Laserfiche WebLink
36 <br />37 2.4 Under the Metropnlitan Land Planning Aci, th� City of Roseville is required to submit a� <br />38 update to its Comprehensive Plan to the Metropoliian Couneil on or befaz'� December 31, <br />39 Z008. <br />40 <br />41 2.5 On December 6, 2�06, tk�e Planning Com�nission unanirno�zsly passed a motion <br />42 recozz�mending that the City Cnunei� earmark a minitnu�n o�'$60,000 an its 2qQ7 budget for <br />43 t�e completion of an upc�ate to the Ia�d-use sections of the Conapxeher�sive Plan. <br />44 <br />45 2.6 During ihe first iaal:f af 200'�, sta�f has been working wi�h �he City Council to procure <br />4�6 resouraes in oarder ta hzre a cans�ltant to update the Com�rehensive Plan. As part af that <br />4'7 process, under the c�irectia� of t�e Council, staff �as moved �orward vvith a cansultant h.irzng <br />48 <br />49 <br />SO 2.7 <br />S1 <br />52 <br />S3 <br />54 <br />SS <br />56 <br />S7 <br />5$ <br />59 <br />process. <br />Staff �as provid�d upda�es to Planning Carnrnissinn or� this process at its May and Tune <br />meetings. A fallowing is a synopsis of the actzvities t�at have take� place to date: <br />a. On April l 6, 2007, staf�' presented options to the Ci�y Co�zncil on methods by which <br />to seek consulting services %r updating of the Cam�rehensive Plan, vvhieh included <br />conducting either a rec�uest for proposal (RFP} pracess or �he i�vo-sicpped request for <br />qualifications/ request proposal proeess. Staff recornmended ihat the Council <br />und�rtake the RFQ/RFP process and reviewed a draft RFQ thai staff had prepazed. <br />At that time, ihe Council directed staff to praeeed wiih an RFQ/RFP process. <br />60 b. On Aprzl 24, 2Q0'�, siaff seni ou� thirty-two RFQ pac�ages to eonsu�ti�g %rms that <br />6I specialize in comprehensive planning. The deadline �o submi� s�atemen�s nf in�eres� <br />62 and qualifications was 4:30 p.m. on May 18. <br />63 <br />64 c. The City received a total of eight responses ta its RFQ-µ--two fi�s decli�ing the <br />65 project and six tearr�s submitting their qualificaiions—by t�e May 18 deadli�e. Thase <br />G6 �rms that s�b�nitted qualificativns included: Bonestroo, Haisington Koegler Grau�a <br />67 Inc. (HKGT}, McCom�s Frar�k Roos Associates, �ar�c. (MFRA), Olsso� Associates, <br />6& SRF Consul�in� Graup, Inc. (SRF}, and URS. <br />69 <br />70 <br />71 <br />72 <br />73 <br />74 <br />75 <br />76 <br />77 <br />d. On June �, 2007, represer��atives frorr� �he Carnrnnnity DeveInprnen�, Parks and <br />Recreatinn, and Public Worics De�artmen�s met to review the qualificai�an eack� o£ <br />the six teams. Prior to the me�iing, individuals w�r� asked to ranlc the eac�Z team on <br />ih� expe�ence oir ihe fizxn,, e�perience of individual �ea� members (based on <br />resumes that were submitted), releva�.ce af the past project (based a� ��raject <br />descriptians submztted), and the avezail qua�ity of the submittal. Based on t�ese <br />ranki�gs, each staff inernh�r provided how they ranked the teams against each ot�ear. <br />78 e. Based on the results of staff's cutn�zlative rankings, the following tearns were �eit to <br />79 he quali�ec� for �he paroposaI rounci: Bonestraa, �KG�, and �RF, and were <br />80 recozn�rzended a�d s�bsequez�tly approved on June 1 I, 2006 by �he City Council. <br />2 of 4 071607 Comprehensive Plan Update <br />