Minutes

 

OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OAC) - MEETING #2

 

Tuesday, November 2, 1999

4:45 pm

Madison Municipal Building, Room 260

215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard

Madison, WI

 

 

1.         ROLL CALL

 

Members Present: LaMarr Billups; Supv. Michael Blaska; Thomas Carlsen; Ann Falconer; Ald. Ken Golden; Supv. John Hendrick; Rob Kennedy; Ken Leonard; Supv. Scott McDonell; George Nelson; Dick Wagner.

 

Members Absent: David Cieslewicz (notified); Robert Cook (notified); Darlene Horner; Ald. Warren Onken (notified).

 

Staff Present: Charity Eleson (Dane County Executive’s Office); Michael Friedlander (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management); Lori Kay (University of Wisconsin, Transportation Services); Paul Larrousse (Madison Metro); Linda Lovejoy (Wisconsin Department of Transportation, WisDOT, Public Transit Section); Bob McDonald (Interim Executive Director, Dane County Regional Planning Commission); Anne Monks (WisDOT District 1, Planning); John Norwell (Dane County Highway and Transportation Commissioner); Judy P. Olson (City of Madison, Mayor’s Office); David Trowbridge (Project Administrator for the AA; City of Madison, Department of Planning and Development); Michael Waidelich (City of Madison, Department of Planning and Development).

 

Others Present: Fred Bartol (Dane Alliance for Rail Transit); Al Holmquist; Connie Palmer Smalley (Dane Alliance for Rail Transit)

 

 

2.            WELCOME/REVIEW OF REVISED AGENDA

 

Co-Chair Scott McDonell welcomed Committee members to Meeting #2 of the Oversight Advisory Committee for the Alternatives Analysis (AA).  He introduced himself to Committee members, having been in Italy during the first meeting.

 

McDonell then referred members to the revised Agenda, and noted that a couple number of items have been added (Items 3 and 7) since the Agenda was sent out in mid-October.

 

 

 

 

3.            APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OAC MEETING #1 (SEPTEMBER 29, 1999)

 

George Nelson wished to point out that the Minutes were very thorough.  The Minutes for Meeting #1 of the OAC were approved, as submitted on a motion by Mr. Nelson, seconded by Supv. Michael Blaska.

 

 

4.         OAC MEETING RULES AND PROCEDURES: PUBLIC COMMENT

 

Co-Chair Ken Golden said that he asked for this additional agenda item because he anticipates greater public interest in OAC meetings, particularly at significant meeting milestones/junctures in the future.  Golden said that it was a general City protocol (and he also believed County protocol) to set aside time on meeting agendas for the general public to speak on particular agenda issues, or issues for future meeting agendas.  This time could be established at the beginning or the end of the meeting, as Golden had seen it done both ways.  Golden suggested possibly adopting this as part of the OAC’s meeting rules and procedures, and all future meeting agendas would include this item – “opportunity for public comment”.

 

Tom Carlsen asked about time limits for public speakers.  Golden responded that a 3-minute time limit is common in City meetings for this type of agenda item.  In addition, Golden added, we may wish to accept registrants on specific agenda items (in addition to this general public comment agenda item), and that a 3-minute time limit would be appropriate for that as well.  Dick Wagner noted that, based on his experience on numerous boards and commissions, including this type of item on each agenda has not been onerous and tends to convey a sense of “openness” that is important.  Supv. Michael Blaska suggested that this item be placed at the beginning of each future OAC meeting agenda.

 

Golden then assumed that, barring any objection, there was Committee consensus to include this regular item at the beginning of each agenda (opportunity for public comment – general), and also to allow for the public to register and comment on any particular agenda item.  The OAC agreed.

 

Wagner also added a general comment regarding meeting rules and procedures.  He said that it may be useful to consider establishing sub-groups or subcommittees, organized by specific topical areas (such as land use, modal technology, finance/governance, etc.), to talk through various issues as this study proceeds.  Working in smaller groups may be a good way of addressing these issues.  McDonell said that this was a good idea, but suggested holding off on this discussion until Agenda Item 7 (which addresses the formation of a different subcommittee).

 

 

5.            PRESENTATION/OVERVIEW OF DRAFT AA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

 

David Trowbridge, Project Administrator for the AA, then presented some slides that summarized the primary components of the RFP.  The slide presentation also described a possible consultant evaluation and selection process for the OAC to consider in Agenda Item 7.

 

(Note: Copies of the slides used in the presentation/overview of the RFP can be obtained upon request)

 

Trowbridge noted that the Draft RFP was reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) at their October 8^th meeting, and that numerous useful and helpful comments were provided.  Trowbridge said that the TAC’s comments have been integrated into the current version of the Draft RFP, sent to OAC members on October 15^th.

 

Trowbridge said that federal regulations governing Alternatives Analyses were carefully considered as the RFP was developed.  He added that the RFP was organized and designed to fully reflect those regulations, which is important if the Preferred Investment Strategy is ever to receive federal funding.

 

In general, Trowbridge said, the RFP is organized into 5 sections:

 

I. Introduction and Overview of Key Issues;

II. Alternatives Analysis: Specific Work Tasks;

III. Evaluation of Proposals/Consultant Selection;

IV. Instructions for Bidders; and,

V. Standard Form of the Bid.

 

Trowbridge said that the slides will focus primarily on sections I and II, which are the sections describing the specific work tasks to be completed in the AA.  He said that section III (re: consultant evaluation/selection) will be discussed in more detail in Agenda Item 7.  Trowbridge noted that sections IV and V (Instructions for Bidders and Standard Form of the Bid), had been included in the Draft RFP for information purposes only, and the cover memo attached to the packet urged OAC members not to spend much time reviewing it.  He said that these sections are standard “boiler-plate” language that must accompany all contracts that receive federal and City of Madison funding.

 

Trowbridge continued with the slides and highlighted the fact that the AA is to be conducted in two “phases”.  The first phase will include a comparative analysis of several land use and transportation system alternatives.  Phase I will include operational simulations and also include cost estimates and impact assessments.  The several alternatives will be narrowed down to “not more than 3”, for further refinement and detailed evaluation in Phase II.  He said that the overall purpose of phasing the AA is to evaluate a larger number of alternatives at a more general level of detail in Phase I, and narrow the number of alternatives to be subject to more detailed analysis in Phase II.

 

The output of Phase I will primarily be the documentation of the initial evaluation.  The outputs of Phase II will include documentation of the refined evaluation, and will also include a  recommended Preferred Investment Strategy, an implementation schedule/timeline, a long-range financial/institutional strategy and, a long-range land use/regional development strategy.

 

Trowbridge then summarized the key elements of the various work tasks that are included in the RFP.  The individual work tasks include:

 

-         AA Management Plan;

-         Public Participation Plan;

-         Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures;

-         Data Collection Plan;

-         AA Scoping Process (refining the study area and the preliminary alternatives);

-         Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology;

-         Description of Future Travel Conditions;

-         Conceptual Cost Estimates;

-         Screening of Initial Alternatives;

-         Refinement of Alternatives; and,

-         Selection of Preferred Investment Strategy (and related financial/operational plans and strategies).

 

Trowbridge noted that, in researching AA RFPs from throughout the country, he found that there was a tremendous amount of variability with the level of detail provided.  Some RFPs basically pointed out the need for an AA and asked for consultant proposals to provide the detail, while others carefully delineated each step of the process and each deliverable to be provided.  He noted that the Draft RFP being discussed this evening was generally developed to strike a balance of both approaches – to be somewhat prescriptive (and clear about what we want), while still allowing for flexibility and creativity from the consultant.

 

In terms of Work Task 2 (Public Participation Plan), Trowbridge said that the RFP is less prescriptive than it is with other work tasks.  In particular, the RFP gives examples of some public participation methods/techniques that might be utilized by the consultant (such as public information meetings, newsletters, workshops, focus groups, etc.), but does not specify how many meetings/events, the timing of the public involvement, etc.  In this way, the consultant is being asked to provide their thoughts on what a good public participation program might be, and to show how their firm can be effective in this area.

 

In terms of public participation, Trowbridge stressed the importance of limiting consultant resources used for attending meetings, traveling, etc. (as much as is possible and practical).  He asked that OAC members (and TAC members) be available to keep their respective policy bodies and agencies up-to-date on the AA’s progress, the study’s findings, etc.  For example, periodic reports may need to be given to the Dane County Board of Supervisors, City of Madison Common Council and the numerous boards and commissions interested in this study.  Presentations will also likely need to be made to other interested entities, throughout the conduct of the AA (at appropriate junctures in the study).  Trowbridge reiterated that the consultant’s resources should be focused on evaluation and analysis, and that sponsoring/participating agencies should do as much as they can to help carry the burden of keeping interested parties informed.

 

Trowbridge noted that Work Task 3, development of goals, objectives and performance measures, would be an important step of the AA process.  He added that it would be conducted quite early in the process.  Work task 4 (re: data collection and model development) emphasizes the utilization of existing data, to the extent possible, to help optimize the use of consultant resources.

 

Work Task 5 (AA scoping process) is also an important step of the AA, to be conducted fairly early in the process.  Trowbridge said that AAs are typically focused on a single travel corridor or some limited number of corridors.  Work Task 5 will be important in defining the corridor(s) to be evaluated.  Clearly, he added, this AA does not have the resources to study every corridor that’s been evaluated in past studies, and we need to be sure to focus these resources on the most appropriate corridor(s).  In addition, he said that the scoping process will be helpful in initially limiting the types of alternatives that will be subject to the Phase I evaluation.  Because we have limited study resources, it will be important to take some transportation alternatives off the table immediately.  Trowbridge noted that he still sees references to the early 1950’s plan to turn the Johnson/Gorham Street corridor into a limited-access highway, complete with 1950’s-vintage, freeway-style interchanges at Broom Street and elsewhere along the corridor.  Obviously, he added, this is not going to happen, and it does not appear to be a good use of the AA’s resources to have the consultant develop detailed cost estimates of such unrealistic scenarios.

 

Trowbridge then showed some pictures of various modal alternatives, to remind OAC members of what types of alternatives might be evaluated.  He reminded OAC members that some alternatives are required under the federal regulations governing the AA, such as the No-Build Alternative (i.e., the existing transportation system).  A “low-cost” Alternative is also required.  The Low-Cost Alternative evaluates minor changes to the physical transportation system (such as minor intersection modification, adding auxiliary traffic lanes, etc.), and also considers institutional measures (such as parking management techniques and/or employer-based demand management programs).  In addition to the required alternatives, numerous street/highway and transit alternatives will be considered (of course).  Trowbridge said that these alternatives will need to be preliminarily defined, as part of the AA scoping process.  However, he pointed out, the alternatives will be refined periodically throughout the conduct of the AA (in Phase I and Phase II).

 

Work Tasks 6-9 are the primary work elements of the Phase I evaluation.  Trowbridge noted that these work tasks describe how the travel demand forecasting model is to be developed and how the various land use and transportation system alternatives are to be evaluated.  Trowbridge said that “guidelines for the modeling of alternatives” have been included in the RFP, to help provide some specifics about what considerations need to be included.  For example, a peak-hour travel period will be evaluated (with the potential for special event estimates), the full integration of all modes will be modeled (such as the bus system feeding a high-capacity transit system), a range of land use scenarios will be considered, the planning horizon will be 2030 (including interim years), and there will be a highly detailed traffic operations simulation for streets in the isthmus area of the City (for auto and pedestrian movements).

 

Work Task 10 provides capital and operating cost estimates.  Work Task 11 describes the process for the initial screening of the alternatives - to be narrowed down to “not more than 3”.  Trowbridge noted that a cost/benefit evaluation and an impact assessment will be conducted under this Work Task, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative measures.  He added that the evaluation in Phase I need not be highly detailed, but at a level of detail that provides useful information and is sufficient enough to distinguish among the various alternatives (for the ultimate purpose of narrowing down the number to “not more than 3”).

 

The Phase II analysis (Work Tasks 12 and 13) will be much more detailed, developing refined cost estimates and travel forecasts on the remaining alternatives.  Work Task 12 will also include a NEPA-type impact assessment, although this assessment would not be at an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)-level of detail.  The EIS would still need to be conducted (after the AA), but would be included as part of the Preliminary Engineering (PE) study.

 

Work Task 12 will also include a financial/organizational/institutional analysis.  This analysis will be important, Trowbridge added, in determining how the Preferred Investment Strategy might be operated and funded – clearly a key issue that will need to be considered in the AA.  Trowbridge pointed out that Work Task 12, although shown as only one work task, will be a tremendous work effort, and a very important one for moving toward the Preferred Investment Strategy.

 

Work Task 13 describes the key outputs of the Phase II evaluation:

 

-         a recommended “Preferred Investment Strategy”;

-         an implementation schedule/timeline;

-         a long-range financial plan/strategy;

-         institutional/governance plan; and,

-         a long-range land use/regional development strategy.

 

Work Task 14 basically summarizes the required deliverables – technical reports, data files, and other documents.

 

Trowbridge said that section III of the RFP (Evaluation of Proposals/Consultant Selection) would be discussed later, in Agenda Item 7, but noted that the RFP includes a suggested structure for a Joint OAC/TAC Consultant Review and Selection Subcommittee.  He described the Subcommittee as potentially including 10 members (3 appointed from the OAC and 7 from the TAC).  The intent of establishing membership as shown in the RFP was to include a mix of policy and technical considerations, as well as a mix of agency representation.  Trowbridge pointed out that members of this Subcommittee would be committing to a great deal of work, reviewing and scoring a large stack of proposals, and being available to attend all consultant interviews (perhaps an entire day of interviews).  Trowbridge then referred to the proposal scoring criteria included in section III of the RFP, and noted that the specific weights (i.e., percentages) attached to each criteria would not be included in the RFP when it is sent out to consultants.  He said that federal guidelines do not allow percentages to be included in the RFP, although weighting of the criteria will be utilized when proposals are reviewed and scored.

 

In terms of the schedule for the AA RFP process, Trowbridge noted that, assuming the OAC approves the Draft RFP this evening and modifications can be made in 1-2 weeks, the RFP will be released for consultant bids in mid/late-November.  If that occurs on schedule, he added, request for clarifications on the RFP would be due on December 17^th (and responses sent out by December 29^th).  At this time, we are targeting a due date of January 21^st for receiving consultant proposals.  It is anticipated that the proposal review process, interviews, selection of the consultant, and refinement of work scope would be done in January and February, and that work could begin some time during the early spring of next year.  That, Trowbridge added, assumes that all of these steps take place as scheduled.

 

Trowbridge then asked Committee members if they had any questions pertaining to the slides that were presented, asking them to hold off on their comments (specific to the RFP) until Agenda Item 6.

 

Scott McDonell asked how consultants or other potential proposers would be provided notice of the availability of the RFP.  He asked if any standard ways of advertising this were being considered.  Trowbridge responded that he was working with Madison Metro’s grants administration staff to develop a notification process.  Metro has an established  process they follow for advertising RFPs, particularly those that utilize federal funds.  Industry trade journals, such as Passenger Transport, will be used to advertise the RFP’s availability.  Trowbridge said that he is also aware of a web site (not sure of the name) that’s also commonly used for advertising RFPs, and is watched closely by firms that are interested in these types of studies.  Vendor lists may also be utilized to identify potential proposers.  McDonell suggested a process for soliciting consultants’ interest in the RFP, and then we would send the RFP out only to those that respond.  This, he added, would reduce the amount of material that would have to be sent out to everybody.  He also said that the publication time deadlines for the various trade journals needs to be considered.  Paul Larrousse said that Passenger Transport is a weekly journal, and that this should not be a problem.

 

 

6.            REPORT FROM THE AA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

 

McDonell noted that this agenda item has been reserved for members of the AA’s Technical Advisory Committee who wish to say a few words about the RFP.

 

John Norwell (Dane County Highway and Transportation Commissioner) wished to say that he is very pleased with Trowbridge’s work in heading up the development of the RFP.  Norwell added that the drafting of the RFP has been a very cooperative process among the County, City, State, UW, and Dane County Regional Planning Commission (DCRPC).  Norwell especially appreciated Trowbridge’s efforts to ensure that the comments of the various agencies were integrated into the RFP.

 

Anne Monks (WisDOT – District 1) pointed out that the TAC is a group that has wide ranging agency representation.  She said that, in reviewing the RFP, WisDOT felt that it was very thorough and was hard to improve on.  However, she added, many good comments were provided by the TAC and it was her hope that the OAC would continue to build on the current draft of the RFP with their own helpful insights.  Monks noted that there were some additional “edit”-type comments she would be providing, regarding numerous references to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).  This is important, she added, because of the Department’s legal relationship to the MPO for transportation funding.

 

Monks also urged the OAC to pay close attention to the public participation element of the RFP, because it is the type of policy issue where the tone needs to be set very early in our relationships with the consultant (such as in the consultant interviews and refinement of work scope).

 

Michael Waidelich (City of Madison, Department of Planning and Development) said that he was asked to speak on behalf of the City’s TAC representatives.  He wished to basically echo what had already been said by Norwell and Monks, and point out that a significant amount of input has already been provided on the RFP.  He said that he feels this input has been effectively incorporated into the draft RFP currently before the OAC.  He concluded by saying that the AA process is off to a very good start, and hoped that it would continue along this course.

 

Bob McDonald (Interim Executive Director, DCRPC) pointed out that, collectively, we have a lot of work ahead of us.  He noted that, as is indicated in the RFP, the MPO has a strong responsibility in doing some of the technical work and providing some of the data that goes into the model that drives the AA’s analysis.  He added that there is a good inter-agency relationship and that he looks forward to the MPO’s continued participation in this study.

 

Lori Kay (UW-Madison Transportation Services) said that the UW’s staff are happy with the progress of this study so far.  She added that, having served on numerous past committees to study this issue, she looks forward to moving ahead (and completing) this final, massive phase of evaluation.

 

 

7.         OAC DISCUSSION OF DRAFT RFP

 

McDonell noted that this agenda item is the OAC’s chance to modify the RFP, and that the tone has been set with the current draft of the document.

 

Dick Wagner referred to page 35 (Work Task 13.1) of the Draft RFP, and noted that the language reads that the “consultant will present the recommended Preferred Investment Strategy”.  He said that the OAC should be the entity to recommend the Preferred Investment Strategy and that the language in the RFP should clarify that.  The consultant may have a different recommendation than the OAC, and it needs to be clear that the OAC’s recommendation will be final.  Ken Leonard agreed and added that the consultant can lay out all of the information necessary for the OAC’s decision making.  McDonell said that the consultant could present a range of options to choose from, perhaps with their recommendation, but allowing the OAC to make the final selection.  Trowbridge said that he would modify the language in 13.1 to indicate that the OAC will select the Preferred Investment Strategy, based on input, analysis, and recommendations from the consultant.

 

Ann Falconer noted that, in reference to Work Task 1 (AA Management Plan), the language indicates that the consultant should identify key decision milestones for the OAC.  Perhaps the OAC should be the entity to decide what the key decision milestones are, along the study’s timeline.  Trowbridge suggested modifying the language on page 15 of the RFP to indicate that the consultant will still identify the milestones, but that they would need to be validated/modified by the OAC, as appropriate.  He added that he would still like the consultant to include, in their proposals, their thoughts on what the key milestones are.  However, the milestones/decision points could be modified by the OAC during the refinement of the scope of work, after the consultant is selected.  John Norwell agreed that this could be done during the consultant negotiations.  Leonard agreed that the consultants should still identify the milestones in their proposals, and the OAC might consider that in the evaluations.

 

McDonell noted that the current RFP is organized in a logical fashion and recalled previous studies where the consultant proposals deviated from the formats in the RFP.  He said that he would like the consultants to follow our format as much as possible.  However, he also wished to allow for creativity among the consultants, and suggested language in the RFP that would identify points (perhaps within the work tasks) where the consultant would be expected to follow our format and points where they would be expected to come up with their own approach/program.  He added that it is important for the consultant not go off on tangents and create a great deal of additional work, but he said that he would like to find some way for us to glean (from the consultant) the benefits of their past work and experience.

 

George Nelson noted that, on page 17 of the RFP, the language calls for the use of an outside facilitator (not part of the consultant team) to help develop goals and objectives.  He wondered how that arrangement would work.  Trowbridge responded that he was not sure how it would work, particularly with the AA’s budget, but noted that the intent was to utilize a professional facilitator for this important exercise with the OAC (and TAC), without requiring the consultant to provide this type of individual as part of their team.  It seemed to be a better use of resources, assuming that it would be a limited expenditure, to do this outside of the consultant team, rather than part of the team.  Trowbridge added that the consultant would still be expected to participate in the exercise, bit would not be expected to facilitate it.  This, he added, was a suggestion from one of the TAC members.  Tom Carlsen asked if the OAC would select the facilitator.  Trowbridge said that they would.

 

Co-Chair Ken Golden referred to page 15 of the RFP, and noted that the language calling for the development of a Public Participation Plan seemed to lack a “statement of purpose” for that plan.  In particular, Golden wondered whether we are trying to “tell the public” or “listen to the public” throughout the AA process.  He also wondered whether we were trying to build momentum, or gathering information about what the public wants (or both).  He also wants to make sure that we don’t have a process that is biased toward the “usual suspects” that are involved in these types of plans/studies.  He added that we should try to reach beyond the interest groups, who will be involved anyway (and their input is clearly valued).  But Golden also wished to express his desire to engage the public at a much deeper level, perhaps utilizing different geographic dimensions than past efforts had.  He said that the current language in Work Task 2 did not give him a good sense of what the public participation program is intended to be.  He asked for OAC comments on this issue.

 

Anne Monks suggested that the OAC develop a couple of sentences outlining a “goal” for the public participation process, to help guide the work task.  Golden said that he was unsure about what the writer of this work task had in mind, so he would like that clarified.  Trowbridge said that it was written somewhat loosely, to allow for consultant creativity.  The consultant, he added, could be allowed to develop the process based on what they think a good public participation program might be for a study of this magnitude (since a study of this type has not been conducted in this community to-date).  He added that this area was one where the RFP was intended to tap into the consultant’s experience and expertise, and noted that the consultant evaluation criteria has a separate consideration for this important work task/element.  However, Trowbridge agreed that perhaps a better “purpose” of the public participation process might be communicated in the work task.

 

Rob Kennedy liked the idea of flexibility in the public participation plan, acknowledging the fact that we can learn from the consultant’s experience.  However, at the same time he thought it to be beneficial to provide a little bit more guidance to the consultant, given the unique political relationships in Madison and Dane County.  Kennedy said that he is unsure how this would work, but noted the importance of letting the consultant know that there is a history of studying these issues and that the public participation element of the AA will not be a quick and easy process.  He added, however, that it would still be a good idea for us to ask the consultant to help forge a consensus, as part of the public participation plan.  Clearly, Kennedy noted, we (as a community) are divided on this issue and we cannot come out of the AA process in this manner.  Further, he said that the public participation element will be a key to ensuring that consensus is developed, and noted that it will not be sufficient for the OAC to work hard to develop consensus (from within the Committee), decide on something, and then go out and face the outside.

 

Golden wished to build upon Kennedy’s comments, and suggested thinking about possible models for public participation processes.  He referred to the current Verona Road/West Beltline Study process, where geographic interests have been important (particularly on the advisory committee).  He said that, through this process, a much larger group has become involved (e.g., other neighborhoods/interests not directly adjacent to the study area, technical interests, etc.).  Although this process may have both positive and negative aspects about it, he added, we have started to develop a cadre of a better informed public.  This was a desired result of the Southwest Bicycle/Pedestrian Path process (and east Washington Avenue Study process) as well.  The hope with this approach (to have a better informed group of the public), is that this group will predict the way the rest of the public will behave.

 

Tom Carlsen noted that WisDOT’s intent with the Verona Road/West Beltline Study was not to choose a consultant that had a solution in mind (and ideas on how to sell it), but to choose one that was prepared to give us a process whereby we could find out what the critical issues were and develop consensus.  There is some danger in being too prescriptive in the RFP, and having the consultant spit back (in their proposals) what you’ve said in the RFP.  But, he added, there is also some danger in being too open-ended.  Carlsen asked Monks if the TAC had provided any suggestions regarding the public participation plan.  She said that the TAC discussed the idea of involving the public during the scoping process, when you are refining the study’s purpose, and identifying what you are trying to accomplish.  The TAC also talked about involving the public early in the process, when goals and objectives are developed.

 

Trowbridge asked whether more specificity should be woven into the public participation element, throughout the work tasks in the RFP.  Golden responded that he would prefer moving in the opposite direction, perhaps providing less specificity in the public participation method, but providing more specificity in what the method is to achieve.  The OAC agreed.  Golden said that we should challenge the consultant to describe a process that will achieve “x”, and added that the OAC should be talking about what “x” is.  He said that we should not be talking about whether a focus group or a subcommittee or any other method should be used, but rather what we want from them – are we trying to educate the public, learn from the public, etc.  Trowbridge asked about language currently in the RFP that refers to consensus building, and whether that should remain an intent of the public participation process.  Golden responded that consensus building may be important, but cautioned that there should not be a pre-determined outcome to build the consensus around.  Golden said that the best consultant work is where they are perceived as not taking any sides, but that they know a great deal about the subject.  The idea of building consensus seems to assume that there is a program in mind already, and that the best course of action is to build a program out of the public’s input and a presentation of the facts.

 

George Nelson said that, hopefully, the consultant will have done this before.  He would rather see the consultant proposals indicate how they would develop the public participation process (and what elements would be included), and the OAC provide input to that.  Nelson said that we should not describe the participation methodology to be used in great detail.  He added that it is difficult to think about hiring a consultant and how the end product is to be sold, because we are a long way from that.  Carlsen noted that, after seeing the consultant proposals, it may become apparent that there are significant differences in approaches.  Nelson said that it should be the OAC’s decision to determine which public participation approach would work best in this community.  In a sense, Carlsen said, the consultant will need to guess what we are looking for.  Nelson said that he thinks the RFP hasn’t left too much out, in terms of what we are interested in for public participation.

 

John Hendrick referred to some language on page 15 of the RFP that read “Appropriate responses to inquiries and comments from the public will be provided by the consultant”.  Hendrick said that, to him, this statement crystallizes a possible bad process - whereby the public hearing is held, comments are made by the public, and the consultant proceeds to respond in a paragraph why the comments are wrong.  Hendrick said that it is important that the participation process give the public the feeling that they have been heard, and for that reason they would buy into the result (whatever that may be).  Kennedy said that we should ask the consultant to be able to work with the public, as a true participant in helping to develop the final alternative.  This, Kennedy added, is the real process of coming to consensus – engaging the public, through open dialog and the consultant’s providing information, to help develop the preferred alternative.  He asked Trowbridge if he could come up with language to reflect these thoughts.  Trowbridge responded that Hendrick’s comments made perfect sense, and gave him a clear indication that the current language in Work Task 2 is probably not the direction we want to go.  Kennedy added that we should want more from the consultant than just spitting back information in a mechanical way or them selling a particular product.

 

Golden gave an example of where a consultant that did a good job at a recent neighborhood meeting of the Southwest Bicycle/Pedestrian Path, where about 150 people were in attendance.  The most impressive part of the role that the consultant played in that instance was a non-judgmental, educating role.  People had specific questions about, for example, intersection safety.  Without saying “we have do x or y or z” (which would have completely alienated the room), the consultant began describing the issue, providing facts/information, alternatives considered, etc.  In essence, the consultant provided the framework within which the public could make an informed decision.  When he was done speaking (in probably less than 3 minutes), it became clear that everybody’s personal “obvious answer to the problem” was no longer obvious.  He suggested that the word “educate”, particularly in terms of the decision making parameters, be made more prominent in Work Task 2.

 

Dick Wagner suggested that we were working towards the premise that there should be informed discussion, within the OAC and throughout the public, and that the consultant needs to find the ways to take that information and ensure that everyone is dealing within the same information context (while not forcing the information into something).  It is important, he added, that the discussion not focus on the “unrealities” or the symbolic issues.  This approach will allow for a more informed discussion, whether or not you are for or against any of the alternatives being evaluated.

 

McDonell suggested taking out language that pushes the public participation program into one direction or another, and let the consultant develop a program around basic parameters.  Trowbridge asked the OAC if he should remove the references to potential participation techniques/tools (such as newsletters, focus groups, etc.).  McDonell said that Trowbridge should do so, noting that these examples seem to suggest that using standard techniques and approaches would be appropriate.

 

Ken Leonard said that at certain points of the process, the consultant would be educating, but at other points the consultant should indicate a willingness to learn from the public.  If this can be described generally, the consultant would be allowed to be innovative.

 

Kennedy was concerned about how the individual work tasks would be linked to the public participation process, using the example of Work Task 3 (development of goals, objectives and performance measures).  He added that the public’s input to this, early in the process, would be important.  He also said that this may be a reason to provide some specificity in the RFP.  Golden said that a timeline could be developed, showing how the various processes and work tasks interrelate.  Kennedy agreed.

 

Anne Monks asked McDonell if his “consultant flexibility” issue had been addressed.  He responded that it had, as long as the language in Work Task 2 is written in a way that does not tip the consultant off into one direction or another.  He added, however, that we should be clear that the public participation plan should be developed in a way that is linked to all of the other work tasks.  Ann Falconer agreed, but noted that the consultant should get the hint that this element is important, and that they should not behave like the Amtrak people did in the past.  In that instance, they ignored the need for neighborhood meetings.

 

Golden said that there should be a clear relationship between the work tasks and the public participation plan.  Certain work tasks, for example, will have different/greater/lesser public participation elements within it, and this should be identified in the proposals.  Trowbridge said that he would revise the RFP to reflect this, and include language (within each work task) that calls for identification of how the public participation element is handled.  Wagner said that an important question will be to determine at which stages of the AA process (and in what ways) will public participation be beneficial to the OAC, and to the public.  Wagner said that these questions have not been answered yet, but added that the consultant should demonstrate the fact that they understand the need for (and importance of) public participation throughout the entire AA process, albeit at different levels within the various stages of the study.  He said that an intellectual dialog needs to take place throughout the process, and how the consultant suggests that this takes place will be a reflection of their talent.  We have not concluded the best approach at this time, Wagner said.  Carlsen echoed the importance of an informed, interactive public discussion, and hoped that this idea can be incorporated into the RFP.

 

Golden thanked the OAC for their comments on the public participation issue, and asked that the Committee move on to other issues.  Trowbridge said that he would incorporate these thoughts, and said that the Co-Chairs would be given a chance to review the language before the RFP is released.

 

John Hendrick apologized for having to leave but wished to note a concern pertaining to the DCRPC/MPO issue, which is mentioned a number of times in the RFP (particularly on page 19).  He suggested that most of the references to DCRPC could be changed to refer to the Metropolitan Planning Organization.  However, he added, at the end of Work Task 4.3 (Model Development), there is a sentence referring to DCRPC staff and modifying land use data.  This will likely continue to be the role of the DCRPC.

 

Anne Monks noted a related issue, on page 39, regarding the composition of the Joint OAC/TAC Consultant Review and Selection Subcommittee.  She suggested adding the MPO as a participant in that process, and noted their importance as a staff resource throughout the AA.  Trowbridge agreed to do so, and noted that the total Subcommittee membership would be increased to 11 (3 from the OAC, 8 from the TAC).

 

George Nelson asked if the MPO redesignation had officially taken place.  Golden responded that an agreement had been reached, in principle, but that the specifics were still being ironed out as we speak.

 

McDonell had some concerns about the evaluation criteria of “price proposal”, but was unsure about what the specific weight should be.  He said that his first impression would be to reduce the cost proposal to less than 20%, and to increase the weight applied to “qualifications and experience of project team firms”.  He asked the OAC for their thoughts on the evaluation criteria weights/percentages currently shown on pages 39-40, and asked members of the TAC to explain how they were arrived at.

 

Tom Carlsen questioned the appropriateness of discussing the specific weights, given the fact that this is public record.  Trowbridge reiterated that the percentages would not be included in the RFP that is ultimately released for consultant bids, but that they are included in this draft for your review and information.  Golden suggested that the OAC should discuss whether or not specific items should be weighted (and the reasons for that), rather than talking about the percentage weighting that would be attached to each criteria.  Nelson added that it would be within the purview of the group that evaluates the proposals to consider that.  Golden added that, in the past, he has found it difficult to evaluate proposals, independently, based on price.  Partly, he said, this is because there are really two components involved in the evaluation – (1) what you are buying and (2) who you are buying it from.  For example, if you have a “pricey” person doing very little work it may cost more than you think, and there may also be totally different reasons why you don’t want to hire a less expensive person to do a lot of work.  He suggested taking a value-oriented approach to cost, where an assessment might be made of whether or not the price of the specific proposal is “worth it”.  This assessment would be based on our sense of what we are buying and how good it is (in terms of what we are trying to accomplish with the AA).  Kennedy suggested equal weighting of the “technical approach” and “understanding of project” criteria, as it is hard to distinguish the relative importance of each with one another.

 

Dick Wagner wished to comment on a different issue, on page 27 of the RFP (first bullet at top), regarding land use scenarios and parking management strategies.  The second sentence (giving an example) should be taken out.  The first sentence, he noted, which calls for evaluating a range of parking management strategies, is appropriate.   However, he referred to recent discussions at the City’s Long-Range Transportation Planning Commission (LRTPC), where it has been pointed out that the City has not followed its 1960’s policy of restricting the provision of parking facilities and that such a policy of may not be appropriate.  Trowbridge noted that an analysis of parking restrictions coupled with a high-capacity transit system investment might be one of the strategies asked for in the AA, given his preliminary discussions with interested persons.  In addition, parking restrictions are a low-cost TDM measure that could be looked at.  Wagner replied that, with a multimodal transportation system, some people will drive and there will be a need for parking facilities.  And, if additional office development is built in the central part of Madison, it does not seem to be a well thought-out policy to not provide some amount of parking with that.  However, Wagner said that the price paid for parking should still be evaluated.

 

Rob Kennedy raised an issue with the corridors that would be evaluated.  Some people have asked him why the rail line to Verona is not in the analysis.  As such, he added, there will probably be a need to develop a process for determining why some of the corridors not shown on Map 1 (page 9) would not be included in the AA.  Trowbridge said that the corridors shown on Map 1 were taken from past studies, relying on those studies’ decisions to focus their efforts on the highest-priority corridors.  Kennedy said that, since the public are asking about other corridors, we should be able to give a good reason why those on Map 1 are being considered, and others are not.  We need a process for screening out the numerous potential corridors.

 

Wagner raised a different concern with the corridors, noting that the analysis needs to take a regional focus.  The analysis should not be too focused on a small number of corridors.  Wagner referred to DCRPC data that isolated peoples’ locations and showed which corridors they would generally travel on.  Wagner also recalled a map that had been compiled by the State Department of Administration that showed where downtown employees lived and traveled to/from, which emphasized the need to take a broad regional look at travel.  Tom Carlsen was concerned that, depending on what corridor was looked at, seemed to bias the type of mode options that could be considered.  Wagner agreed and said that, depending on whether it is a rail mode or a mixed rail/bus mode, the appropriate corridor may be different.  Trowbridge noted that the travel demand forecasting model is region-wide in focus, and will consider all destinations within the region (not just specific corridors).

 

Golden wished to discuss the concept of “value recaptured”, and said that there may be a place in the AA for this concept to be addressed.  He said that it is an important issue that pertains to the various transportation improvements we will be considering.  He said that, when you create a piece of transportation infrastructure, it generates land use.  For example, subway stations in Washington D.C. seem to sprout office buildings at those locations.  In fact, he added, this was one of the mechanisms used for financing that system, fully recognizing that Washington D.C. is a very different city with a different sized system.  Golden recalled that the previous studies on rail and transit in this area seemed to consider this issue, but only as a footnote.  He said that it seems appropriate to study this issue, in detail, as part of the AA.  He also said that, the tremendous cost of these transportation system improvements (even with state and federal assistance) will necessitate a large expenditure from local taxes.  He further recalled a $67 million investment in the Monona Terrace Convention Center, and noted that those discussion looked carefully at the amount of economic activity that would be created, and the amount of value that would be provided to the City.  He said that this portion of the Monona Terrace debate was the most intellectually stimulating, no matter what side of the issue you were on.  He said that this was a big determiner in the investment judgments that were made, particularly when you looked farther out into the future.  Golden said that this issue seems important, and that some sort of economic analysis should be required in the AA that looks at the alternatives in the Phase II analysis and estimates what those alternatives would likely produce, in terms of development.  That development should be considered as a means to help, in essence, recover some of the costs of the system that is ultimately built.  Golden said that, without that evaluation, we will not have the complete picture.  The other advantage of this approach is the idea that the benefits of such a system can also be allocated, and perhaps be used as a means for allocating financial responsibilities.  He concluded by saying that the consultant should be capable of doing this and that it should be explicitly noted in the RFP.

 

Trowbridge said that he could add a separate work task, given the complexity and the work effort likely required of such an issue.  Golden said that the importance of the issue is such that it could make or break the success of the alternatives being evaluated.  Kennedy said that the economic development benefits, and the ability to recapture some of those benefits (in the form of taxes, etc.) should be looked at.  Dick Wagner referred to USH 18/151 (to the southwest) and all of the development that took place in Barneveld, Ridgeway, Mount Horeb, etc. that could attributed to the freeway.  Anne Monks said that this sounded like a secondary land use impact analysis.  Tom Carlsen noted that it would be nice if the state could buy all of the land around interchanges to help recapture the costs of various transportation corridor projects, but added that this seems to be the idea that Golden is getting at.  Wagner agreed but added that benefits are being created, and if public funds are used to finance the project, perhaps there are ways to recapture these project costs.  George Nelson said that this discussion has just hit upon the essence of how this type of transportation improvement will need to be sold.  Nelson said that if we can’t show a positive economic development benefit for the amount of funds we would be spending on the transportation improvement, then why would we be building it?  Nelson also added that, with the Monona Terrace assessment, the negative impacts of NOT building anything were also looked at for comparison purposes.  Those figures, he noted, were almost as compelling as those developed for the “build” scenarios, when translated into dollars and cents for those entities involved.

 

Golden said that the current RFP language on this issue (Work Task 12.3) is not adequate.  The OAC agreed that this issue should be significantly elaborated upon.  In addition, Golden said that he would like to see the section discussing the review of the consultant’s experience and qualifications augmented, to add this particular consideration.  As follows, the proposal evaluation team (or subcommittee) should be prepared to utilize their agency resources to ensure that the proposals are reviewed specifically for this issue.  Kennedy said that there should be a separate “deliverable” item for this, perhaps referenced in Work Tasks 12 or 13.  In addition, Kennedy said that a link to the “financial plan” element should be noted in the RFP.  Golden added that, under 13.5, the institutional/governance analysis should also include this issue, if allocation of benefits is part of this.

 

A citizen member of the audience suggested looking at the morning peak travel period and special event trips, in addition to the afternoon peak travel period.  Scott McDonell said that special events are generally a problem for the modeling process, but that some consideration could be made.  Bob McDonald said that there are some ways to account for special events in the modeling process, and that they would certainly try to do that.  However, in terms of the morning travel period, he noted that only the afternoon peak travel period was picked because of a TAC desire to limit the number of alternatives that would be looked at.  Carlsen agreed and said that the consultant could spend all of their budget on modeling, if this is not managed carefully.  Kennedy agreed that special event travelers and tourists need consideration, recalling another recent New York Times Travel Section article on Madison as a good destination.  Kennedy said that the typical travel demand forecasting model may not be geared towards special event travel, but noted its importance for this study.  Trowbridge suggested that the goals and objectives could be developed in a way to identify such a need – e.g., develop a transportation system that meets the needs of and facilitates travel to the numerous tourist destinations within the City.

 

Golden thanked the OAC for their comments and input, and asked Trowbridge to modify the RFP.  McDonell said that a meeting with the Co-Chairs would be set up soon, to have one last review and finalization of the RFP.  The OAC thanked Trowbridge for his efforts in drafting the RFP.

 

 

8.            DISCUSSION/FORMATION OF AA SUBCOMMITTEE

 

McDonell noted that, in addition to the OAC discussing a subcommittee to deal with the review of consultant proposals (and consultant interviews), Dick Wagner had asked about the possibility of creating other subcommittees.

 

Golden noted that the Joint OAC/TAC Consultant Review and Selection Subcommittee would be made up of 3 members of the OAC and 8 members of the TAC.  Trowbridge wished to point out that the title of the Subcommittee, with the word “selection” in it, is a bit misleading, and noted that the Subcommittee would provide its recommendation to the OAC (and the OAC will have the final decision to select the consultant).  Kennedy suggested that, since the primary agencies would be represented on the Subcommittee from the TAC, the OAC appointees might represent the public (to the extent possible).  Trowbridge said that the TAC’s representatives would likely be employees of the primary agencies (WisDOT, City, County, UW and MPO), but that the OAC members, although appointed by the primaries, had a broader range of backgrounds.  Kennedy confirmed that this was his intent, to provide for a broader cross-section of background/experience on the Subcommittee.

 

Golden asked OAC members if they had any interest in serving on the Subcommittee, and reiterated the point that this will not be a light undertaking.  Golden said that this effort will be a commitment of significant time and work, probably within a compressed time period.  McDonell referred to his experience reviewing proposals and noted that it is often difficult to score them, because proposals are organized differently and contain often vastly different material.  Golden said that he agreed with Kennedy and would prefer that the OAC members of the Subcommittee be members of the public, rather than technically-oriented members (since the TAC’s appointments will encompass that important perspective).  Dick Wagner, Rob Kennedy and Ann Falconer volunteered to be the OAC’s appointments on the Joint OAC/TAC Consultant Review and Selection Subcommittee.  Golden said that, for purposes of fairness, these 3 members are now nominees, and the OAC members (not in attendance tonight) will be polled to obtain their interest.  From the complete list of nominees/candidates, the 3 appointments will be made.  The OAC agreed that this would be acceptable.

 

Dick Wagner wished to bring up some ideas for additional AA subcommittees.  In reviewing the RFP, Wagner noticed that he had highlighted a large number of issues pertaining to land use that warranted further discussion and/or special consideration.  For example, the land use/growth scenarios discussed in the RFP (i.e., current trends vs. highly compact growth) could be reviewed.  Planners from throughout the country, like Andres Duany, might suggest that our current trends are already compact growth.  This, Wagner said, begs the question of whether the trip origins or destinations are intended to be compact.  This example highlights an issue area that would be useful for OAC members to talk through, as well as having the consultant work on it.  Another example would be Golden’s idea of “value added” from transportation, and how this consideration could be addressed.

 

Wagner said that technologies, in terms of the various modes, would be a second area that might warrant a separate subcommittee.  A third, very important, subcommittee could address finance and governance issues.  This, he added, is not to suggest that the issues would not come back to the full OAC for consideration, but that the subcommittees might be a useful forum for OAC members (as well as TAC members and staff) to talk about some of these issues in greater detail.  Trowbridge said that he would add language in the RFP to note that subcommittees will be utilized throughout the AA process.

 

Ken Golden asked if the Committee wished to express their interest in serving on any of the various subcommittees at this time.  He noted that there are some potential issues that should be kept in mind, such as with the potential participation of other OAC members (that are not part of the subcommittee), and the potential that a “quorum of the whole” is not established.  Wagner said that it could be noticed as such, to avoid a potential problem, and Golden agreed.  Secondly, Golden added, it may be useful for some subcommittees to invite resource people to attend, not to be members of the subcommittee, but to sit at the table and deliberate with the subcommittee members.  Golden also added that he felt a formal appointment process for the subcommittees would be too cumbersome.  Wagner agreed, and noted that the purpose of this was to be more as “work groups”, but added that we were probably stuck with the term “subcommittee”.

 

Golden asked for OAC member interest in the various subcommittees, by subject area.  Golden said that he would ask those OAC members not in attendance this evening about their interest, and if OAC members don’t want to commit at this time, they can get back to Trowbridge in the future.  For the land use subcommittee, Dick Wagner and Ken Golden expressed their interest.  For technologies and modes, Scott McDonell expressed his interest.  For the finance and governance subcommittee, Ken Golden and George Nelson noted their interest.  Golden said that at the next meeting of the OAC, we can notice an item that announces the Co-Chairs’ appointments to the subcommittees.

 

 

9.            CONFIRMATION OF OAC MEETING #3

 

Trowbridge noted that, at the first OAC meeting in September, OAC Meeting #3 was scheduled to take place on February 24^th.  However, since that time, the RFP release and consultant review/selection schedule has become better known.  As such, he said that it would probably be a little tight to try and hold the meeting in February, and asked that OAC Meeting #3 be held March 15^th, 4:45 p.m., Room 260, Madison Municipal Building.  The OAC agreed.

 

Trowbridge said that, in addition to the Co-Chair appointments to the “issue” subcommittees, the Joint OAC/TAC Consultant Review and Selection Subcommittee will likely be prepared to make their recommendation to the full OAC (on consultant selection).

 

Prior to adjournment, McDonell handed out a letter from Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk to various members of Congress, thanking them for getting the product of this AA on a waiting list for funding, within the federal transportation bill.

 

 

10.            ADJOURNMENT

 

The Committee adjourned its meeting at 6:40 p.m.