Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goddard council weighs two finalists for 10‑year comprehensive plan, stresses public engagement
Summary
Council members compared proposals from Olsen and Housel/Levine, focusing on preserving resident engagement even as firms offered lower-cost, reduced‑hours bids; staff said a final contract will be negotiated after council direction ahead of a Jan. 20 vote.
City staff outlined two finalist firms for Goddard's next comprehensive plan and council members pressed to preserve public engagement while reconciling differences in cost and hours. The staff presentation explained that four firms submitted proposals and two finalists — Olsen and Housel/Levine — were asked to provide updated schedules and costs.
Amanda Treadwell, a resident who addressed council during public comment, urged officials to keep community engagement "not optional extras," saying sustained outreach builds trust and buy‑in for a 10‑year plan. City staff flagged that Housel/Levine's revised price reduced several public‑engagement elements; by contrast, Olsen submitted an update that reduced total cost while keeping more outreach in its scope and proposing inclusion of consultant Sharon Woods on economic and housing strategy work.
Staff said Olsen's original proposal had been about $250,000 with roughly 1,300 project hours; the updated Olsen proposal presented to council reduced that to just over $155,000 and about 928 hours, preserving multiple open houses and workshops. Housel/Levine's original proposal was described in staff materials at just under $176,000 with about 1,090 hours; the firm's revised submittal was presented at about $141,000 with an estimated 690–740 hours but removed some direct engagement and steering‑committee time, a change staff highlighted as a concern.
Council members debated tradeoffs between cost and public engagement. One council member said the city should not sacrifice resident participation and preferred either Housel/Levine's original engagement levels or Olsen's updated plan if Olsen's proposal included the Woods option. Another council member said Olsen had adjusted its scope in response to staff questions by removing duplicated discovery work, which made the firm more competitive.
Staff characterized the discussion as "discussion only" and recommended the council reach a consensus or defer a selection and bring the matter back for a Jan. 20 vote after additional review and contract negotiation. Council members repeatedly emphasized that whatever firm is selected should retain robust community outreach and a clear implementation matrix that will guide city policy for the next decade.
The council did not adopt a contract at the meeting; staff will return with negotiated terms and a finalized cost for formal action at a subsequent meeting.
