Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Consultant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evanston council holds off on hiring Code Studio for zoning rewrite after residents press for more competition
Summary
Council leaves the Code Studio contract on hold after residents and some council members urged a re-solicitation or stronger procurement and community-engagement terms; staff said only two responsive proposals were received and that reissuing an RFP could take roughly 13 weeks.
Council members voted to hold action on a resolution to authorize a contract with Code Studio for a full zoning-code rewrite, after several residents and council members pressed staff to seek more proposals or improve the procurement requirements.
The planning-and-development item (p1) was read into the record and then pulled for discussion. Supporters including Design Evanston and other planning professionals spoke in favor of Code Studio, but multiple speakers — along with council members — said they were worried the city had received too few responsive proposals and should either reissue the RFP or change the solicitation to an RFQ. "We sent this directly to 21 vendors," planning staff said, and purchasing reported 11 downloads of the RFP and roughly 323 automated notices to potential vendors; nevertheless only two responsive proposals were submitted.
Council member Rogers placed a hold on the item after citing procurement concerns and a perception among some consultants that Evanston is a difficult client. Council member Newsom moved to overturn the hold; that motion failed to get the 0.667 threshold needed to proceed, leaving the item on hold for further committee consideration. Staff told council that reissuing a revised RFP would likely take at least three months (roughly 13 weeks) to complete public notice, allow firms to respond, and return to council for decision.
Proponents warned that continued delay would push back implementation of Evanston's housing and land-use goals, while opponents said moving forward with only one strong respondent risked insufficient competition and weaker terms for public engagement. Staff agreed to post applicant presentation videos online and to work with purchasing to explore options for a Q&A process to improve future solicitation responses.
Council left the item held to allow staff and councilors time to refine procurement language, consider additional outreach, and return with a clearer record for comparison of competing firms.
