors that influence growth will be modified based on Task 4.2. EDAW will also refine demographic ratios and work with the NFR MPO to modify any GIS databases. In-house testing of the region -wide model will precede the testing of a beta version by the NFR MPO land use modeler. The system will be programmed with the capabilities of generating results for any area. This will include the whole study area, by community, by TAZ and by parcel. In addition to a peer review by EDAW's firm -wide decision support specialist, EDAW will build in additional QA functionality. The system should have the ability to identify areas where results are in question. The final deliverable will be a model robust enough to perform 'what -if' analyses at various levels and to provide all required inputs to the travel demand model. The model will also be programmed with functionality that will allow easy updates. Deliverables: Model October 29, 2004 5 Task 4.4- Model Validation EDAW also proposes to conduct up to 4 meetings with key jurisdictions to review the baseline information and forecasts from the model. Based on feedback received from these meetings, key factors in the model will be adjusted. The intent of these meetings is to obtain local buy -in on model assumptions and create a final model. Deliverables: Community Meetings, Refined Model October 29, 2004 6 No Text �«a °id.PmH.e. a A&rAa'a`dln6.b .e Me FNP Nwt�,�ReM1s#PY'.VV#lt �Po�wCe _f%:E q. i _. ., coq'A 5 iA xJ. 5A�6 wN i� 9i9Yti N'a. 61&dwK aW9 ..R 4. _ !�Pa.P�N NNW i w a�E � N6 �. ' .. N s,w f' 5 �k 1N w wa wa ,4w a ws� �� m_ 9n i:� o• 6 w®w�'. P*+ate w 6a. 0, w%g w& s�" m N w, N�mw+ �,Pe w€�+ 1.N �a - wN ,k rN n�N�6 — w iwNw wNa M. ta'ww=Mmm �Ati. [eM�'�.aPin(wiN�'m �Imw:a Y ^4 rtP? 1 P wN W a % qei s3 �Q�w MOO:.�" rs. eil s'" w�... ew �w� m��w �wSre10.®16Sw w,w �sP �% _ wlsl� 4wNmwNONNI tu�sN�1 1w}Nw ess®®mR re��lii:d m..,Afim'a. 9t_ie'Pos fires re` 1a4w 4% Np IP �a� �� P SW"i Nie�reiff wk" .. ti a. ®s_ P 1 N �N s "p N1'% za �piA N6 m:. IwG^'w'�Ei N6 �wplwa i N �w d gwei rewtr�6w>e`pw5 wA'w . ro®siwq wiw s.rom N. !�aAsww O $3 s{wwwk a.. sid'%2Ao t�$ma ,"o x Qtt §P.s, w d, A�Y'®Y `1h'aw w ir�ia' R � ��a� 6"`a w4a ® _ p9 ilE' awiSm4,� Lawalew,wa� Naaw N a..n ' .a �i'w.N . �. , �. �: �. a n .� m•.i bow �� fi". # idea w a w *. J". _ �mre!�. �S 6 a� Sm ,d'9d"u'ei ce 5}a .w i S Nw �P�' �aN3�'re®_ 2:�w 3Na' wixws'�:rew .rein w S' w�w.aire:- �Rs'Sb�°w',°ib� ®w.mei,e a"' �'+i "i 6 aFre�aaa ,�wre',.v- �.+w w,..im IflY�i ww ' t rfiw�wre.�m'. w !� a m AN,�„ s"'e bNP"da dG g 6�� a!'. �IN� Pa' 91AWA!� �' i? ":a®w1'�`t ws�a !4,krosrtra �"sr wta 3 w �,WP �WiPev J' 8 �� Qofi R k !: wi s�sR` �re Dw .°.w:lu:a & �1,.ie �a,.z;ma .M�w w®&I"i�� w . Wks bw wNR . w, t �.�N.Saa.l i&Ii�hR'�BP� ti �. wati' N W'�'.mAwMiPRa�w S. Nre :ViE W .P wa. iN rrL k , wL+ N ;; , aw �!�.re,r..,�w w w �-ON�a imp , �aT°w w.� �s're us, m�i�� rewie� '� �' nrOw ��t°i a acre, w��ae f� � 1L�a wwm :. �wi�a � V.��a�',�� w ® � s�+s� w.'reN6 N �Nw'fPM�a �sfwal; �r'� -, N' N. 1 a. �w1m �;w �4.';amisA=�B4 _A Nw'Nmn T mNfww'�e161d6 aN r �i@%are a,w�,w�r awwl a��ga mow. rest w �i i�d1 �� w. -fl ti,a@k w's®"M w �a a� _ .'' w1reA wre�a.u:��s��a1P11wNN awr"!�fn ®� w�wM Ps�Nw' t wi stis�� Niw+ s1w� wa,�a.P�. `-qw n % `j:_ a� wNBrm N��(sw ��A; w. tm �NInw � aP,yyU��ey�w�` 6S6 Pj�w NJtir �¢,�.,�,.p�,�p _ = a g k�@re '.. A aF irw�9N � Paw L!r i; w�4Vpa1i6? N �Pa.:re�'wm1�*wsw __ °0 „ Pie iI$V Ia Yi '� w�w� W NwL1 ax\n ® �g� il,T'�pR Nd!P w wNe Pis_®' N re `i9 is n ®b Ub Ns'+s2 ^^W ^^PrtFx�Fa�B`j wi �s N �u�➢(X(� d rvar. ` �ai�w�w'1�rePiv W�reAwiwS'vV�. reN�&� kig Nr ��. W.sul1�PL� �=' e e _ �'� .e a .. � Yt6i _ ffi�resle+R'Yl �.�,�qq .. 6."i.p[� Billing Rates $182 $130 $167 $99 $73 $79 $78 $55 587 5113 $69 $73 $5( $135 $75 ik, a �awri�� i °5i a�wdw�. � !� r®w!�w�m� w , , m. .N.. 'AGOW 11M I;IM,E+ sw �6 _ �� . �e m �a� ® re�1w&re ,. �wP ��re sire !q. Task 1.1 - Project Management Team Kickoff 2 2 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 624 Task 1.2 - EDAW Team Kickoff 2 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0$ 4,454 Task 1.3 - Project Team Workshop 3 5 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 3 0 0 0$ 2,340 - Project Management 24 0 0 0 0°'�, C) 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0$ 3,279 gTask�! p1.4 FG0 f+ NORM'.'"P�6'".6N'q.PoMw `CNgr:a; �Yp(5 B�' i P w Yi i`td lff e *�w�w�4ln DR'9 8 9 niN wYfkR�. N'11�1NIR4M11 . .- re.. •w. 'yak" o-a�w Task 2.1 - Economic Evaluation 21 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 16 $ 4,805 Task 2.2 - System Feasibility Report 01 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 81 0 0 16 0 0 o$ 5,677 Task 2.3 - Project Coordination 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 624 �81�'N:®isJe.�Ps®1w!idi�Mb�"i re6five.,:sF'°iw,ba a etv""a acw a8 �}, ppgqliR.s.u'"xwspes.._k&�sW: ®�reT.i �%'rsiPiBwPde��dNswWdwP6 Psww.`N;'w :«i R. Task 3.1 - Data Preparation/Data Design 1 21 10 01 01 0 32 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 61 0 $ 4,197 .., ,.., w w � e �waw�a m�fi'ww a �'.@w w. =� 'ad�.aw'15,- -P ?�.-wi,s': iw'§�wdG B e .6 N6re, �' w ro �. Task 4.1 — Pilot Development 2 12 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 8 40 40 21 0 f 15,461 Task 4.2 — Project Team Meeting 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0do 0 0 0 4 0$ 2,105 Task 4.3 -Application Development 4 12 12 0 0 8 0 0 001040 8 24 24 2 0$ 11,988 Task 4.4 - Model Validation 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 10 0$ 5,076 Totals 23 91 51 0 0 67 0 0 0 1 16 109 64 42 16 f 60,628.05 Expenses Costs Printing $ 500 Travel $ 1,250 Phone I Fax $ 150 Fedex $ 100 Total $ 2,000 Total Expenses + Labor $ 62,628 - Assumes 1 trip by Richard Schwien