Public Works Committee - wirapids.org

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING

.

Public Works Committee

Tom Rayome, Chairperson

Jake Cattanach, Secretary

Dean Veneman

Mayor Blaser

Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Public Works Committee to be held via remote videoconferencing on Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 6:00 pm. Because of the pandemic, the public will be unable to attend this meeting in person; however, the public may listen to the meeting by calling 1-312-626-6799 Access code: 849 2058 9034#. The meeting will also be streamed LIVE on the City of Wisconsin Rapids Facebook page. This meeting is also available after its conclusion on the City’s Facebook page and Community Media’s YouTube page, which can be accessed at www.wr-cm.org. If a member of the public wishes to submit comments to the Public Works Committee regarding an agenda item, please contact Committee chair Tom Rayome via email at [email protected] before the meeting.

Agenda

1. Call to order

2. Review DPW Report

3. Review One Mile Creek storm water dredging project scope

4. Review speed limit on Two Mile Ave east of 16th Street

5. Review proposals for consulting services to assist the City in purchasing necessary real-estate for the W Jackson

St project.

6. Review proposals from consulting services to develop a transportation utility model

7. Review referral list

8. Adjourn.

Tom Rayome, Chairperson f f f - p p p

The City of Wisconsin Rapids provides access to meetings to all citizens. If access to this meeting through video or audio means is not possible due to a disability, notification to the City’s IT Manager at 715-421-8288 at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting is encouraged to request accommodations.


Date of Request: December 21, 2020

Requestor: Joe Terry

Request/Referral: Consider scope of One-Mile creek dredging and make recommendation to the Common

Council

Background information: At the prior two Public Works Committee meetings, action to affirm or expand the

project scope of the One-Mile Creek Dredging Project has been delayed with concerns expressed about possible

funding challenges.

The Council approved a project budget and scope for the One Mile Cr project. This project is budgeted to be

financed from the Storm Water Utility Fund, which is a user fee based fund separate from the General Fund or

any other fund; therefore, funds are available to perform the project as budgeted.

The approved budget allows for dredging of the lower pond and fixing the lower dam. Based on preliminary

estimates, an additional ~$40,000 is needed to expand the scope and remove the upper dam and dredge the

upper pond.

Additional information can be found on the two previous referral documents (attached).

If this project is to be performed in 2021, the Engineering Department needs to begin developing easements,

plans, permit applications, and administrative preparation without further delay.

Options available:

1. Consider a motion to define an expanded project scope other than what can be accomplished within

the approved, 2021 Budget of $270,000 (enough to dredge lower pond and repair lower dam). This may

include a motion to dredge the lower pond, repair the lower dam, remove the upper dam, and dredge

the upper pond for an estimated $307,000.

2. Consider a motion for a budget amendment to stop the project and remove project funding for 2021.

3. Take no action, which would affirm the project as defined in the approved, 2021 Budget.

Action you are requesting the committee take: Staff recommends proceeding with the project as budgeted to

dredge the lower pond and repair the lower dam.

How will the item be financed? The Council approved project budget and scope for the One Mile Cr project is

$270,000 paid from the Storm Water Utility, which is a user based fee separate from the General Fund or any

other fund. The approved budget allows for dredging of the lower pond and fixing the lower dam.

jterry

Text Box

PW-3


Date of Request: 10/20/20

Requestor: Joe Eichsteadt, City Engineer

Request/Referral: Review the recent neighborhood meeting for the One Mile Creek project and

consider project-scoping options.

Background information:

The Engineering Dpt and consulting firm met with One Mile Creek property owners on

Thursday, October 15th, 2020 at 4:00pm at Sand Lot Park to discuss Phase II of the study.

The goal of the study was to provide answers to everyone’s questions and hopefully arrive at a

decision point on granting easements to the City for performing the project work. It was

requested at the meeting that property owners notify us by October 26th to see where they

stand on granting an easement or not.

Resident feedback we received by October 26th:

Carol Katzmark, Scott & Dawn Freeberg – in favor of dredging both the lower and upper ponds along with repair/replacing both the lower and upper dams.

Attachments: 1) Meeting Agenda & Minutes 2) Exhibit Maps (qty 3) 3) Meeting sign-in sheet

Options

1) Repair lower dam and dredge lower pond - ~$233,000

2) Repair lower dam, remove upper dam, dredge both reservoirs - ~$307,000

3) Do nothing -$0 (permit requirements for improving water quality will require city efforts

elsewhere and property owners will need to expense efforts to maintain what they have

on the waterway)

Terry Family

PW-3.1

Note 1 - There is desire by property owners to have the upper dam rebuilt at a cost of

$108,000. Given the costs, the liabilities, and little to no benefit to the City as a whole, it would

be difficult to recommend this option. Perhaps the City could work it into the project if the

costs were assessed to the property owners.

Note 2 - Neither the upper dam nor the lower dam are permitted by the DNR. If the City wishes

to use either pond for water quality treatment we need to have legal access to the ponds and

get the dams permitted.

Benefits

City - The benefit to the City (as a whole) is that the One Mile Creek ponds are already

treating storm water and is a very cost effective option as compared to other options

elsewhere in the City. For example, the lower pond will achieve treatment rates of

approximately:

o $1,704/lb/yr for TP (136.7lbs/yr) and o $6,753/ton/yr for TSS (34.5T/yr)

The next most cost effective option that was identified in the City’s Master Storm Water

Management Plan ‘18 was for a pond at 1st and Riverview Expressway which had a comparable

cost of

o $5,800/lb/yr for TP (28.3 lbs/yr) and o $23,500/T/yr for TSS (7.0T/yr).

So the next best option for the City is 3.4 times more expensive in removing TP and TSS and can

only remove 1/5th of the volume of pollutants.

Property Owners - The benefit to the property owners is that maintenance is covered by the

City so they can enjoy what they have today.

Cost Effectiveness

Lower Pond Treatment – 136.7 lbs/yr TP and 34.5 T/yr TSS Lower Pond Cost - $233,000

$3.38/lb TSS removed in Lower Pond

Treatment with Upper Pond – 139.2 lbs/yr TP and 35.5 T/yr TSS Cost with Upper Pond Dredging (no Upper Dam) - $307,000

$37/lb TSS removed in Upper Pond [$81/lb TSS removed in Upper Pond with Upper Dam]

Eric Thompson from MSA stated, “you get essentially the same performance from one pond as

you do from two and the cost-return on fixing the upper dam is simply not favorable.”

Options available

1. Repair lower dam and dredge lower pond - ~$233,000

2. Repair lower dam, remove upper dam, dredge both reservoirs - ~$307,000

3. Do nothing -$0 (permit requirements for improving water quality will require city efforts

elsewhere and property owners will need to expense efforts to maintain what they have

on the waterway)

Recommendation: Engineering Dpt would recommend focusing efforts at this point on the

lower pond to keep the project moving forward especially given the investment made up to this

point. There are only four property owners to work with and this would provide definitive

answers to questions related to the dam permitting, requirements and liabilities along with

more definitive dredging costs. At some future point the upper dam and upper pond could be

reconsidered with the knowledge gained from the lower pond and lower dam.

Action you are requesting the committee take: We are requesting that the Committee select

Option 1 – Repair lower dam and dredge lower pond as the option to pursue.

How will the item be financed? $270,000 is the 2021 budget request through the Storm Water

Utility.

© 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 Maxar ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS

ONEMILE CREEK PONDS OUTLET DESIGN CONCEPTSCITY OF WISCONSIN RAPIDS

CITY OF WISCONSIN RAPIDS, WOOD COUNTY, WI

PROJECT NO.

06343042SHEET

----EXISTING RESERVOIR BATHYMETRY. DRAWN BY: RRS

DESIGNED BY: MH

CHECKED BY: EJT

PLOT DATE: 10/14/2020 9:18 AM, \\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\06\06343\06343042\CADD\C3D\06343042_Exhibit1_ExistingConditions_09082020.dwg

PROJECT DATE: .

NO. DATE REVISION BY

1 10/14/20 .

. . .

. ..

.

.

.

0 50 100

SURVEYED CROSS SECTIONS

LOWER POND 100-YR FLOOD BOUNDARY: 1005.01 FEET

UPPER POND 100-YR FLOOD BOUNDARY: 1006.42 FEET

EXISTING WATER SURFACE: 1003.1 FEET


WATER SURFACE WITH NO UPPER DAM: 1003.1 FEET

WOODLAND DRIVE

TWO MILE AVENUE

LIN

CO

LN S

TRE

ET

DRAFT© MSA Professional Services, Inc.

ENGINEERING | ARCHITECTURE | SURVEYINGFUNDING | PLANNING | ENVIRONMENTAL

www.msa-ps.com(608) 242-77791702 Pankratz St Madison, WI 53704

MSA SURVEYED POINTS

CITY SURVEYED POINTS

EXHIBIT #1




PROJECT NO.

06343042SHEET

----EXHIBIT 2 - PROPOSED RESERVOIR OPTION 1. DRAWN BY: RRS

DESIGNED BY: MH

CHECKED BY: EJT

PLOT DATE: 10/14/2020 9:26 AM, \\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\06\06343\06343042\CADD\C3D\06343042_Exhibit2_ProposedOption1_09082020.dwg

PROJECT DATE: .


1. 10/14/2020 .

. . .

. ..

.

.

.

0 50 100

5 FOOT DEPTH TO RESERVOIR BOTTOM

WATER SURFACE WITH NO UPPER DAM: 1003.1 FEET

WOODLAND DRIVE

TWO MILE AVENUE

LIN

CO

LN S

TRE

ET




DAM REMOVED

EXHIBIT #2






PROJECT NO.

06343042SHEET

----EXHIBIT 3 - PROPOSED RESERVOIR OPTION 2. DRAWN BY: RRS

DESIGNED BY: MH

CHECKED BY: EJT

PLOT DATE: 10/14/2020 9:28 AM, \\msa-ps.com\fs\Project\06\06343\06343042\CADD\C3D\06343042_Exhibit3_ProposedOption2_09082020.dwg

PROJECT DATE: .


1 10/14/20 .

. . .

. ..

.

.

.

0 50 100

WOODLAND DRIVE

TWO MILE AVENUE

LIN

CO

LN S

TRE

ET




5 FOOT DEPTH TO RESERVOIR BOTTOM

WATER SURFACE WITH UPPER DAM: 1003.1 FEET

WATER SURFACE WITH UPPER DAM: 1004.3 FEET

DAM REMAINS



EXHIBIT #3

City of Wisconsin Rapids One-Mile Creek Reservoir Study

Neighborhood Meeting 4:00pm October 15, 2020

Meeting Minutes

Phase 2 Complete - This meeting marks the conclusion of MSA’s current contract with the City.

Survey Results & Mapping – Exhibit #1 • Compilation of older City survey and MSA data from August 20, 2020 • ‘Normal’ Water Level reflects gate crest at time of survey • Survey limitations:

o Upper pool ‘dent’ on south side o Very steep slope on northern side of lower pool

Options City is Considering: * Prices depend on bidding and/or what components City takes on with own crews ** Option selected, if any below, or other, is at discretion of City Council.

1. Repair lower dam - $169,000 Dredge lower reservoir - $64,000 TOTAL = $233,000

2. Repair lower dam - $169,000 Remove upper dam ~ $20,000 (depends very much on scale of removal and restoration) Dredge both reservoirs - $118,000 TOTAL = $307,000

3. Do nothing - $0 City has State Permit requirements to improve stormwater quality treatment and will have to do projects elsewhere, leaving this project to adjacent land owners.

4. Repair lower dam- $169,000 Repair upper dam – $108,000 Dredge both reservoirs – $118,000 TOTAL = $395,000

Requested 2021 City Budget - $270,000 (requires City Council approval)

The City, in cooperation with all property owners adjacent to the ponds, and in seeing the mutual benefit of all parties would like signed easement documents from all surrounding property owners to conduct the project.

City and Residents need to come to consensus on project – notify City Staff by 4:00pm October 26th

City Contact Information:

Joe Eichsteadt Nicholas Dums City Engineer Design Engineer II [email protected] [email protected] 715-421-8251 715-421-8209 After presentation by Eric Thompson (MSA) of the above-listed topics (including explanation of enclosed exhibits), questions, concerns, and comments were then taken by residents in a non-formal manner, including the following:

1. Question as to how survey was performed by MSA to obtain x-sections of reservoir areas. It was explained that survey was completed utilizing survey crew members in waders to take shots in the middle of the reservoirs.

2. A comment was made regarding the lack of aesthetics and water quality in the upper reservoir and that the resident believed that the upper pond should be dredged.

3. Two additional and separate residents were also in favor of dredging the upper pond and also added that they strongly feel the upper dam should stay in some capacity, whether left in place or replaced.

4. There was some general discussion of what signing an easement would mean and what restrictions might be placed on property owners. It was explained that the easement documents had not been finalized, but generally speaking, the City would need to restrict any permanent items/structures from being placed in easement areas that would impede on City’s future efforts to maintain the reservoir areas or the dams. It was also explained that property owners would still own the land and that the City would only be granted the right to enter on this land for the purposes of maintaining the dams or reservoirs.

5. There was some question as to if or how the easement areas would be restored after it was disturbed due to dredging or other maintenance activities. It was explained that these areas would likely just be re-seeded by the City and restored with grass.

6. Alderman Thad Kubisiak was present at the meeting and questioned as to why the replacement of the upper dam was estimated to be so high of a cost. It was explained by MSA that the cost estimate was prepared based on typical costs of municipal dams of this particular size/type that are typically installed by private contractors and that the price also includes ancillary items that go into the construction of a dam (i.e. groundwater dewatering and diversion of upstream surface water).

7. There was a question as to the shape and size of proposed easement area. A preliminary drawing of the proposed easement area was handed out as a reference.

8. There was a question as to the project limits and scope of the project regarding if any work was proposed just downstream of the upper dam and all the way downstream to the lower dam. MSA explained that some of these details have not yet been determined because the survey and study so far has been of a conceptual nature. Dredging quantities so far are very preliminary. The amount of dredging necessary for both reservoirs is still largely unknown at this point and additional survey would be required.

9. There was a question as to how much the upper pond water surface would come down if the upper dam was removed. MSA explained that it would be estimated to come down about 1.2’ in

mailto:[email protected]


elevation. Another question was asked as to how much additional ground surface would be exposed laterally along adjacent properties if the upper dam was removed. MSA estimated that based on approximate slopes in the area, approximately 10’ of ground surface could be exposed around the upper reservoir.

10. After questions and comments were taken by the public, the City explained that the goal of the meeting was to present findings from the study, answer questions that the public has, and hopefully come to a consensus on how to proceed and decide what option worked best for both the City and the local residents. A general question was then asked as to if there were any concerns or hesitation in signing an easement for the proposed work. Some residents showed some willingness to sign an easement, especially if the scope of the project was tailored to their preference (i.e. keeping the upper pond by either maintaining or replacing upper dam).

11. There was a question as to the reasoning for the October 26th date for notifying the City of their preferences for the project. It was explained that generally speaking, the City’s goal was mainly to provide residents enough time to think about everything and communicate with City staff as to any preferences or direction that they would prefer to see. This will then allow the City to hopefully define a more detailed scope for the project and move forward with the project.


Date of Request: November 23, 2020


Request/Referral: Consider scope of One-Mile creek dredging and make recommendation to the

Common Council

Background information: In October, information was presented about the community meeting, staff

recommendations, and opinions from the neighboring resident relating to the structures, dredging, and

benefits on the One-Mile Creek. Based on that, staff has continued to discuss options for moving

forward and has the following comments and recommendations:

As mentioned at the November Public Works Committee meeting this project has always been

desired to be a win-win project for the City and adjacent property owners. However, given the

additional detail from the preliminary study there is a clearer picture of what is actually

beneficial to the City as a whole and that differs from the adjacent property owner’s

expectations, especially owners on the upper pond.

It would seem that all parties still desire a win-win project, but to get there some compromises

would need to be made.

The Committee and Council could consider expanding the dredging project from only utilizing

the lower pond to also including the upper pond. The property owners along the upper pond

would need to consider allowing the removal of the upper dam. This would be the compromise

that could still create a win-win project: The City achieves the treatment credits of the

impoundments without significant additional expense AND the property owners of the upper

pond will be insured they will have a pool of water, all be it smaller than what they historically

have enjoyed.

Options available:

1) Repair lower dam and dredge lower pond - ~$233,000

2) Repair lower dam, remove upper dam, dredge both reservoirs - ~$307,000

3) Do nothing -$0 (permit requirements for improving water quality will require city efforts

elsewhere and property owners will need to expense efforts to maintain what they have on the

waterway)

Any further discussion about the upper pond should be done with the understanding that

• Staff does not believe the DNR would issue a permit to reconstruct that dam

PW-8

home

Cross-Out

Terry Family

PW-3.2

• The benefits of the dam and dredging the upper pond are limited to the adjacent property

owners and not the City as a whole. Staff believes it may not be appropriate for the City to

facilitate the dredging on private property when there is little to no overall City benefit.

• An alternative for the upper pond property owners to privately dredge and maintain the

upper dam is unlikely because permitting and coordinating private dredging efforts could be

difficult and cost prohibitive.

• If the upper pond is to be dredged as a stand-alone project, consistent with other dredging

projects, costs to dredge the upper pond should be assessed to the property owners

benefiting from the activity.

Action you are requesting the committee take: Make a motion to approve options 1 or 2 above.

How will the item be financed? Funds have been budgeted to perform option 1. If option 2 were

desired the balance would either need to be specially assessed or a budget amendment performed.



Requestor:

Joe Eichsteadt, PE (City Engineer)

Request/Referral:

Update city traffic code to specify a 35 mile per hour speed limit on Two Mile Avenue from 16th

Street South to the east city limits.


The city traffic code states that all streets shall have a speed limit of 25 miles per hour unless

specified elsewhere in the code. On Two Mile Avenue, from 16th Street South to the east

corporate limits, the speed limit posted is 35 miles per hour, but this is not specified in the

traffic code. This means there is a discrepancy between the traffic code and the signs placed

along the road.

Options available:

Update the traffic code to match posted speed limit.

Remove and replace speed limit signs to match current traffic code.

Terry Family

PW-4

Action you are requesting the committee take:

Designate the speed limit on Two Mile Avenue, from 16th Street South to the east city limits, to

be 35 miles per hour by adding it to traffic code 340.003(5).

How will the item be financed?

N/A



Requestor:

Joe Eichsteadt, PE (City Engineer)

Request/Referral:

Review consultant proposals and consider selecting a firm to assist in purchasing the necessary

real-estate for the W Jackson St project.


A request for proposal has been sent out to 13 firms. The RFP is attached with a proposal

deadline of 3:00pm on December 31, 2020. Results will be tabulated and brought to the Public

Works meeting and presented at that time.

There are approximately 11 parcels involved: 11 parcels are temporary limited easements and 2

parcels in fee. The solicitation is for eminent domain real estate services, including valuation,

and acquisition.

The project schedule by the DOT requires that the real estate process is moving forward by the

time the plat is complete which will be in February. All real estate needs to be cleared by

August of 2021 in preparation of the Plans, Specification and Estimate deadline.

Options available:

A staff recommendation will be presented at the meeting.

Action you are requesting the committee take:

Select a consultant to acquire the real-estate for the W Jackson St project.

How will the item be financed?

The 2021 project budget identified in the Public Works Construction Fund budget.

Terry Family

PW-5

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 444 West Grand Avenue

Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495-2780 PHONE - 715.421.8205

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

City of Wisconsin Rapids, WI

W Jackson St Reconstruction Project

W Riverview Expressway to Jackson St Bridge

DOT ID 6999-11-08/78

Due: December 31, 2020, 3:00pm

Submit Proposals to: Joe Eichsteadt, PE

City of Wisconsin Rapids 444 W Grand Ave

Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495 [email protected]

Phone: 715-421-8251




REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Description Real estate services necessary for the valuation and acquisition of property being

acquired for West Jackson St from W Riverview Expressway to Jackson St Bridge (Project ID 6999-11-08/78) highway project.

Project Purpose & Scope The purpose of this project is to reconstruct West Jackson St from W Riverview

Expressway to Jackson St Bridge located in Wisconsin Rapids, Wood County, Wisconsin. The length of the reconstruction is approximately 0.4 miles. The selected Consultant will perform negotiations and appraisal services as needed and as described in this RFP; including preparation of a project data book or a Sales Study.

There are approximately 11 parcels involved: 11 parcels are temporary limited

easements, 2 parcels in fee, 0 encroachments and 0 proposed access removals. The City of Wisconsin Rapids is a landowner of two parcels requiring temporary limited easements. This solicitation is for eminent domain real estate services, including valuation, and acquisition.

Location City of Wisconsin Rapids Work to be Performed Services include but are not limited to: By Selected Consultant

Provide a Real Estate Project Manager Participate in Pre-Project Conferences Project Data Book (needed if Appraisals will be *Short Form) OR Sales Study ( needed if Appraisals will be *Abbreviated Standard) Preparation of All Parcel Files Preparation of Certification of LPA R/W (form 3028) Prepare and Maintain Project Spreadsheets Prepare All Appropriate Documents Preparation of Nominal Value Offers, if Applicable Nominal Payment Parcel Report, if Applicable Secure Utility Interests Complete Appraisal Services Complete Acquisition/Negotiation Services Recording of All Appropriate Documents Coordination of all Plat Revisions Coordination with the City and WDOT Proficient enough with READS to put all documents for review in parcel logs

* Appraisal Formats are found in the Real Estate Program Manual, chapter 2.6. The City of Wisconsin Rapids will provide title work and any necessary title work that needs updating.



Schedule Solicitation Date 11/30/2020 Proposal Deadline 3:00 p.m., December 31, 2020. Sealed proposals for the project will be received by the

City of Wisconsin Rapids, WI until the Proposed Deadline. Proposal envelopes are to be marked “Proposal for R/E West Jackson St from W Riverview Expressway to

Jackson St Bridge” Proposals shall include the following: 1) Statement of Qualifications and 2) Cost Form. Submit an original and 2 copies. The proposals will first be reviewed to determine if mandatory requirements are met. Failure to meet mandatory requirements may result in the proposal being rejected.

Award Date January 19th, 2020. The evaluation team shall consist of the Mayor, Director of Public

Works and City Engineer. The evaluation team shall make its recommendation to the Public Works Committee and Common Council for approval.

Start Date

Anticipated start date will be as soon as contracts are signed following contract award. All appraisals shall be scheduled and completed within a suitable timeline to meet the PS&E date of August 1st, 2021. City will provide construction plan, profile and cross sections, right of way plat, eminent domain brochures, and owner appraisal guidelines. The tentative schedule for the Appraisal Plat is late February or early March 2021, DSR approval in March 2021 and acquisitions beginning in March 2021. Supporting documents are made part of this RFP as Attachment A.

Deliverables All real estate must be acquired by Aug. 1, 2021. Procuring and Contracting Agency

This RFP is issued by the City of Wisconsin Rapids. All real estate is being acquired by the City of Wisconsin Rapids. The sole point of contact during the selection process is the City of Wisconsin Rapids’ City Engineer. The contract resulting from this RFP will be with the City of Wisconsin Rapids. The contract resulting from this RFP will be administered by the City of Wisconsin Rapids.

Qualifications Consultants must be on the Wisconsin Department of Transportation Bureau of Technical Services listing of approved personnel.

The selected consultant shall provide professional, competent real estate staff that have demonstrated direct appraisal, relocation, and acquisition experience necessary to provide quality and timely services for the real estate services listed. The consultant shall have demonstrated satisfactory real estate services performance on comparable prior public improvement projects. The consultant must be knowledgeable about and have experience performing the following:



Valuation (appraisal and waiver) methodologies for eminent domain acquisitions:

Acquisition procedures for eminent domain acquisitions; Negotiation procedures for eminent domain acquisitions; Consultant must be knowledgeable of the Wisconsin Department of

Transportation’s Real Estate Program Manual, and all work must be performed in accordance with it:

Consultant must be able to work in a professional manner with multiple groups (City personnel, general public, affected property owners, WDOT personnel, etc.);

Consultant must be capable of interpreting and implementing all tasks according to laws, statutes, codes, and policies.

Consultant must be able to put documents into READS Parcel Logs for Review Evaluation Criteria The criteria to be used in evaluation the Request for Proposals are:

General requirements – This is based on the submittal’s organization and how well the qualifications, expertise, and capabilities of the Consultant meet the needs to carry out the tasks as described.

Technical requirements – This is based on how familiar the Consultant is with the requirements of Eminent Domain acquisition and all applicable associated tasks.

Performance requirements – This relates to how well the Consultant understands the paperwork and communications required in performance of the defined tasks.

Support requirements – This is based on what personnel or other resources the Consultant has at its disposal for performing the defined tasks.

Proposal – Statement of Qualifications Consultants shall prepare a Statement of Qualifications by responding to the following questions. Responses should be in this order.

1) Describe the services that your firm provides. This should include the location of the offices, stating which office would be providing the services on this project.

2) List credentials, qualifications, education, and years experience for the project manager and other key staff you would assign to this project. Key subconsultants shall be listed. Include resumes for all key personnel, with appropriate qualifications.

3) Describe your staff’s capacity, availability and their ability to perform the work in a timely manner relative to present workload. Address the availability of the named key staff members, including competing commitments and the percent of time available for this project.

4) Describe your experience with appraisal, acquisition, and relocation and other services following Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration procedures. Include a list of references;

5) Identify and describe the specific tasks involved in the performance of the proposed work effort;

6) Identify the means in which these tasks would be implemented.



Proposal – Cost Include the cost for the valuation, preparation of Form LPA 3028 Local Certification of

LPA R/W, acquisition, and other services to be completed for this project in the format provided on the attached Cost Form.

Rights Reserved The City of Wisconsin Rapids reserves the right to waive any irregularities which may or

may not be in the City’s best interest. The reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals, and may select the proposal which in the opinion of the City is the most advantageous to the City of Wisconsin Rapids.

The City has deemed it practical and necessary to engage in a turn-key contract for

services to include, but not limited to, project management, acquisition, appraisal, relocation, and lands management.

The City is encouraging real estate firms to consider ways that the City Engineering Department staff are able to provide labor resources to assist in real estate acquisition. Proposals that include this alternate, using City labor will be considered.



COST FORM Project: Real Estate Services City of Wisconsin Rapids, Wood County, Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Transportation Highway Project Deadline: Dec. 31st, 2020 – 3 PM, Local Time. To: City of Wisconsin Rapids We _____________________________ (name of consultant) acknowledge that we have received the RFP documents. We hereby agree to provide all services required to complete the work in strict accordance with this Request for Proposal and the contract documents for the following stated amounts: See Exhibit A; Appraisal parcel fees See Exhibit B; Negotiation parcel fees See Exhibit C; Alternate using City labor In the event a Nominal Waiver of Appraisal changes to an Appraisal, the Appraisal fee will be $_______________. The negotiation fee shall remain the same. Time of Completion: The undersigned agrees, if awarded the contract, to supply deliverables by the dates specified. Failure to complete work will result in liquidated damages of $100 per calendar day thereafter until the work is completed. Warranty: By act of submitting a proposal for the proposed work, the consultant warrants that:

1) Consultant and its subcontractors have carefully and thoroughly reviewed the contract documents and have found them complete, free of ambiguities, and sufficient for the purposes intended; and

2) Consultant and all workers, employees , and subcontractors are skilled and experienced in the type of work represented by the contract documents; and

3) Proposal is based solely upon RFP/contract documents and properly issued addenda and not upon any other representation; and

4) Neither the consultant nor its employees, agents, or subcontractors have relied upon any verbal representations allegedly authorized or unauthorized from the City, its employees or agents, in assembling the proposal.

FOR PRELIMINARY USE ONLY - NOV. 2020

LEGEND

TLE only Parcel

FEE only Parcel

FEE and TLE Parcel

- See following sheets for additionalinformation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(Same owner)

(Same owner)

(Same owner)


TLE need to replacesidewalk (existingsidewalk is outside ofright of way)

TLE needed to replace sidewalk(existing sidewalk is outside of rightof way). Potentially Fee topurchase area where sidewalk isoutside right of way

1

23

RIGHT OF WAY TAKINGS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE


Potential TLE needs for curbramp design. Parcel is onPlat already for other needs

Potential TLE needs forcurb ramp design. Parcelis on Plat already forother needs

Back of sidewalkmatching existing joint

Back of sidewalk matching existing joint

Back of path matchingexisting joint

1

4

5



TLE needed to remove existingsidewalk (currently off right of way)

FEE andTLE needs

TLE needed fornew drivewayconnection

Potential loss of one parking spot ifgrading cannot be made to work(TLE would extend to encompassthis spot, if needed.)


4

6

7



Sidewalk matching existingjoint. No other right of wayneeds for this parcel. Existingsidewalk could be Sawcutfurther in (if needed) to keepthis parcel off the plat.

Title searches will verify ifexisting easement forroadway. TLE may beneeded depending ifeasement exists and itsextents.

Back of sidewalk matchingexisting back of sidewalk andelevation


FEE needed toinclude sidewalk

TLE likely tomatch inconstruction

FEE needed toinclude sidewalk

TLE likely tomatch inconstruction

8



Back of sidewalk matchingexisting back of sidewalk andelevation

Anticipate sawing existing sidewalk down the middle and tacking on path to-wards the roadway

8

7

5



Date of Request: December 28, 2020


Request/Referral: Review consultant proposals for the development and economic evaluation

of a transportation utility model.

Background information: Based on the City Council’s direction, requests for proposals have

been developed, solicited, and received for the development and economic evaluation of a

transportation utility model. The RFP deadline was December 28 at 1:00 pm. Staff will be

evaluating and will be prepared to make a recommendation at the January 3, 2021 public works

meeting

Options available: Consider the proposal best suited for the City’s needs.

Action you are requesting the committee take: Review the staff evaluation of proposals and

take action to enter into a service agreement with the desired consulting team.

How will the item be financed? The 2021 budget contains $20,000 for consultant assistance to

facilitate the development and economic evaluation of a transportation utility model.

Terry Family

PW-6

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REFERRAL LIST:

1. Request from Alderperson Tom Rayome to discuss the future of 8th St S. (2016)

2. Request to review a multi-year capital improvements plan (2019)

3. Request to review areas of public access at and around Norton Pond (2019)

4. Request by Alderperson Rayome do develop a policy for developing agendas and the

referral process (2020)

5. Request by Alderperson Kellogg to study traffic speed along Chestnut from 8th Street to Hill

Street and make recommendations (2020) – study was done when there were no school related activities.

Will continue study when school is in session and will report back to committee.

6. Request by Alderperson Kellogg to consider developing a large item garbage collection program

(2020)

7. Evaluate and discuss methods of funding street reconstruction (2020)

8. Request by Alderperson Bemke for City to donate utilities/services for the proposed WRSD

Quad-plex baseball/softball facility

Terry Family

PW-7