Dylan Brogan <[email protected]>
FW: RFP process for selecting vendors to do placemaking Verveer, Michael <[email protected]>
To: Dylan Brogan <[email protected]>
Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:35 PM
From: Knepp, Eric Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Rummel, Marsha; Soglin, Paul; Schmiedicke, David; Romines, Charles; Oleksiak, Claire; May, Michael; Lauten,
Patricia; Erdman, Natalie; Phillips, Robert; Crawley, Katie; Monks, Anne
Cc: Verveer, Michael; Davis, Norman
Subject: RE: RFP process for selecting vendors to do placemaking
Alder Rummel –
Sorry about the delay in responding. I was out Monday with a medical appt and worked as an elec on official
yesterday. I think Natalie and Norm’s earlier emails provided answers to the ques ons highlighted in your original email below in
grey. If there is further informa on on those topics that you feel are relevant for me to address, please advise. Also,
I will defer to others here on the ques on related to the RFP process and policy for the City and a review of such,
highlighted below in green. I am hopeful that the informa on that follows is helpful. If you have addi onal ques ons or would like to discuss, I
am happy to meet with you next week when I return to the office. Prior to that me, please feel free to direct any
ques ons on this process or project to Charlie or Claire and they will assist you. I have cut and pasted (and italicized)
what I believe to be the relevant por ons of your two emails below that are directed at Parks. Asst Parks Supt Romines made a comment in response to Alder McKinney's ques埀�on about use of the equity tool to evaluate the
applica埀�ons for placemaking at Olbrich (and Marshall) park. I heard him say that for "small placemaking RFPs", staff had not
considered using the RESJI tool, but would be reviewing that decision for future RFPs. Charlie is correct that Parks did not use the RESJI tool for this project, but we will be considering this aspect of our
RFP processes going forward. What is the history of the Parks Division issuing RFPs for small placemaking projects, have there been other ones? If yes, can you
provide a list?
Parks has issued a series of RFPs that I would consider to be similarly situated to this one (including a failed one in
2013 that included Olbrich Beach house). We have public‐private partnership use agreements at Wingra,
Bri軀�ngham, Warner, and Breese. We will soon have one at Marshall as well (using the RFP being discussed here). We also may have an addi onal one at Olbrich (not the biergarten) as well. The RFPs that have generated these
eventual user agreements were based on the reality of having a facility that the City owned and maintained that was
significantly underu lized and/or needed significant capital investments to avoid further deteriora on. The goal of
the RFPs are to add an addi onal (or two or three) uses to the space to promote an ac va on of the space that
makes it more invi ng for people to use and enjoy. One of the reasons for the use of the public‐private partnership as a model to promote programming is the fact that
we are not structured as a recrea on/programming agency. In the world we live in today, we can no longer take the
approach of “build it and they will come” in rela onship to public park facili es. In essence, we have these
underu lized facili es precisely because we built facili es that didn’t have adequate programming present to sustain
them as vibrant places. With no viable public op on for recrea onal programming, we have turned to the RFP/user
agreement in an effort to promote addi onal programming. I suspect that some might disagree with me, but I am
confident that our system is be er and more u lized today because of these partnerships. How does Parks envision using placemaking as a tool? Typically it is defined as community par埀�cipa埀�on to collabora埀�vely reimagine
uses for public places. Selec埀�ng vendors to provide services like boat rentals would seem to be the outcome of a placemaking process
not the star埀�ng place for an RFP. This is a fair ques on and a good point. Perhaps placemaking is not a correct term to apply to our a empts to take
facili es that were significant liabili es and very limited use and flip that to a posi ve on the income statement as
well as enhancing use. In reflec ng on this process with one Commissioner, we have discussed how to reevaluate
our RFP processes to engage be er with our community earlier. That said, I think it is important to recognize the
successes we have had using this method and the fact that this process has been used to work through difficult
project approvals before that led to what I think are posi ve outcomes (e.g. both Bri軀�ngham and Breese had some
level of opposi on from the award to contract approval). Given the staffing resources Parks has available in planning
and community services, it is unrealis c to think we will be engaging in significant amounts of robust placemaking
ini a ves that would allow for a lot of opportunity for reimagining of our public spaces. One unfortunate reality
here is that with these limita ons of staff, if we were to set the expecta on of having a reimagining process for these
type of projects that do not change the master plan for a park, we would have lost years of opera ons across the
exis ng user agreements. I am confident that Bri軀�ngham would have never happened had we deployed a more
robust process without the resources to support it. Having personally done much of the work on the Bri軀�ngham
process, I am confident that given the two diametrically opposed viewpoints of neighbors related to this project a
more robust process would have been much longer and expensive in the making (if it would have ever occurred). An
unfortunate reality of not having the resources to do placemaking in a meaningful way is that we will s ll have
organized neighborhoods and groups with significant resources come up with ideas that probably get implemented,
and others that don’t.
Another concern I have is how the RPF which contains a Sample Agreement which prohibits alcohol sales got to a use agreement
where we are permiៀ�ng alcohol sales.
I understand this concern. The simple answer is that the sample agreement was meant to highlight an example of
the type of agreement a respondent would be expected to sign. In hindsight, Parks staff should have probably
considered using a “sample” agreement that was not taken directly from another user agreement. That “sample”
agreement had a number of specific terms that were not meant to be requirements on any successful respondent.
Given the fact every respondent (and some that chose not to) we have had for an RFP like this in the past has
contacted the Parks contact to get a be er understanding of terms, I don’t think this was likely to have confused any
poten al respondent to the point of not engaging. Did the Parks Commission make a formal determina埀�on that alcohol sales were in the public interest and two vendors would be
selected versus one sought?
If the ques on is did the Parks Commission make a formal determina on that alcohol sales were in the public interest
and/or two vendors would be selected vs. one prior to the selec on, the answer is no. From a general policy and
procedure perspec ve, the Parks Commission has consistently (since I believe a 2006‐7 study on alcohol and parks)
taken the posi on that alcohol in parks would evaluated on a case by case basis and have not issued blanket policy
guidance on alcohol in parks. The Commission has also not set formal parameters in regard to how many or what
exactly can be selected by an inter‐departmental staff team reviewing RFP submissions. I like to think that Parks
strives to keep up with our Commissioner’s viewpoints on issues to provide a poten al user agreement partner or
partners that is, at least, conceptually of interest to the Commission. I hope the answers and thoughts above are helpful. I understand and appreciate that this project has created a lot of
ques ons and I respect that there is not unanimity amongst the neighborhood, Alders, Park commissioners or staff
on the merits of the poten al biergarten. That said, I think the process to date has been significant and the input
received by and from the Board of Park Commissioners, Board of Es mates and the ALRC have made the final dra
use agreement that will be at the Council a be er document than where it started. I look forward to con nuing the
conversa on with you, and the en re Council.
Thanks,
Eric M. Knepp
Madison Parks Superintendent
608.266.4711
www.cityofmadison.com/parks
Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter @PlayMadison.
From: Rummel, Marsha Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:55 AM
To: Knepp, Eric; Soglin, Paul; Schmiedicke, David; Romines, Charles; Oleksiak, Claire; May, Michael; Lauten, Patricia;
Erdman, Natalie; Phillips, Robert; Crawley, Katie; Monks, Anne
Cc: Verveer, Michael
Subject: Re: RFP process for selecting vendors to do placemaking
Thanks Eric‐ I look forward to your response.
Another concern I have is how the RPF which contains a Sample Agreement which prohibits alcohol sales got to a use agreement
where we are permi軀�ng alcohol sales.
Did the Parks Commission make a formal determina on that alcohol sales were in the public interest and two vendors would be
selected versus one sought?
I clipped a sec on below found on page 29 of the RFP file:///home/chronos/u­27fa23c51284fcbbc3d0fbb312150d
ef5ed4b2fd/Downloads/biergarten%20rfp.PDF. In par cular I highlighted a Whereas which says the services provided are in the
public interest and another that states only one vendor would be sought and Scope of Services 3.a which states no alcoholic
beverages may be sold at the premises. Is it a fair process when not all vendors knew that alcohol sales would be permi ed?
Again, thanks for everyone's a en on.
Marsha
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE AGREEMENT OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR [NAME OF PARK] PARK [DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY TO BE USED] FOR THE 2016‐2021 PERMIT YEAR
Between the City of Madison and [NAME OF PERMITTEE] THIS AGREEMENT, entered into by and between the City of Madison, a municipal corpora on (hereina er referred to as “City”), and
[NAME OF PERMITTEE], a [partnership/limited liability company/limited liability partnership/etc.] (hereina er referred to as
“Permi ee”), is effec ve as of the date by which both par es have signed hereunder. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Madison General Ordinances Sec. 8.17 allows for a person to obtain an annual parks vending permit, valid from April 15
of each year through April 14 of the following year, to allow the person to sell foods, beverages, goods, services and lessons in a City
park; and, WHEREAS, for the past several years, vendors have entered into Agreements with the City allowing the vendors to provide
recrea onal and concession services to City residents and visitors at City shelters and facili es located at Olbrich, and Marshall
Parks; and, WHEREAS, the vendors provide services to City residents and visitors, such as canoeing, kayaking, windsurfing and sailboat lessons
and rental, and general concessions, that the City does not, and cannot, otherwise provide at these, or other, loca ons, but which
are in the public’s interest; and, WHEREAS, it is in the City’s interest to have only one vendor of these recrea onal and concession services at each Park to ensure
that general public use of the Park is not interfered with, and that the vendor complies with general standards of safety and care in
its dealings with the public; and, WHEREAS, in order to find the vendor who can best provide these recrea onal and concession services at Olbrich, and Marshall
Parks, consistent with City standards and interests, the City issued a Request for Proposals for the Right to Conduct Rental,
Instruc onal Service and Concession Ac vi es at Select City Parks, including [NAME OF PARK] Park; and, WHEREAS, Permi ee’s proposal, and permit applica on under MGO 8.17, was accepted by the City, and confirmed by the Board of
Park Commissioners, subject to the execu on of this Opera ng Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in considera on of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable considera on, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, the Par es agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and condi ons upon which the City will allow Permi ee to use
the [DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY TO BE USED] (hereina er, the “Premises”) to conduct rental, instruc onal and concession ac vi es. 2. Grant and Descrip on of Premises. City does hereby grant to Permi ee permission to conduct water sport equipment rental and
instruc onal programs, and sell concession products at the Premises, in approximately [ENTER AMOUNT OF SPACE] square feet of
space, as indicated on A achment A, made a part hereof, as set forth in this Agreement. 3. Scope of Services. In entering into this Agreement, Permi ee agrees to the following terms and condi ons regarding the services
being offered by Permi ee at the Premises: A. Services to be Provided. Permi ee shall provide equipment for water sports rental, instruc onal programs for water sports, youth
camps for water sports, and beverage and snack concessions at the Premises. No alcoholic beverages may be sold at the Premises.
Permi ee shall provide these services at a minimum from the Monday prior to Memorial Day through the Monday following Labor
Day, but in any event no earlier than April 15 and no later than the Closing Date set forth in Subdivision L. [
ENTER ANY OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT APPLY.] Permi ee shall not engage in any other service or ac vity at the Premises From: Knepp, Eric Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:05 PM To: Rummel, Marsha; Soglin, Paul; Schmiedicke, David; Romines, Charles; Oleksiak, Claire; May, Michael; Lauten,
Patricia; Erdman, Natalie; Phillips, Robert; Crawley, Ka e; Monks, Anne Cc: Verveer, Michael Subject: RE: RFP process for selec ng vendors to do placemaking
Alder Rummel –
A good deal of the ques ons below need to be responded to by Parks, and we will do so shortly. I can’t speak completely to some of the broader policy ques ons you outlined below, but I will try to ar culate my
perspec ve on them. I look forward to con nuing the conversa on around these items.
Thanks,
EMK
From: Rummel, Marsha Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 4:12 PM
To: Soglin, Paul; Schmiedicke, David; Knepp, Eric; Romines, Charles; Oleksiak, Claire; May, Michael; Lauten, Patricia;
Erdman, Natalie; Phillips, Robert; Crawley, Katie; Monks, Anne
Cc: Verveer, Michael
Subject: RFP process for selecting vendors to do placemaking
Gree ngs‐
I was unable to a end BoE due to illness, but I watched the discussion of the Olbrich Biergarten on city channel last night.
This process has raised ques ons for me about our policy for RFPs. Asst Parks Supt Romines made a comment in response to Alder McKinney's ques on about use of the equity tool to evaluate the
applica ons for placemaking at Olbrich (and Marshall) park. I heard him say that for "small placemaking RFPs", staff had not
considered using the RESJI tool, but would be reviewing that decision for future RFPs. What is the history of the Parks Division issuing RFPs for small placemaking projects, have there been other ones? If yes, can you
provide a list? How does Parks envision using placemaking as a tool? Typically it is defined as community par cipa on to
collabora vely reimagine uses for public places. Selec ng vendors to provide services like boat rentals would seem to be the
outcome of a placemaking process not the star ng place for an RFP. How does the city see implemen ng the RESJI tool for
placemaking? Do we have any adopted standards?
Do any other agencies have a similar program where they are seeking vendors to enliven public places? How do we decide
whether having alcohol should be part of these uses?
I understand the bulk of RFPs are for public works projects or consultants for facility studies, etc. We are seeking specialized services
and/or qualifica ons. The RFPs I'm concerned about are a subset that usually involve more public engagement because of they
are policy decisions.
My experience may be unique, maybe some of it is 'District 6' inspired... I've had several posi ves experiences with RFPs in the Cap East
district when we sought developers for the three Don Miller parcels where an appointed commi ee was selected to review the
language before the RFP was issued, then interviewed the applicants and made a recommenda on to Council. All done in publicly
no ced mee ngs. Same process for Union Corners and Garver. Last year, the Landmarks Commission reviewed the RFP for the
historic consultant, made recommenda ons to staff on scope and one member par cipated in the review process. For the Rethke site
and the second transi onal housing site, there was a joint city‐county selec on commi ee that I was privileged to serve on. We made recommenda ons to the
CDA. More recently CDD has issued RFPs to find affordable housing developers who are selected by staff. Then Staff searches
for loca ons of future developments without much alder or resident input un l selec ons for developer and loca on are made.
Now it appears that the city's process is more internal and much less transparent.
These are a few examples off the top of my head and there may be valid reasons for the different approaches. If we want to
revitalize public facili es/buildings in our parks via RFP selec on of a profit‐making vendor who will be invited to become an
operator, I believe these situa ons should rise to the level of public engagement first, not a er a selec on has been made and the
applicant is sent to the ALRC to secure a license. We should have worked out a vision and related uses, including whether alcohol
would be permi ed, before the RFP was issued. I sincerely believe that if the immediate neighborhood, park users, and broader
community had been asked for what they would like to see happen with the beach house, we could have had a more collabora ve
discussion.
I am interested in how these decisions are made, who gets to par cipate and when, when does the Council weigh in, criteria to
determine different approaches, consistency with goals, etc. Who would be best posi oned to pull together a review of standards
and processes for RFPs? I would like to request one.
Also, the RFP for placemaking at Olbrich/Marshall is not in legistar, where most policy makers would be likely to review it. Can someone , Dave?, a ach it to the
lease resolu on?
Thanks in advance for considering my request‐
Marsha