ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

for the Dane County/Greater Madison Metropolitan Area

 

Minutes

 

OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OAC) - MEETING #3

 

Wednesday, March 15, 2000

4:45 pm

Madison Municipal Building, Room 260

215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard

Madison, WI

 

 

--          ROLL CALL

 

Members Present: LaMarr Billups; Supv. Michael Blaska; Thomas Carlsen; David Cieslewicz; Robert Cook; Ann Falconer; Ald. Ken Golden; Darlene Horner; Rob Kennedy; Ken Leonard; Supv. Scott McDonell; George Nelson; Ald. Warren Onken; Dick Wagner.

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Staff Present: Charity Eleson (Dane County Executive’s Office); Douglas Dalton (Wisconsin Department of Transportation, WisDOT, Urban Planning Section); Paul Larrousse (Madison Metro); Bob McDonald (Madison Area Metropolitan Planning Organization); Anne Monks (WisDOT District 1, Planning); Larry Nelson (City of Madison, City Engineer); Judy Plaenert Olson (City of Madison, Mayor’s Office); David Trowbridge (Project Administrator for the Alternatives Analysis; 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); Tom Fleming.

 

 

1.            WELCOME/REVIEW OF AGENDA

 

Co-Chair Scott McDonell welcomed Committee members to Meeting #3 of the Oversight Advisory Committee for the Alternatives Analysis (AA).  McDonell said that Agenda Items 4 and 5 would be blended together, noting that the report of the Consultant Review and Evaluation Subcommittee would take place during the slide presentation overview.  He then asked Committee members if they had any additional suggested modifications to the Agenda.  Hearing none, McDonell moved on to the next item.

 

 

2.            APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OAC MEETING #2 (NOVEMBER 2, 1999)

 

The Minutes for Meeting #2 of the OAC were approved, as submitted on a motion by George Nelson, seconded by Ald. Warren Onken.

 

 

3.            OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

 

There were no public appearances.

 

 

4.            PRESENTATION/OVERVIEW OF AA CONSULTANT REVIEW & EVALUATION PROCESS

 

David Trowbridge, Project Administrator for the AA, then presented some slides that summarized the Alternatives Analysis process since the last OAC meeting, which was November 2, 1999.  Trowbridge introduced the topic by noting that he would provide the OAC an update of what has taken place during the recent AA consultant evaluation process, summarize the results of that process.  Finally, Trowbridge said that he would discuss where we are in the AA process and describe the anticipated next steps.

 

(Note: Copies of the slides used in the presentation/overview were distributed to OAC members, and can be obtained upon request)

 

Trowbridge noted that RFP was released on December 1st, requests for clarification were due December 17th, written proposals were due January 21st, and the proposal review process began on January 28th (at which time the proposals were distributed to members of the Joint OAC/TAC Consultant Review and Evaluation Subcommittee).  Trowbridge pointed out that the Subcommittee comprised of 12 members – 3 members appointed from the OAC (Ann Falconer, Rob Kennedy and Dick Wagner) and 9 members from the Technical Advisory Committee.  He noted that the TAC members included a broad cross-section of agencies, units of government, interests, and areas of expertise.  Trowbridge said that this diverse range of interests among the Subcommittee members was helpful in the consultant review process - citing the Metropolitan Planning Organization member’s knowledge of travel demand forecasting/modeling technologies as an example.

 

Trowbridge noted that two written Alternatives Analysis proposals were received - one team was headed by Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. (EK) and the other by Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. (PB).  He noted that the expectation going into the process was to receive more than 2 proposals, but added that some of the firms commonly involved in AAs had been a part of the teams, serving as sub-consultants.  Trowbridge also said that, in talking with other potential proposers, the firms had indicated that they were currently quite busy.  He said that at least two other firms told him they were currently not in a position to be able to dedicate their top staff to this study, which discouraged them from proposing.  Regardless, Trowbridge said that the two proposals received were from very good teams.

 

Trowbridge said that the format of both written proposals followed the format indicated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), with some slight deviations in approach and budget priority.  The organization of the 2 proposals, consistent with the RFP, he added, was helpful in reviewing, scoring and discussing them.  Trowbridge reviewed the primary work tasks in the RFP and the proposals:

 

-         AA Management Plan;

-         Public Participation Plan;

-         Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures;

-         Data Collection Plan;

-         AA Scoping Process;

-         Travel Demand Forecasting;

-         Description of Future Travel Conditions;

-         Conceptual Cost Estimates;

-         Screening of Initial Alternatives;

-         Refinement of Alternatives (including land use and NEPA-type impact analyses); and,

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

 

Trowbridge noted that the Subcommittee evaluated the consultant teams in two general areas: (1) review and scoring of the written proposals and (2) evaluation of the oral interviews.  The written proposals were scored using a number of criteria, including technical approach, qualifications and experience, the public participation plan, the proposal price and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation.  Trowbridge noted that the written proposal scores are used for a number of purposes.  One purpose is to screen the teams to invite back for oral interviews.  For example, Trowbridge said that if we received 10 proposals and we only wished to invite a smaller number (perhaps 3 or 4) back for interviews, the teams invited back would need to exceed some natural break in the written proposal scores.  However, since we only received proposals from two teams, both were invited to participate in the oral interview process.  The numerical scores of the written proposals, incidentally, were fairly close.  Another important purpose of the criteria-based scoring, he added, was to allow Subcommittee members as basis for discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the teams and to identify issue areas that the Subcommittee would like the firms to elaborate on (in the oral interviews).

 

Trowbridge said that the oral interviews, held on February 29th, followed a format that allowed more detail to be provided by the consultant teams (in certain areas).  He said that the interview was broken out into two primary areas – an introduction and a topical theme discussion (with 4 “themes” to be discussed).  The consultant was asked to give a brief presentation (5-7 minutes) in each issue area, and asked to address specific questions provided to them in advance.  After the presentation, Subcommittee members were provided an opportunity to ask follow-up questions of the team members.

 

In terms of the introduction, the teams were asked to talk about their key task leaders, their primary roles and their availability/accessibility for this particular study.  The topical themes included:

 

-         Effective Consensus Building;

-         Public Participation;

-         Modeling: Modal Integration & System Analysis; and,

-         Land Use/Economic Impacts of Transportation Alternatives;

 

Within the Effective Consensus Building discussion, the teams were asked to elaborate on how they  planned to engage key community decision makers in the AA process, and also how they planned to involve the many units of government potentially affected by the alternatives being studied.  Within the Public Participation theme, the teams were asked to demonstrate how they would take highly technical data/analysis and translate that into information that is meaningful to the various interest groups and the general public.  They were also asked to demonstrate how they would react to an aggressive audience or member of the public, in a public meeting setting.  Within the Modeling theme, the firms were asked to demonstrate their understanding of how the various modes of transportation work together and complement one another in the travel demand forecasting/modeling process.  Finally, within the Land Use Impact thematic discussion, the teams were asked to demonstrate their understanding of the interrelationship of land use and transportation systems, particularly in a community of our size.

 

Trowbridge noted that the topical theme discussions were a good way to ask the teams to elaborate on specific issues of interest, to demonstrate their unique abilities to conduct the work, and also to see how well the various team members presented information and responded to Subcommittee member questions.  After the interviews, the Subcommittee met to discuss the proposals and interviews, and came to a decision on the consultant team that they will recommend be selected to conduct the Alternatives Analysis.   At this time, the Subcommittee is prepared to make a recommendation to the OAC.  Trowbridge asked Dick Wagner to speak on behalf of the Joint OAC/TAC Consultant Review and Evaluation Subcommittee.

 

Dick Wagner asked Rob Kennedy and Ann Falconer, also members of the Subcommittee, to say a few words about the consultant evaluation process, if they wished to do so.  Wagner said that the Subcommittee, after reviewing the two written proposals in detail, felt that both teams had a high level of competence to conduct the study and address the issues important to this community.  However, after the oral interviews, the sense among almost all of the Subcommittee members was that the Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) team was, by far, the stronger of the two teams.  And, he added, that was the recommendation that the Subcommittee wished to bring back too the OAC.  However, Wagner said that there were some issues that needed to be resolved with the PB team, given that the PB proposal price was substantially higher than the price of the Edwards and Kelcey proposal.  Because of these budget concerns, he added, negotiations with the PB team needed to take place.  Recently, a small negotiation team - made up of representatives from the City, County and State - worked with the PB team to find ways to reduce the total cost of the proposal.  After meeting with the PB team, the negotiation group was able to bring the proposal price down into the range of the budget that is available to fund the study.  As a result, Wagner said that the selection of the desired consultant team can be made, within the negotiated budget amount.

 

Rob Kennedy, also a member of the Subcommittee, said he strongly felt that the Parsons Brinckerhoff team was the better of the two, and felt comfortable recommending that they be hired.  Kennedy reiterated the fact that the Parsons team performed better in the interview process, but also noted that their written proposal had some unique strengths.  Kennedy mentioned that the Parsons team, in sub-contracting the modeling tasks to Cambridge Systematics, had a stronger proposal in that area.  Madison Metro personnel also felt that Cambridge would do a good job with the modeling, and Metro’s recommendation is important in this area.  Kennedy also noted that the PB team clearly had more knowledge and sophistication in the land use impact modeling area.  Parsons’ task leader in this area, Sam Seskin, is highly knowledgeable and a national leader in the state-of-the-art of land use impact modeling.

 

Ann Falconer, another Subcommittee member from the OAC, added that the Parsons Brinckerhoff team were more desirable in that they were prepared to dedicate their top staff to this project.  In contrast, she added, the Edwards and Kelcey team had good people, but their lineup of task leaders for the AA was not a strong as the PB team.

 

George Nelson asked Kennedy what Madison Metro had concluded, in regard to the strengths of the Parsons team in the modeling area.  Kennedy said that Cambridge Systematics had extensive experience in the travel demand forecasting and modeling area – which, he noted, is a key aspect of understanding future transit ridership forecasts.

 

Wagner added that the Subcommittee felt that the Parsons Brinckerhoff team demonstrated a high level of commitment to this project, and assured us that their personnel would be available for consultation/interaction at all times throughout the conduct of the study.  Wagner said that, in terms of availability, the Subcommittee did not get as strong an impression with the Edwards and Kelcey team.  Wagner also pointed out that the Parsons team scored higher on the DBE criteria.  In conclusion, Wagner said that there were a number of factors that lead to the Subcommittee’s strong recommendation to hire the team of Parsons Brinckerhoff.

 

Kennedy added one last point.  He said that a previous study in this community, managed by Parsons Brinckerhoff, lead to some concerns about their presentation of information at public meetings.  However, with this AA, their project manager assured us that public meetings would be hosted/moderated by the personnel on their team that are best suited to present this type of information.

 

David Trowbridge continued with the slides, reiterating some of the points made by Subcommittee members and adding some others that hadn’t been noted.  He said that the EK team did have some strengths worth mentioning – primarily strong public participation leadership and some interesting data/information presentation methods.  However, their weaknesses were important to the Subcommittee.  In particular, Trowbridge said that team’s qualifications and experience with AAs and/or Major Investment Studies was not quite as extensive as the Parsons team.  In addition, the EK team seemed much weaker in terms of their expertise in the land use impact analysis area, which is an important component of the study.

 

Trowbridge pointed out that the Parsons team, on the other hand, had a number of unique strengths, many already mentioned by Subcommittee members.  Their strengths included:

 

·         Strong commitment to this study by their project management (i.e., availability);

·         High qualifications and experience of their team’s AA task leaders;

·         Strong land use impact analysis capabilities/expertise;

·         Good track record: references.

 

Other strengths of the PB team, Trowbridge noted, was their unique understanding of the importance of finance and governance issues.  The PB team talked a great deal in the interview about addressing these types of issues from the very beginning of the study (and continuing throughout the entire study), and not just dealing with it at the very end.  In addition, Parsons’ extensive knowledge of federal planning, implementation and funding processes was very important – such as Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts program and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

 

Trowbridge did point out a couple of concerns with the PB proposal, primarily with the budget.  However, as Wagner alluded to earlier, negotiations were able to reduce their cost proposal to a level more suited to our budget.  The original cost proposal was for $1.4 million, but the negotiations were able to reduce that figure to $1.0 million.  Trowbridge showed the AA Phase I and Phase II breakout of costs (for the original and revised cost proposal).  He noted that the AA’s work elements remained the same, but that work priorities and expenditures in some areas were scaled back to accommodate our budget.

 

Trowbridge summarized the sources of funding for the study, which will include participation from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, the City of Madison (using FTA formula dollars), Dane County, the UW, the City of Middleton and the Village of Shorewood Hills.

 

Trowbridge then summarized the timeline for the AA, noting that, assuming approval of the PB team this evening, efforts to sign the contract and a project agreement would begin.  He added that resolutions to authorize spending of various funds have been introduced in the City of Madison and Dane County.  Finally, Trowbridge said that, barring any major surprises, the consultant is prepared to begin work at the next TAC meeting, which is scheduled for Thursday, April 27th, at 1:00, in Room 260 of the Madison Municipal Building.

 

 

5.            REPORT FROM THE JOINT OAC/TAC CONSULTANT REVIEW AND EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE

 

The report from the Subcommittee was combined with Agenda Item 4, as was agreed to by the OAC at the beginning of the meeting.

 

 

6.         OAC DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED AA CONSULTANT

 

Co-Chair Scott McDonell asked OAC members if they had any concerns with the Subcommittee’s recommendation to hire the Parsons Brinckerhoff team.  Hearing none, McDonell entertained a motion from the Committee.  Supv. Michael Blaska made a motion (seconded by Rob Kennedy) to enter into a contract with the PB team, for the purposes of conducting an Alternatives Analysis.  The OAC voted unanimously to approve that motion.

 

LaMarr Billups asked where Parsons Brinckerhoff was headquartered.  Trowbridge responded that PB had offices throughout the country, but, at this time, their closest office is in Milwaukee.  However, he added that the PB team committed to establishing a strong local presence (in Madison) for this project.  They said that they’re prepared to establish an office in town - perhaps setting up a desk, phone, work area, etc. at one of our participating agency’s office locations (yet to be determined).

 

 

7.         CITY OF MADISON RESOLUTION ID 27111, “AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONSULTANT TEAM OF PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS AND KL ENGINEERING, FOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF MADISON.”: OAC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION

 

Trowbridge distributed the Resolution ID 27111 to OAC members.  Co-Chair Ken Golden said that this resolution has been introduced to the City of Madison Common Council and was referred to the OAC (to report back to the Council).  Golden added that this is really more of a formality for the City, and the resolution basically summarized what the OAC had just concluded this evening.  Golden asked OAC members to take a couple of minutes to read through the 2-page resolution, before entertaining a motion.

 

Dick Wagner pointed out some cost figures cited in the resolution, and noted that the figures do not add up to the total contract amount.  He asked that language be added to reflect the fact that additional funds are being made available – beyond those currently shown in the resolution.  Trowbridge said that the cost figures simply cited the previous resolution, and acknowledged that they do not represent the complete funding situation.  Tom Carlsen pointed out that the figures currently shown in the resolution are only the City of Madison’s share.  Wagner said that it is important for the City’s Board of Estimates to know that additional dollars are available.  Trowbridge said that he would add another “Whereas” clause to clarify this.

 

The OAC approved Resolution ID 27111, on a motion submitted by George Nelson/Supv. Michael Blaska.

 

 

8.            ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUBCOMMITTEES: OAC DISCUSSION

 

McDonell said that he would like to establish some AA subcommittees, to work with the consultant (and help them to work through some of the thornier problems) and to act as a liaison to the community in general.  McDonell said the he and Golden wished to set up two subcommittees this evening - recognizing that we will likely need to establish additional subcommittees as we learn more and move through the AA process.  At this time, McDonell said that he would like to establish: (1) AA Land Use Subcommittee and (2) AA Finance Subcommittee.  We would like to appoint Dick Wagner as the Chair of the Land Use Subcommittee and George Nelson as the Chair of the Finance Subcommittee.  McDonell added that he would be contacting OAC members in the next few days to determine their interest in serving on these subcommittees, as we would like them to be up and running by the time the PB team begins work.

 

McDonell asked Trowbridge about his suggestion of another possible subcommittee.  Trowbridge said that the April 27th TAC meeting, which would be the first with the PB team in attendance, might be focused on the development of goals and objectives.  Further, he said that members of the OAC may be interested in being involved in the process of developing the goals and objectives, given the importance they have in the AA evaluation process.  The idea of an OAC subcommittee, for that purpose, came to mind.  Trowbridge added that it is up to the OAC to determine what they would like to do with this issue.

 

Dick Wagner suggested that perhaps the entire OAC would be interested in this.  Golden asked for more detail about the goals and objectives that would be developed, and their purpose in the AA.  Trowbridge said that the “performance” of each transportation/land use alternatives would be measured against them, so they are indeed important.  McDonell said that it had been suggested that the general public needs to be involved with this exercise, at some level.  He added that the “scoring” of alternatives should be a community-decided issue, and that the community should be comfortable with the “scoring” mechanism.  For example, McDonell said that a scoring mechanism for Los Angeles (or an industry standard) may not be appropriate for Madison.

 

Ken Leonard asked whether the TAC could develop something for the full OAC to review, and then take the draft product to the general public for their input.  Trowbridge said that Leonard’s suggestion was the current intent of the PB team, although it certainly can be modified.  Tom Carlsen asked to clarify the fact that only a few members of the OAC would be involved in the initial development of the goals and objectives, and that the full OAC would have a chance to react to the draft product at a later time.  Trowbridge said that it is up to the OAC and its members, but noted that this is the current plan of action.  Golden said that the PB team needed to get a sense of the OAC members as early in the process as possible.  He added that the PB team’s ability to anticipate the OAC’s viewpoints as this study moves forward is important – particularly during the formative stages of the study.  Carlsen stressed that he would not want the OAC to take this issue too lightly.

 

Kennedy said that it was important that the entire TAC be involved in this exercise.  Wagner reiterated Carlsen’s point about the importance of this exercise, and hoped that the consultant didn’t come to the goal/objective exercise with any preconceived notions of how this should end up, based on their experiences elsewhere.  Wagner said the we should have an opportunity to express our interests to the PB team (through a dialog) and develop goals and objectives around that, based on the information and expertise that they bring to the process.  Carlsen said that, with WisDOT, sometimes a consultant brings work for review, WisDOT reviews it and says “it isn’t the right rock”, and go back and “bring a different rock”.  Carlsen said that, with the AA goal/objective setting process, we should have a better idea of what we would like our “rock” to be before letting them do too much work on it.

 

Golden said that he interpreted the goal/objective setting as an OAC exercise.  However, Golden said that the technical input to this was very important, and added that he didn’t want to miss any important AA “guideposts” through this process, such as may be required for federal funding issues, etc.  Carlsen agreed that this could be an explicit goal – to ensure that the outputs can be used in subsequent stages of the project development process.  Wagner agreed, but added that it is important for the OAC to be involved from the very beginning – to ensure that our input helps frame the goal/objective approach.

 

Golden sensed that an early May meeting of the OAC would be necessary to address goal and objective issues.  The OAC agreed.  Trowbridge suggested that a joint OAC/TAC meeting might be a good idea, based on the OAC’s discussion this evening.  Golden agreed.  Trowbridge asked McDonell if we could schedule that meeting at this time.  McDonell agreed.

 

The Committee agreed that the Joint OAC/TAC meeting will be held Wednesday, May 3rd, at 6:00 pm, in Room 260 of the  Madison Municipal Building.

 

Dick Wagner asked that some background materials be provided to the OAC, regarding the goal/objective setting exercise, prior to the May 3rd Joint OAC/TAC meeting.  Trowbridge said that he would arrange that with the consultant.

 

 

9.            OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF NEXT STEPS IN THE AA PROCESS

 

Scott McDonell noted that the next steps in the AA process have been sufficiently covered in earlier discussions this evening.  The OAC agreed.

 

 

10.            FOLLOW-UP OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SETUP

 

The OAC agreed to schedule a June meeting – Wednesday, June 21st, 4:45 pm, in Room 260 of the Madison Municipal Building.

 

 

11.            ADJOURNMENT

 

The Committee adjourned its meeting at 5:35 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Link