Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Highland Park council split over comprehensive-plan finalists; staff to ask higher-cost consultant to cut scope and timeline
Summary
Council members debated two finalists for Highland Parks first comprehensive plan update in about 25 years, with some favoring Interface Studiosmore-engaged approach and others backing a lower-cost, faster alternative. Staff will ask Interface to scale back travel and engagement and return with revised proposals.
Highland Parks Committee of the Whole spent its July 13 meeting weighing two finalist consulting teams to lead the citys long-overdue comprehensive plan update, with council members sharply divided over a deeper community-engagement approach that costs more and a lower-cost proposal that promises a shorter timeline.
Director Joel Fontaine presented the procurement summary, saying staff narrowed several respondents to two finalists after interviews and proposal reviews and that both teams —are qualified and successfully complete this work.— He told the council the higher-priced finalist, Interface Studios, proposes roughly 21% more labor hours and about 23% higher cost overall; travel expenses accounted for a large portion of that difference, listed in the staff materials at about $45,600 versus roughly $5,000 for the lower-cost proposal.
A council member arguing for Interface said the firms proposal emphasized community-driven engagement, implementation and specialized technical teams, calling the approach worth the additional expense if it yields a plan that attracts investment and serves residents. —We waited 25 years,— the council member said. —Great city planning will positively impact every Highland Park resident and business.—
Council member Marissa said she also favored Interfaces thorough, community-focused approach but asked whether the travel line items could be negotiated given a multi-year engagement. —Is that something that could be negotiated?— she asked, noting that reducing travel and in-person sessions could materially lower the price.
Another council member urged the city to choose the lower-cost finalist, saying the proposal appeared better suited to keep the process on an 18-month schedule and that too many focus groups could stretch the work and strain public funds. —This is public money,— the member said, urging fiscal restraint and an approach that builds on past local studies to avoid unnecessary duplication.
Throughout the discussion council members returned to two practical questions: can Interfaces scope be reduced (fewer focus groups, more remote work) and can the higher-priced proposal be compressed into a two-year schedule so costs become more comparable? In response, the staff member leading the process said staff would ask Interface to scale down community-engagement components, explore reducing travel and present options for a two-year schedule and lower cost.
The council did not make a final consultant selection on July 13. Instead, staff said it would negotiate with the finalists, seek revised cost and timeline proposals and bring a follow-up report and contract recommendation to a future meeting.
The meeting closed with a procedural motion: the council voted unanimously to enter closed session to discuss personnel and pending litigation under 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1) and 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11).
