HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.g. Transit Opt-Out / Joint Powers AgreementTO: Mayor, City Council & City Administrator
FROM: Dean Johnson, Director of Community Development
DATE: May 13, 1988
SUBJ: Transit Opt Out
Attached are copies of the draft RFP for consultant services, a new six
cities "Joint Powers Agreement" and resolution to adopt the joint powers
agreement. I won't burden you with any details or comments on the RFP,
however, I will answer any questions you may have at the meeting.
This joint powers agreement is necessary to allow the six cities to enter
into contractual agreements with the RTB to receive the grant and with a
future consultant to award a contract and disburse funds. You will note
the City of Rosemount is maintaining its lead coordinating role for this
project.
It is our intention to advertise and mail out the RFP the first week in
June. Proposals will be due June 30, and a consultant should be selected by
late July.
I would recommend the City Council adopt the resolution approving the
joint powers agreement and authorize the signatures thereon.
CITY OF ROSEMOUIo
Resolution 1988-
A Joint Resolution for the
Area Needs Assessment/Transit Study
WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Legislature pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
(M.S. 473.388) has provided Minnesota cities with the authority to
investigate alternative forms of transit services and systems, this authority
commonly referred to as transit "Replacement System" or "Opt -out"; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 473.388, Subdivision 2.C., the six cities of
Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Prior Lake, Rosemount and Savage have
submitted a "Letter of Intent" to "opt out" on or before the July 1, 1984
deadline; and
WHEREAS, the 1987 Minnesota State Legislature pursuant to M.S. 473.388,
Subdivision 2, has authorized the termination of replacement transit service
by July 1, 1988, or by July 1, 1989 if a transportation evaluation study is
being conducted; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Prior Lake,
Rosemount and Savage must initiate a Needs Assessment Transit Study
before July 1, 1988 to investigate alternative forms of transit services and
systems and to comply with "Replacement Service" deadlines as enumerated
in M.S. 473.388, Subdivision 2, Paragraph C, Clause iii; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Transit Board (RTB) has granted up to $50,000 to
fund a consultant to assist the Technical Work Group and coordinate with
the RTB Staff in the Transit Needs Assessment Study; and
WHEREAS, the Transit Needs Assessment Study shall be completed by March
of 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement will dictate the contract with the
consultant, the relationship with the Regional Transit Board and the six
cities and the relationship among the cities.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Councils of Apple Valley,
Burnsville, Eagan, Prior Lake, Rosemount and Savage agree to adopt and
work within the responsibilities set forth in the Needs Assessment/ Transit
Study Joint Powers Agreement as attached hereto.
Adopted this 17th day of May, 1988.
Rollan Hoke, Mayor
ATTEST:
Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk
i *EDS ASSESSMENTJTRANSIT SA
FOR THE CITIES OF
PRIOR LAKE, SAVAGE, ROSEMOUNT, APPLE VALLEY, BURNSVILLE & EAGAN
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is between the cities of Prior Lake, Savage,
Rosemount, Apple Valley, Burnsville and Eagan;
WHEREAS, the cities of Prior Lake, Savage, Rosemount, Apple
Valley, Burnsville and Eagan are Minnesota municipal corporations
duly organized and licensed under the laws of the State of
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, each of the cities desire to jointly enter into a
contract with the Regional Transit Board (RTB) and a hired
Consultant to evaluate transit needs and to identify, analyze,
and recommend transit alternatives; and
WHEREAS, combining the Needs Assessment/Transit Study will,
through the Minnesota- Joint Powers Act,(M.S.A. s471.59), allow
the cities to save tax dollars and provide a more comprehensive
study to the transportation problems of the entire area, and the
needs of individual cities; and
WHEREAS, the Ant pursuit of a trans* study and need
assessment provides the cities with a unique opportunity to
identify transit alternatives that offer the cities the ability
to operate a,cooperative and/or independent transit systems; and
WHEREAS, the RTB has approved a request for assistance from
the six cities to perform the study. In the event that the study
should exceed the RTB assistance, the cities have agreed upon a
cost sharing formula; and
WHEREAS, each City which enters this Joint Powers Agreement
is obligated to complete the study in cooperation with the other
Cities; and
WHEREAS, each City,will be provided the opportunity to
evaluate the study and determine whether that -City wishes to
independently Opt -Out of the Metropolitan Transit system.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The parties jointly approve the Work Program/RFP to perform
the needs assessment/transit study, and authorize the necessary
signatures on the contracts with the RTB and the Consultant to be
selected.
2
0 •
2. Designate Mr. Dean Johnson, Community Development Director
with the City of Rosemount as the Study Coordinator, with
authorizations to execute contracts with the RTB and the
Consultant on behalf' of the six cities, and be responsible for
receipt and disbursement of funds, notifications of meetings and
updated information to the study participants, and retain all
pertinent records and files. The City of Rosemount shall be
named as depository of funds, and shall disburse monies on behalf
of the six cities.
3. Payment of this study shall be covered by the RTB grant
fund. Any study costs incurred in excess of $50,000 shall be
shared jointly by each City as set forth in the previogs Joint
Powers Agreement.
3
Adopted this _ day of ,
1988.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
By•
Its: Mayor
Attest:
Its: Clerk
Adopted this _ day of ,
1988.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
By•
Its: Mayor
Attest:
Its: Clerk
Adopted this ` day of
1988.
CITY OF SAVAGE
By•
Its: Mayor
Attest:
Its: Clerk
4
9
Adopted this _ day of
1988.
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
By•
Its: Mayor
Attest:
Its: Clerk
Adopted this _ day of
1988.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
By•
Its: Mayor
Attest:
Its: Clerk
Adopted this _ day of
1988.
CITY OF EAGAN
By•
Its: Mayor
Attest:
Its: Clerk
. ! i
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
On this day of , 19 , before me a
Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared
and
to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did
say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF
APPLE VALLEY, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument,
and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed
in behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and
said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act
and deed of said municipality.
(S E A L)
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
On this day of , 19 , before me a Notary
Public within and for said County,• personally appeared
and _ to
me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each dial say
that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF
BURNSVILLE, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and
that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in
behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and
said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act
and deed of said municipality.
(S E A L)
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
On this day of _ 19 , before me a Notary
Public within and for said County, personally appeared VIC ELLISON
and E.J. VANOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by .me
duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and
Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing
instruction, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed
.and sealed in behalf of said municipality by authority of its City
Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be
the free act and deed of said municipality.
(S E A L)
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT. )
On this day of , 19—, before me a Notary
Public within and for sal
County, personally appeared
andto
me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each_ did say
that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that
the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and. sealed in behalf
of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor
and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed
of said municipality.
(S E A L)
Notary Public _
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
On this day of 19 , before me a Notary
Public within and for said County, personally appeared
and to
me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say
that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF
ROSEMOUNT, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and
that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in
behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and
said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act
and deed of said municipality.
(S E A L)
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY.OF SCOTT )
._Qn this day of , 19 before me a Notary
Public within and for said County, personally appeared
and to
me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say
that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF
SAVAGE, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that
the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf
of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor
and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed
of said municipality.
(S E A L)
Notary Public
t
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL'
�tlJ!'1 �o •
for Consultant Services V
on the
Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Prior Lake,
Rosemount and Savage
Needs Assessment Transit Study
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
In 1981 the Minnesota Legislature enacted legislation which enabled certain
communities in the metropolitan area to "opt -out" of the Metropolitan Transit
Commission's (MTC's) service area Communities were eligible if they met the
following three criteria:
o Community is within the metropolitan transit taxing district;
o Community is not served by the MTC or is served only with MTC bus routes
which begin or end within the applying community; and
o Community has fewer than four scheduled runs of MTC bus service during off-
peak hours as defined in Minnesota Statutes.
The communities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Rosemount, Prior Lake and
Savage were among the sixteen communities submitting letters of intent to "opt
out" of MTC service prior to the July 1, 1984, deadline. In the 1987 session,
additional legislation was passed which provides a sunset provision to the "opt
out" program. Under this legislation, communities who have previously
submitted letters of intent must submit an application by
July 1, 1988. A twelve-month extension may be requested if the community
notifies the RTB before July 1, 1988, that the city is in the process of
completing a study assessing local transit needs.
The six cities will conduct a Needs Assessment Transit Study (NATS) to
determine if current transit services are meeting the needs of residents and
employers, and to determine the most advantageous method of providing these
services, including "opting out" of the MTC service area. The cities have
requested and received funding from the Regional Transit Board (RTB) for the
purpose of conducting the study.
Purpose and Approach
The purpose of the Needs Assessment Transit Study is to provide an overall
evaluation of transit needs and services in each of the six cities. This will
be accomplished through an examination of existing and future transit needs of
area residents; evaluation of existing services in meeting these needs;
0
-2-
identification of transit strategies for unmet needs; and evaluation of service
delivery options, including the advantages and disadvantages of "opting out."
While the six communities are working cooperatively on this study, it is
realized that different needs may exist in different communities and,
therefore, different transit strategies may be appropriate.
It is expected that NATS will build on previous studies of transit needs and
approaches within the six cities. These include the RTB's 1986 Transit Service
Needs Assessment which, together with addressing approaches to meeting transit
needs from a regional perspective, also evaluated needs and strategies by
community and subarea. This included identification of unmet needs for the six
cities and strategies to satisfy those needs. In addition, all of the
communities except Prior Lake were the subject of a 1982 study which examined
approaches to implementing new service.
The intent of the service needs assessment is not to duplicate work done in
these and other studies but rather to expand upon those studies, focusing to
service delivering new and innovative approaches.
Study Organization and Responsibility
Recognizing their common transit needs, the six cities have developed a joint
powers agreement for the purpose of conducting this study. Overall management
of the study will be the responsibility of the six cities through the joint
powers agreement. City councils of the six cities will be responsible for
setting policy and adopting the final service program. The RTB will also be
an active participant in the study, funding the consultant and providing
technical assistance and reviewing and approving any management plan which may
result from the study.
A private consulting firm or firms will be employed by these six cities to
conduct major elements of the work program. The consultant will have primary
responsibility for the needs assessment, survey research, evaluation of
existing services, identification of service options, as well as preparation of
necessary graphics. It is expected that the consultant will perform in a
coordinated team approach and will develop strong working relationships with
representatives of the six cities and the RTB. The consultant will be expected
to attend most bi-monthly PAT meetings. In addition, the consultant may be
required to meet with and make presentations to each of the six cities and
attend other meetings as necessary.
City managers for the six cities will serve as the Project Management Team
(PMT). This body shall be responsible for advising the respective city councils
on transit policy development and serve as an interface between the technical
work group and the city councils.
The Technical Work Group (TWG) shall consist of representatives from the six
cities. The TWG will be responsible for execution of the needs assessment and
for transit policy development. This body will also be responsible for
advising the PMT and respective city councils on the status of the needs
assessment and related transit issues. The technical work group will meet on a
regular basis for the course of the study.
t
-3-
The TWG will provide the overall management for the study. It will be
responsible for finalizinthe work program and developing and issuing the
request for proposal (RFPgj for consultant assistance. The TWG will review the
proposals and select a consultant.
A Project Advisory Team (PAT) shall be created for execution of the attached
work program. The PAT shall consist of representatives of the six cities, the
RTB and the consultant. Representatives of other agencies will be invited to
attend PAT meetings when appropriate. The PAT is created because the cities
acknowledge a need for expertise in transit planning and assistance to perform
the needs assessment transit study.
-4 -
II. WORK PROGRAM AND PRODUCTS
This section identifies the major activities to be conducted as part of the
transit needs study. Each of the major work tasks is described as well as
anticipated products and timing. For each task the responsibilities of the six
cities, RTB and consultant are specified.
Task 1 - Initiation of Study
This task involves the activities necessary to initiate the study. These
include finalizing the work program, issuing a request for proposal (RFP) for
consultant assistance, selecting a consultant, establishing a project
management team, and initiating work on the study. Each of these is briefly
described below:
o Finalizing the Work Program. The draft work program will be reviewed by
representatives of each of the cities and the Regional Transit Board
(RTB). Any necessary revisions will be made and the work program will be
finalized.
o Organize Project Advisory Team. This group will be comprised of
representatives of each of the cities, the RTB and other agencies as
appropriate.
o Issue Request for Proposal (RFP) and Select Consultant.An RFP will be
developed based on the final work program. Proposals will be reviewed by a
consultant selection committee composed of representatives of the six
cities and RTB which will recommend a consultant to the six cities.
o Initiation of Study. This will include executing the contract with the
selected consultant and initiating the study. It is anticipated that some
of the data collection activities will be conducted by the RTB during the
consultant selection process.
Products:
o Draft and Final Work Program
o Request for Proposal (RFP)
o Recommendation on Selected Consultant
o Contract With Selected Consultant
o Membership in Project Management Team (PMT)
Responsibilities:
Cities
- Develop Draft Work Program and RFP
- Adopt Work Program
- Identify Project Advisory Team Membership
- Issue RFP and Conduct Consultant Selection Process
- Negotiate and Execute Contract With Consultant
-5-
RTB
- Initiate Primary Data Collection Activities
Assist With Issuing RFP and Participate in Consultant Selection
Timing:
o RFP Issued by June 1, 1988
o Consultant Selected by July 21, 1988
Task 2 - Examination of Existing and Future Transit Needs
This task will focus on examining the exisiting and future needs for transit
services within the six communities. Existing information, such as that used
in the Transit Service Needs Assessment will be expanded upon by using the
Metropolitan Council's 2010 forecasts and conducting other surveys within the
communities. While not anticipated to be a major focus of the study, the
possibility that a new regional airport site could be located within the
communities should be considered. Specific activities to be conducted include:
o Analysis of existing and future projects for the following transit need
indicators:
population and employment concentrations and potential future transit
generators
the concentration and distribution of transit dependent market
segments:
o elderly (65 and over)
o youth (under 18)
o low income
o households with no automobile available
travel desires for work and non -work trips
- highway congestion
o Special surveys of the transit needs of employment concentrations and other
activity centers within the communities
Products;
o Technical Memorandum on Existing and Future Transit Needs
o Technical Memorandum on Results of Any Special Surveys
o Base Map
Responsibiliies:
Cities
- Provide Information on Future Transit Activity Centers
- Assist with Preparation and Approve Technical Memorandums
- Project Advisory Team Minutes and Meetings
RTES
- Gather Primary Data and Assist With Preparation of Technical
Memorandum on Existing and Future Transit Needs
- Assist With Special Surveys
Consultant
- Conduct Special Surveys and Prepare Technical Memorandum on Existing
and future Transit Needs
- Develop Base Map
Timing: September 12, 1988
Task 3 - Identification of Existinq Transit Services
This task will document all of the existing transit services being provided
within the communities. This will include identification of regular route
services, park-and-ride lots, paratransit services such as rideshare programs,
and the specialized services provided in the communities. These services were
identified in the Transit Service Needs Assessment. This information will be
updated as necessary.
Products:
o Technical Memorandum on Existing Transit Services
Responsibilities:
Cities
- Assist with Preparation and Approve Technical Memorandum
- Project Advisory Team Minutes and Mailings
RTi3
- Assist With Preparation of Technical Memorandum
Consultant
- Prepare Technical Memorandum on Existing Services
Prepare Necessary Graphics
- Identify All Planned or Programmed Transportation Improvement Studies
Timing: September 12, 1988
Task 4 - Evaluation of Transit Needs and Services and Identification of Unmet
Transit Needs
In this task, the results of task 2 will be compared with those of task 3.
Existing and future transit needs will be evaluated against existing services
to identify unmet transit needs.
Products:
o Technical Memorandum on Unmet Transit Needs
Responsibilities:
Cities
- Assist with Preparation and Approve Technical Memorandum
- Project Advisory Team Minutes and Mailings
-7-
RTB
- Assist With Development of Technical Memorandum
Consultant
- Complete Analysis and Prepare Technical Memorandum
Timing: October 15, 1988
Task 5 - Identification of Transit Strategies
This task will focus on the development of the most appropriate transit
strategies to meet the unmet transit needs identified in the previous task.
Strategies identified in the Transit Service Needs Assessment will be reviewed
based on the additional analysis conducted as part of this study.
Products:
o Technical Memorandum on Transit Strategies
Responsibilities:
Cities
- Assist with Preparation and Approve Technical Memorandum
- Project Advisory Team Minutes and Mailings
RTB
- Assist With Development of Transit Strategies and Preparation of
Technical Memorandum
Consultant
Identify Transit Strategies and Prepare Technical Memorandum
- Identify All Planned or Programmed Transportation Improvement Studies
Timing: November 15, 198$
Task 6 - Evaluation of Service Delivery Options
This task will compare the different approaches to service delivery methods
which the communities may wish to pursue. This will focus on the advantages
and disadvantages of "opting -out" of the MTC service area and other methods the
communities could pursue to make the transit improvementsrecommendedin Task
5.
o Comparison of the cost of providing existing transit services within the
communities with the property taxes earmarked for transit generated by the
communities and other funding sources.
o Review and evaluation of the different approaches to transit service by
delivery methods including establishment of a separate system by "opting -
out" of the MTC service area, making transit improvements within the
existing structure or other arrangements.
0 i
-8- .
Products:
o Technical Memorandum on Service Delivery Options
Responsibilities:
Cities
- Assist in Evaluation of Service Delivery Options
- Develop Recommended Approach
- Approve Technical Memorandum
Project Advisory Team Minutes and Mailings
RTB
Assist With Evaluation of Service Options and With Development of
Technical Memorandum
Consultant
Conduct Evaluation of Service Delivery Options
- Prepare Technical Memorandum
Timing: December 15, 1988
Task 7.- Preparation of Final Report
This task will involve the preparation of a final report on the study. The
technical memorandums will form the basis for the final report. The report
will include appropriate recommendations and follow-up activities.
Products:
o Draft Final Reports
o Final Report
Responsibilities:
Cities
- Review Draft and Final Reports
- Project Advisory Team Minutes and Mailings
RTB
- Review Draft and Final Reports
Consultant
- Prepare Draft and Final Reports
Timing: Draft report completed by January 30, 1989.
-9 -
III. PROPOSAL GUIDELINES AND SCHEDULE
A. Time Schedule
The anticipated starting date for consultant work on the HATS assessment is
July 25, 1988. The timeline for completion of the various work elements
is outlined in the RFP, with completion of the final reports by January 30,
1989.
B. Maintenance of Records and Reports
The selected consultant will be required to maintain records necessary to
complete monthly reports on the contract activity which shall include the
kind of service delivered, the period of time involved, and the projects
provided.
C. Requested Proposal Content and Format
The consultant proposal should include the following:
1. Cover Letter. This should include the name and address of the lead
consultant and the names of other firms or individuals participating
in the proposal.
2. Introduction. The consultant should indicate their understanding of
the project, its goals and key elements.
3. Project Organization. This should include the proposed approach, the
identification and roles of the lead consultant and any subconsultants
and anticipated interaction with the six cities and proposed
committees.
4. Work Plan. This should include a detailed outline of the tasks,
target dates, responsibilities, hours, hourly rates, professional
classifications, expenses, and a description of the products for each
task. Consultants are encourages to suggest innovative or alternative
approaches to the work elements outlined in the RFP.
5. Project Staffing. This should include identification of the
individuals directly responsible for executing the project. A brief
summary of their experience and education should be provided. Of key
importance will be the qualifications of the project manager.
6. Experience and Qualifications. This section should include a brief
description of each firm, area of expertise, work on similar projects,
and location.
7. Project Budget. This section should include the proposed budget for
the project. Included should be person -hours per task, hourly rates,
classifications, equipment and expenses.
•
so
C
8. Client References. Five client references, from projects of similar
scope, should be provided for each of the major firms.
9. Project Timeline. The consultant should provide a timeline for
completion of each of the work tasks and the total project.
10. The proposer must demonstrate utilization of affirmative action
employment policies by supplying the current composition of employees
by race, ethnic group and gender.
D. Proposal Submission and Consultant Selection Process
1. Requests for proposals will be issued on June 1, 1988. Proposals must
be received no later than June 30, 1988. All questions concerning,the
RFP should be directed to:
Katherine Turnbull
Planning Manager
Regional Transit Board
(612) 292-8789
Please limit contacts to either June 14 or 15.
2. Submission of Proposals
All proposals must be sent to:
Dean Johnson
Director of Community Development
City of Rosemount
PO Box 510
1875 - 145th Street West
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068
3. Budget
A maximum of $50,000 has been budgetedforthe consultant to preform
this work.
4. Selection Process
Members of the Project Advisory Team will review the proposals and
recommend the selection of a consultant. Interviews with finalists
may be necessary and would be held July 14 and 15. Finalists will be
notified by July 8 if interviews are necessary. The selection process
will be completed by July 21, 1988.
-11-
5. Evaluation
The consultant will be selected based on the following evaluation
criteria:
a. Project cost detail, including person -hour commitment, billing
rates, and commitment to complete the project within the proposed
budget and timeline.
b. Expressed understanding of project objectives, including issues,
problems, approach and team concept.
c. Qualifications of firm and personnel, including relevant firm
experience, project team composition, management structure,
qualifications and experience of key personnel and commitment of
time to project.
d. Project work plan, including comprehensive approach to proposed
elements, innovative approaches, understanding of the key
components and overall structure.
E. Cancellation of Solicitation
This request for proposal does not obligate the six cities to complete this
project. The six cities reserve the right to cancel the solicitation if it
is considered to be in its best interest and may reject any and all
proposals.
HB/RFP/TX2