Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Town Center Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heath EDC agrees to refine scope, issue RFP to advance Town Center plan
Summary
At a special Oct. 3 meeting the HEAP Municipal Benefits Corporation and HEAP Economic Development Corporation agreed to refine a written scope and issue a request for proposals to produce a Heath Town Center master activation plan, feasibility analysis and funding strategy; a small drafting group will finalize the RFP.
Get email alerts on the Town Center Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The HEAP Municipal Benefits Corporation and HEAP Economic Development Corporation agreed Oct. 3 to refine the scope and issue a formal request for proposals to develop a Heath Town Center activation plan that would translate the city’s existing Town Center Overlay District into a feasible, phased project.
Board members said they received five consultant proposals that varied widely because the initial ask had not been captured in a single, written scope. Unidentified Speaker 1, who led the meeting, said the EDC now controls parcels at 217 Lawrence and 305 Lawrence adjacent to the reserve and city-owned land and needs a clear master plan, engineering validation and a business case to make the overlay’s vision actionable. "Establish design layout process viability and plan for bringing the Heath Town Center development alive," Speaker 1 said as the summary of the intended consultant deliverable.
Why it matters: The City of Heath’s Town Center Overlay District was created from prior community engagement and is codified in local ordinances, but speakers said the overlay document provided concept-level guidance rather than parcel-level design, phasing or funding details. The board described the RFP as the step that would turn the overlay’s aspirational design into an implementable, financeable project — and a tool to recruit developers and investors.
What the board asked consultants to include: members converged on a phased set of outputs, each with itemized pricing: a master activation plan and land-use layout; engineering/site analysis (topography, floodplain, utilities, ingress/egress); a feasibility/business-case analysis and suggested funding approaches (examples cited included TIF/TIRP or other incentive structures); an ordinance/standards review identifying code changes needed to implement the plan; and a phasing and implementation strategy. The board also agreed to require respondents to identify costs for optional work streams (for example, market validation and 3-D visualizations) so the EDC could choose phases by budget.
Program priorities the board flagged included outdoor dining and walkable retail, co-working and second/third-story residential (often discussed as "lock-and-leave" or high-end ownership rather than dense multifamily), health/wellness and limited event or recreational uses tied to local demand. Members emphasized preserving natural amenities — including the existing lake and trail connectivity to Town Center Park and the city PATH program — and making parking and circulation assumptions explicit in consultant work. Several speakers urged caution about large-scale hospitality or tournament-grade sports facilities given site and market constraints.
Vendor selection approach: Board members said consultants should be given common background materials (the comprehensive and Town Center plans plus trail standards), allowed to ask questions in a formal pre-proposal process, and provided with a single public Q&A file. The group agreed to an interview step and to request itemized, phase-based pricing so proposals would be apples-to-apples.
Next steps and governance: The board asked for a small drafting team to finalize the RFP text with staff and bring it back to the full board for publication. Unidentified Speaker 3 volunteered to help; Unidentified Speaker 1 confirmed that "Jeff and Doug will follow-up" and said, "I will reach out to both of you guys around coordinating a time to do that." The board aimed to issue the RFP within about 7–10 days and discussed using a pre-proposal meeting and question deadline to manage the procurement timeline.
What was not decided: The board did not adopt any ordinance changes or award any contracts at the meeting. No formal motion or vote was recorded to approve a specific consultant; instead members agreed by consensus to refine the scope, vet it with selected advisors (for example, Frank Bliss was suggested as a reviewer) and proceed with the RFP process.
The special meeting adjourned at 11:34 a.m.
