HomeMy WebLinkAbout34. Staff Analysis - Ad Hoc Committee r s
City
of
Oshkosh
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Mark A. Rohloff, City Manager
DATE: February 20, 2020
RE: Recommendation from Ad Hoc Committee on Alternatives to Replace Special
Assessments
BACKGROUND
In July 2019, Council rejected a proposed ordinance to replace special assessments for road
construction with a Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) modelled in part from the city of
Neenah. The Neenah model used impervious surface as a surrogate to estimate traffic
impact. Following the decision to not proceed with this model, Council established an ad
hoc committee with two Council members (Mugerauer and Miller) and 10 at large members
of citizens and business owners to review alternatives to replace special assessments. The
ad hoc committee began its work in September and concluded its work with a
recommendation in January, 2020.
In short, the committee voted to recommend that a "flat rate" TUF be established. The fee
would be charged on a per developed parcel basis, with an$8 per month ($96/year) fee for
single and two family lots, and a $50 per month ($600/year) fee for all other developed
parcels, regardless of size or use. Council has asked staff to conduct an analysis of the
committee's recommendation and report to Council its findings and offer any additional
alternatives for Council to consider.
ANALYSIS
Please find attached a matrix prepared for the ad hoc committee that compares various
approaches discussed by the committee. Staff has reviewed several of the options that the
ad hoc committee discussed in greater detail. The options are summarized as follows:
2
Special Assessments/Status Quo
Pros:
• Based on reasonable assumption of benefit to properties.
• Well established under state statutes.
• Commonly used by municipalities with a long history in Oshkosh.
• Assesses costs to both taxable and tax exempt properties.
Cons:
• Benefit can last much longer than length of individual ownership.
• Inflation in construction costs has resulted in larger assessment bills. As an example,
staff's analysis indicates that the special assessment rate for a 32 foot wide concrete
residential street has increased by an average of 10.54% annually (from $36.00/ft. to
$115.70/ft.)between 2000 and 2020 (see attached analysis).
• City must borrow approximately $1 million annually to finance special assessments.
• Properties owners are not able to anticipate and budget for these expenditures.
Flat Rate Transportation Utility Fee to Replace Street and Utility Special Assessments
(Ad Hoc Committee's Recommendation)
Pros:
• Easy to explain and understand fee.
• Replaces special assessments for both streets and utilities.
• Affordable to residents and businesses.
• Fee not applicable to vacant parcels.
• Easy to collect via utility bill.
• Fee applicable to both taxable and non-taxable properties.
• City would not have to borrow$1 million annually to finance special assessments.
• Creates predictable amount for property owners to budget—no surprises.
Cons:
• To date, not used in Wisconsin.
• Only two land uses considered (single/two family and all others); presents equity
concerns with variety of land uses that exist in the city.
• Does not consider traffic impact of land use.
• Does not consider density/intensity of land use.
• Does not consider size of parcel.
3
Traffic Based Transportation Utility Fee
Pros:
• Most defensible option;basis for fee comes from nationally-recognized traffic
generation standards.
• Traffic generation method used successfully in other parts of the U.S.A.
• Easy to collect via utility bill.
• Fee applicable to both taxable and non-taxable properties.
• City would not have to borrow$1 million annually to finance special assessments.
• Creates predictable amount for property owners to budget—no surprises.
Cons:
• To date, not used in Wisconsin.
• More time consuming to establish, as parcels with multi-uses and unique uses will
need to be examined more carefully.
Vehicle Registration Fee
Pros:
• Historical authority under statutes.
• Recent increase in use of this method by cities, most recently to replace special
assessments.
• Easy to collect via State and annual vehicle registration.
• City would not have to borrow$1 million annually to finance special assessments.
Cons:
• Exempts vehicles>8,000 lbs., so it exempts vehicles that cause the most damage.
• Does not collect from users who come from out of the city.
• Shifts costs to residents and small businesses.
• Institutions with minimal vehicle ownership but large traffic impact will pay little to
nothing.
• Static amount of revenue dilutes buying power of fee over time.
• Estimated fee of$65 per vehicle would be largest city VRF in Wisconsin.
The committee was virtually unanimous that the current special assessment approach was
not ideal and needed to be replaced. Due to the ease of explaining and understanding, the
ad hoc committee felt that the Flat Rate TUF would be most acceptable to the general public.
Although there were differing opinions about which approach would be most ideal, the Flat
Rate TUF gained the greatest consensus among committee members. The committee also
agreed that regardless of which approach Council ultimately chooses, a significant public
4
education campaign would be necessary to explain the basis for any proposed change and
gain greater public understanding of the issue.
Meanwhile, staff was made aware that other Wisconsin cities and villages are beginning to
look at options to replace special assessments and/or develop a transportation fee to fund
both operating and capital transportation costs. Specifically, the city of Janesville has
circulated a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct a feasibility analysis for a transportation
utility. It appears as though the work on this analysis will be completed by the end of June,
2020.
OPTIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF
1. No change—leave special assessments in place.
2. Flat rate TUF with more categories (e.g. increase # of land use categories from 2 to
10+categories) to address equity issues.
3. Traffic based TUF.
4. Vehicle registration fee (VRF).
5. Hybrid approach of different methods (options 2-4 above—e.g. a VRF and a TUF).
6. Defer decision until city of Janesville analysis is complete.
If Council decides to proceed with any of the options 2 through 5, staff will conduct a more
in depth analysis of the actual components of the fee option. After staff presents details on
a proposed fee, staff believes that the public education process recommended by the ad hoc
committee would be most appropriate before Council takes any action on approving and
directing staff to execute a plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark A. Rohloff
City Manager
Attachments: Comparison of Alternatives to Special Assessments
Analysis of Special Assessment Rates, 2000-2020
RFP from the City of Janesville
co
L
a, u
0
L U o I— O N
T N — QI V N V) cn V) V) V1 in Z to V1 V1 Vl ° to VI V) V1 ° ° y)CU ° `
ilri u. To
>- r r r >- >- >- r N >- r >- >- Z } >O-• >- >- Z Z r Z r Z r r Z } O
O44- >- 0
O LL
(D a)
1
O_
7
N
U u .a
,U E N LL NV) V) V) V) to V) V) V) V1 VI V) V) ° CT
V) V) V) V) V) VI V) V1 VI V1 v a) a) a) a) a) v v a a, a, 0) 0 a, a) ill a) ° v v v a) ° } z }
O a I- r r r r r >- r r r r r r r z r r r r z r r r r z CU
Om
aU
U
L
h
a) X 0 vl h )n v) N v in In in )n 'A v) v
L u cov a, v a.) v v 0 v ar a ar a. 0 v v a a ° 0 v a a� 0 0 0 o a
`^O1 0 N I..• Z >- >- >- r >- >- Z >- >- z >- r Z r >- z Z Z r z r Z Z Z Z Z
U
U
L
N
(I) CU
a aci X
R
tip c '� c H v a) v) v ° a) 0 0 0 0 Q a, 0 0 . v v' 0 0 ' 0 0 0
C E_ n v c >• r r r z > z z z z z r z z } } } z Z } z z } >. >. } z
.a w `n ¢
C
LL L
rAA co
cu
vI
C v) — O
LL Q N d a a) a) a) a a) a) a) N a a) a) a) a N ° ° z a ° a) 0 d VI 0 0
C o >- >- r >- >- >- >- >- >- r >- >- >- >- >- >- r Z Z a r Z r z r r z z
U r
E111
V
V) co
CU c a
(n 0 >.
V) aJ a=, _a)
< U co a)
'C liCl U 0) 0 `n O O O o H ut O `n 'n o of 'n 0 in O O ut ° v) vt 41 Q v)
} Z O Z Z Z z a) a) a) aJ a) a) a1 a) a) 0) \ a)
CD > '°tit- > r > z r r z r r Z r z z r z r r r z r
} a)
U r
Q
N
6,1
++
CO ar 0
h '� E in v) L" vl v) in v) 0O O v' o 0 o O O `n (n �n z v) 0 ut v) V) in '
CU
y V) a) a a) a) a) a) a) aJ O a) a) a \ a)Q) a) a) a) a) °
0. 0 >- >- >.- >._ >_ >- >. >. z z > Z Z Z Z z r >_ >._ v) r z >- r r >- r Z
_ U }
co
L
A
>
4 C
C
< M1. E a)
4- M1• 7-_. �'• O C
O Cl)Oo
> U V C C .L
7 C O v) M1•— a) 0-
O C C o Ovl
' E a)
N C
co T >' U ° N M1. M1• cu
>
.L C r, U -0 L C M1• ) -C -O aJ O a-+
a, 0 UCU O of a) VI ut coo a_ La 0 aJ
a -0 0 _0 •L u v) C O M1• c 00 10
E -° C ut — Q C C •o U c9 •)-+ CE C
a) > M1, a) !o 0 a1 a) > O O co
V N > v >--
.2- O :C E 'UO �f ° O Q ° v d
tm/} u �, M1. C 'L a) -p C v) a) C -0 Q To L O_
`� 'a O a) > M1. a) a) )Oi) v Co >> co 0
0 ° -p C C D_ M1• O.r ut x C ,q (D _ L C a
a) u C \ >.. 'N ut C 0 LM 4,co
O a, Ou O- C -0 0 Y M1• — -O a) a)
> Cl) ,' a) i v a) L a) 0 0 Q L C C O' QJ 7 ut j C 7 C Q O
a) 'p Q1 a) C O_ X E +� •'n OL O O O •'a_' a �' U C O ° QJ L
15
E •,, O w a) O co v 0 0 o m L co .0 Y_ a) C a) ° o
0 u, •D ? 0 7 0_ O L _a d U , ,nE E O d ,n ,C ut a) C
° C co _ oA .E a) ° ° - a .E c L 3 ° 3 0- v) o
ai 0co 0 Q- u .n E .n ° • o a) o� L N u c) 3 c c •- Co71
C ' C N a) a) a) v) a) a) u fa 0 o C a) COQ) �' a) O _p aJ a1
N 0 C a) L .a X _ a) u ° -O O U -p ' N :o ;O
YU _ Cl-, E a, .O CO(o r0 y 7 ut �. v--, 'D •,n p of N N " vl yr
CU CD a 'n Co Co CO o a) C o o co Q v o U o �' °) o rco C C
ce O H co > a I- a U u w Q U v) a u Q u Q Q ^ — U — U u U
•
in
ea
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o in o �o
N v M o CO M N N M \ cn mot! N Q d °oo Li-) tNN o �r .r N. C
O r�"" e--• c-i O M N N M N c-1 ti r-i �' O
eZI o C� l\ \D �D c-+ c-" M c'n N > O O O .D M 'cr d" [� O
O C)
.N ,
Q
.ii C C C O C C O O co C N O O Ln .6 4 co C O C
•( in N S CO Lf) N ' c-+ CO O N cM c-' O O O O
O CO 10 O\ .6 M O O C0 O O O O
is N _C c-i N CO in N. O \A N co 4 C C Ln LO
O c-i c-I -y c-" c-1 ti N ER ER ER 0 64 ER C O r7' N c-i N.
Q N ER 63 ER ER ER ER ER ER 12 ER En N- ER
cc)It H
v O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O CO O O O O>" O ,<C1 c-1 In CO c-" N to co c-4 V. C c-i N. O1 C 4 O O O O X
Ln C iri vO M •O O CO Ln CO 4 Q\ r" Qi N \D cr.,
a\ O o O O X
r-I CO 00 CS, o --i CO NO\ 't Ln N. co N CO 'd1 O O O in
N ER ER En ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER C O 'C CO co N.
ER ER ch c-+ csi: ER C
ER ER ER
rX
a v
(4 E
N
CA et
•� >~
O o C O O o 0 o O o W O O o C C o O o in
C)
O N V C O O o C o C C O C o w
csi O O • , V e Ln To cei cri cri V N(I 1"� t—, ,-1 e� r-1 Url \
HI py - 1=
N Q
v _
'•-' 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C O LO C o Ln \O di O O C O �
met u> if') N CS CO in N ' r N CS, 'r CO O N a+ r 0 0 0 0 u
Ln O\ O O O O
y ft O O r N CO LU N. C' O d0' Vim' 'C N cC i 4 O C in Ln Ti
- NO r-+ c-+ c-" e--, c-i c-1 c--I N ER ER ER 67 ER ER O O d'+ N c-y N. O_
Q N U7 ER ER EA ER Eta ER ER O ER 0 d" N 4 O
EER ER ER
ro
E C) N
O O 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O CO O' O O O Ccu
Cl) C In \0 O co 0 'C O C ' O O CO \O in in CO C C C C co
O
41 o r-� Ln CO Ln N O M Ln CO M NN Ln c-1 0 4 O c-" N O O O C C=
r-( In Ln 'C O\ c-+ N co 4 CO CO in N co co Le) co coO co C C +-_
N ER ER ER ER , ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER O � N M O CO O C
ER ER i„ti ER r„ ER
ER C)
r,y ER E
et
•,..i N
V '^
CJ N Q
m
i
rzi
p iCP ce" o o \ \ o 0 0 e o o o \ \ \ \ o o cu
\ C
C uf„ M Lin N d' oN0 `� N d0+ CO 00 N Lc? E
U N \ OO OO O D . .D K K C M M M � ul• ~ N N '4� c y cc,
CA rsi
•.d • Q CC
xj 'co C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 to 0,
O in d' O O O O
in N. M in N N M O N c O C O O Q
O CO Ln O; cei C O CO O 4CO d\ cri N: L0 O` O O O O vl
ea N O r N co Ln N.. O\ C '� d+ N CO 'd1 L[i O O in in o
ZO c-" N c--• c-I c-" c-i N ER ER ER ER ER ER C C 4 N ,-+ NC
N ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER Q ER ER N 4EP
pa ER ER ER v
ea H C
O O O C C 0 0 0 C C C O O in O C in 0 0 0 0
co O mot! Ln CO o co Ln N. C c-• N. in N N C N. O C O O c
N O r. �t a1 4\ V c aD Ln N Oi N. O1 .6 a, c--, O C O O w
O CO on in \D NCO CO c-, N ER c--i r-i N O '� O O in O
N R Efl E ER ER ER ER ER ER ER Ee ER 64 ER ER CEft C C ER
N
64
ER
0
in in In Cr) � ° > in w: 3
� � CU � om1 `n Cr• Z a z
is z. s p t yvU) ( " s ..s" w G G G G G a) G C.) v v G E�
` O y 0 v } rO O O O 0 X c3 s Eet) �N G G G G n N 4 N ' C m a..0
co
U M N M C,zt+ 'mod' Q Cr) M M M °° Q m °: ,..] '� ,� O
a
U Q
C7
d4tCITY OF JANE SVTLLE
` ' Per,t4 Race
Request for Proposal (RFP)
For
Transportation Utility Feasibility Analysis
Issued by:
City of Janesville, WI
February 5, 2020
Proposals must be received no later than:
1:00 P.M., Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Submit RFP Responses to:
Max Gagin, Finance Director
City of Janesville, Finance Office
18 N. Jackson St.
PO Box 5005
Janesville, WI 53547-5005
For further information regarding this RFP contact:
Max Gagin, Finance Director
gaginm(ci.janesville.wi.us
608-755-3037
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background
1.3 Scope
1.4 Project Calendar
1.5 Contract Terms
2.0 PREPARING AND SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL
2.1 General Instructions
2.2 Proposal Organization and Format
2.3 Submitting the Proposal
2.4 Incurring Costs
2.5 Withdrawal of Proposals
3.0 CONSULTANT SELECTION AND AWARD PROCESS
3.1 Review of Submittals
3.2 Evaluation Criteria
3.3 Interviews/Presentations
3.4 Final Evaluation
3.5 Right to Reject Proposals and Negotiate Contract Terms.
3.6 Award of Contract
4.0 ATTACHMENTS
4.1 City of Janesville Standard Consultant Services Agreement
2
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide interested, qualified parties with
information to enable them to prepare and submit a proposal for a consulting
services contract. The selected consultant will complete or coordinate all
necessary activities for the analysis of creating a transportation utility.
1.2 Background
In 2014, the Janesville City Council approved increasing the annual street
rehabilitation program from six miles to 12 miles. The program includes chip
sealing, repaving, and reconstruction activities. The budgeted cost for this
program in 2020 is $6,447,000. The street rehabilitation program is funded from
a variety of sources as outlined below.
2020 ANNUAL STREET REHABILITATION PROGRAM
ITEM AMOUNT SOURCE
Chip Sealing $125,000 General Transportation Aids
Concrete Joint Repair $81,000 General Fund Note
Curb & Gutter $1,223,500 General Fund Note
Replacement
Curb & Gutter $1,223,500 Stormwater Utility
Replacement
Street Rehabilitation $2,619,000 General Fund Note
Street Rehabilitation $1,030,000 Wheel Tax
Street Rehabilitation $65,000 Street Maintenance Budget
Street Rehabilitation $80,000 General Transportation Aids
TOTAL PROGRAM $6,447,000
COSTS
The City of Janesville has experienced approximately 8% inflationary costs
increase for the annual street rehabilitation program the last few years. In order
to maintain the program's current service levels while mitigating adverse impacts
to the City's tax levy and General Obligation debt limits, the City's Stormwater
Utility rates were increased approximately $25 per year in 2020 to fund half of
curb and gutter replacement costs with operating revenue instead of the tax levy
or GO debt.
Additionally, the City provides bus service to the community through the
Janesville Transit System (JTS). The JTS budget is subsidized by the City's
General Fund by$1,188,785 in 2020. The City's budgeted General Fund subsidy
to JTS has increased nearly 25% in the past five years.
With State-imposed levy and GO debt limits, the City faces challenges providing
the annual street rehabilitation program and bus services our community expects
without alternative funding sources. The City is examining the creation of a
transportation utility to fund some or all of the annual street rehabilitation program
and bus services costs.
3
1.3 Scope
The City is seeking to work with a team of creative personnel with experience in
utility creation and in particular transportation utilities. The scope of work outlined
below should not be viewed as rigid and the consultant is encouraged to offer
alternative or additional efforts for this project where they believe is appropriate.
A. Study Obiectives
The objectives of this project are to:
1. Identify, compare, and contrast the potential funding methods for the
City's annual street rehabilitation projects and bus services; including,
but not limited to, changes to the existing funding sources and the
creation of a transportation utility.
2. Identify and summarize the policies to be considered, the impact on
the City's residential and commercial bases, and potential issues with
the implementation of those policies in relation to the existing City
ordinances and Wisconsin State Statues for each of the
recommended funding options.
3. Determine whether the creation of a municipal transportation utility
funded through a user fee is legal in Wisconsin.
4. Identify what the transportation utility may fund - administrative,
operating, and capital costs.
5. Propose methodologies for calculating transportation utility user fees.
6. Compile study results and present the finding and recommendations
to the City Council.
B. Scope of Work
1. Study Planning
a. Prepare and present a summary plan outlining the work to be
performed, data necessary to complete the project, and the
timing of the work to be done (i.e. project timeline).
b. Provide a draft or "go-by" of other final deliverables from
similar projects to provide the project team with an idea of the
general structure, content and level of detail expected to be
developed.
2. Study Work
a. Select and evaluate two (2) to four (4) sustainable and
equitable transportation utility funding methods, i.e. rate
structures,fixed charges or all based on trips.
b. Compare the amounts to be paid under the existing funding
method to the recommended method.
c. Types of rate structures, fixed charge, based on trips or other
methods. _
d. Classification of properties and how to estimate trips.
e. Identify the policies to be considered and prepare a brief policy
paper for each issue identified with respect to each
recommended funding method.
f. Describe the process and required information needed to re-
evaluate the recommended billing in future years as properties
are added/removed.
4
g. Identify the one-time and recurring people, process and
technology, costs necessary to effectively implement and
operate the recommended funding methods.
C. Study Deliverable(s)
Compile a final transportation utility feasibility report. The final report is expected
to include, but not be limited to:
1. A description of the study process.
2. A summary of the recommended funding method(s).
3. A preliminary rate analysis and billing options based on the sample
residential and commercial areas selected versus property taxes.
4. An estimate of the one-time and recurring costs associated with the
people, process and technology required to implement and operate
the recommended funding method(s).
5. Policies to be considered with respect to recommend funding
method(s); including, draft proposed ordinances based on the
recommended funding method(s).
6. All technical memoranda, summaries and detailed supporting data.
7. A summary of conclusions and recommendations section that
addresses the legal, financial and administrative aspects of the
recommended project funding method(s).
8. A marketing plan, implementation plan, timeline and cost estimate to
implement the recommended funding method(s).
The City will review the draft report and revisions will be made as necessary.
Following approval of the report by the City, the consultant will make a
presentation of the study findings to the City Council. If the transportation utility is
approved, a second contract would be needed to address the details in setting up
a utility such as writing the ordinance, establishing final billing units, setting a rate
schedule, etc.
1.4 Project Calendar
Listed below are estimated dates and times of actions related to this Request for
Proposal (RFP). In the event that the City of Janesville finds it necessary to
change any of the specific dates and times, it will do so by issuing amendments
to this RFP. Failure by the City to issue amendments to this schedule will not
invalidate this selection process.
DATE EVENT
February 5, 2020 Issue RFP
February 26, 2020 Proposals due on or before 1:00 p.m.
March 9-13, 2020 Interviews/presentations (if required)
March 23, 2020 Contract start date (estimated)
June 26, 2020 Contract completion
1.5 Contract Terms
The successful firm will be required to sign a standard City of Janesville
Consultant Services Agreement. This standard contract is attached.
5
2.0 PREPARING AND SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL
2.1 General Instructions
The evaluation and selection of a consultant will be based on the information
submitted in the proposal plus references and any required
interviews/presentations. Consultants should respond clearly and completely to
all requirements. Failure to respond to each of the requirements in the RFP may
be the basis for rejecting a submittal.
The proposal shall:
• Identify the qualifications of the consultant and any sub consultants,
including relevant projects.
• Identify the project manager and principal individual(s), qualifications, and
experience of those proposed to do the work.
• Define the project approach and identify the specific tasks involved in the
performance of the proposed work effort and the means by which these
tasks would be implemented.
• Include a separate sealed cost proposal.
• Proposals shall be limited to no more than 15 total pages.
2.2 Proposal Organization and Format
Consultants responding to this RFP must include the following information:
A. COVER LETTER, RFP SIGNATURE PAGE: Include here any cover letter
and the RFP signature page. Submittals in response to this RFP must be
signed by the person in the consultant's organization who is responsible for
the submittal.
B. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SUBMITTING CONSULTANT AND ANY
SUBCONSULTANTS WHO ARE TEAM MEMBERS: The specific
qualifications of the firm(s) to accomplish the work outlined should be
included. Specific projects relevant to this assignment with dates, clients, and
specific references that could comment on the quality of the work should be
identified. At least three references of directly relevant work must be provided
from projects completed within the last five years. References should note
the contact name, address, and phone number, along with the relationship to
the project and project site location. The results of any reference checks will
be provided to the evaluation committee and used when scoring the written
qualifications.
C. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL WORK ON THE
PROJECT: The qualifications must identify the project manager and explain
how this point of contact will lead the consultant's efforts. If interviews are
necessary for selection, it will be necessary for the proposed project manager
to conduct a majority of the presentation and be able to answer most
questions asked during the interview process. All other relevant personnel
who will work on the project should be identified in this section with relevant
specific experience identified. Include specific work assignments of the
proposed personnel. Resumes describing the educational and work
experiences of the key people proposed for this assignment should be
included.
6
D. PROJECT APPROACH: The proposed approach must include the specific
tasks anticipated for the project including how each task would be
implemented and the team members who would be responsible for each
task.
E. SEPARATE COST PROPOSAL: The submittal shall include a separate
sealed envelope, labeled as "PROJECT FEE", containing the estimated
hours by task and a not to exceed lump sum fee if filed using a hard copy. If
filed by email put the fee schedule in a separate file named "Project Fee". If
additional or alternative efforts are recommended these should be broken out
separately from the primary tasks.
2.3 Submitting the Proposal
Proposers may send the proposal by email to gaginm(c�ci.janesville.wi.us or if by
hard copy the submittal must include One Original (identify) PLUS 2 copies of
all materials required for acceptance of the proposal on or before 1:00 PM on
Wednesday, February 26, 2020 to:
Max Gagin
City of Janesville— Finance Office
18 N. Jackson St.
PO Box 5005
Janesville, WI 53547-5005
A consultant can hand deliver or email their proposal package on or before the
date and time listed above. Hand delivered submittals must be time-stamped by
the Janesville Clerk-Treasurer's Office by the stated time. Submittals received
after Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 1:00 PM will not be accepted.
All proposal submittals must be packaged, sealed, and show the following
information on the outside of the package if filed by hard copy, if filed by email
put this information on the cover sheet:
• Proposer's Name and Address
• Request for Proposal Title
• Proposal Due Date
2.4 Incurring Costs
The City of Janesville is not liable for any cost incurred by proposers in replying
to this RFP.
2.5 Withdrawal of Submittals
Proposers may withdraw a submittal, in writing, at any time up to the due date
and time. The written withdrawal notice must be received by the Utility Director.
The notice must be signed by an authorized representative of the proposer.
3.0 CONSULTANT SELECTION AND AWARD PROCESS
3.1 Review of Submittals
The City's evaluation team will include the Director of Public Works, Finance
Director, and Assistant to the City Manager.
7
The committee will review references and may request interviews/presentations.
The resulting information will be used to rate the submittals. The committee
reserves the right to make a selection based on submittals without scheduling
interviews. The evaluation committee's scoring will be tabulated, and submittals
ranked based on the numerical scores received.
Once all submittals have been rated, staff will open the envelope or file labeled
"PROJECT FEE". The project fee is not included in the evaluation criteria but
could influence the selection process. The Code of Federal Regulations allows
consideration of costs when selecting the consultant.
3.2 Evaluation Criteria
The proposals will be scored using the following criteria:
Description Points
Consultant Expertise 30
Consultant Relevant Project Experience 30
Project Team Qualifications 20
Project Approach 20
TOTAL 100
3.3 Interviews/Presentations
Top-scoring consultants, based on the evaluation of the written proposals, may
be required to have interviews/presentations to support and clarify their
proposals, if requested by the City. The City will make every reasonable attempt
to schedule each interview/presentation at a time on during the week of March
9th that is agreeable to the consultant. Failure of a consultant to complete a
scheduled interview/presentation to the evaluation committee may result in
rejection of the opportunity for award of a contract.
3.4 Final Evaluation
Upon completion of any interviews/presentations by proposers, the City's
evaluation committee will adjust the scores based on the information obtained in
the interview / presentation, possible reference checks, project fee, and any
other pertinent proposer information.
3.5 Right to Reject Proposals and Negotiate Contract Terms.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals if determined that they
do not satisfactorily meet the needs or qualifications required. The City reserves
the right to negotiate the terms of the contract, including the award amount, with
the selected proposer prior to entering into a contract.
3.6 Award of Contract
Attached is the City of Janesville Consultant Services Agreement to be executed
with the successful proposer. Once this has been executed by the City Manager
and selected consultant, a project kick-off meeting will be scheduled.
8