Good morning and welcome to the special meeting of the commission February 24th, 2026. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Now, if we could please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> City clerk, if you'd call the role, please. >> Hi, good morning. Vice Mayor Vasquez,
>> here. Commissioner Clark, >> here. >> Commissioner Sison, >> here. >> Commissioner Dicki, >> here. >> Mayor Doctor >> here. >> Thank you. We have one item today. It is a special meeting. We'll only discuss the one item today. And uh the item that business is
the evaluation committee for request of quotation 26-009 Treasure Island commercial redevelopment master plan. I'd like to turn it over to the finance group. >> Good morning everybody. Is is can you
hear me? Okay. I'm David Green. I'm the assistant finance director and I'm overseeing the process for the commercial redevelopment master plan procurement, also known as RFQ26-009. We received nine proposals in response to the solicitation and you all were
provided copies of each. The purpose of our meeting today is to rank proposals and to determine next steps. And just to be clear, while you are serving as the evaluation committee, you're still the commission and will be able to make motions and vote and take action and
still perform uh the activities that you normally do as a governing body. Nothing that we do today will limit or restrict that authority in any way. Our role as it relates the to the procurement is to ensure fair, transparent, and defensible evaluation process.
As a reminder, this is a qualificationsbased procurement. So no price was submitted. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on qualifications. The method of evaluation is individual scoring whereby each of you scores independently based on previously
established criteria and weightings. We are not permitted to introduce new criteria or adjust the waitings. Your scores are then added to determine a ranking of proposers from highest to lowest. And in case is any in case anybody is wondering, yes, you may
adjust your scores based on the discussion and uh any adjustments should be based on evidence contained in the proposal, but you certainly can adjust your scores. Before we proceed, I want to state for the record that everyone did sign statements declaring a commitment to
confidentiality and that you have no conflict of interest with any of the proposers. For the sake of time, I'd like to collect your score sheets so that we can begin entering them while you begin to share your thoughts if that's okay with the commission.
And if you could please write your names on your score sheets before you hand them over to Victor. >> I have not done and I'm going to make some copies and bring it back to you. >> Okay. So before we begin the discussion, I'm
going to ask the city attorney if he has any comments he'd like to share. >> And they're going to take some time to tally up the scores. So I wanted to walk a little bit through the process for the public um who hasn't had the opportunity maybe to read the RFQ and all the detail of the solicitation. Um,
so first of all, uh, it's important to note that the city of Treasure Island in the solicitation, it states clearly in here, the city of Treasure Island reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals to wave any technical errors or irregularities or
informalities in any of the proposals received and to accept the proposal which is deemed by the city to best serve the city. So you have that ultimate authority as the city commission. Um for the public to remind ourselves
what the objectives of the master plan uh were advertised to be um is to create a master plan for the city of Treasure Island strategic areas of commercial redevelopment that is strategic, practical, and actionable.
The commercial redevelopment master plan is expected to one, strengthen the community's economic base and vitality. Two, revitalize underperforming and aging commercial areas. Three, expand and modernize the city's mix of
commercial uses and spaces. Four, encourage mixed use and higher value development were appropriate. Five, align regulations, tools, and incentives with desired redevelopment outcomes. and six, position Treasure Island for
long-term fiscal sustainability. The master plan will focus on five key commercial districts, and they're indicated on a map that was included in the solicitation. Um, they're generally called the St. or the John's Pass, the
resort area, the downtown core, the downtown Gulf, and the yacht club areas. and the scope of services. The task to be performed include an analysis of existing conditions, constraints, and a market baseline.
Um two, a visioning and guiding principles stage where there will be a project kickoff open to all the residents, commercial property owners, businesses, partners, and all other stakeholders. And to facilitate a comprehensive engagement plan that would include workshops, surveys, and other
sessions. develop a concise vision statement and guiding principles and produce simple and inspiring diagrams and sketches illustrating what the community's future commercial character could become. Then we'd move into the three the land use and redevelopment scenarios and
feasibility to evaluate zoning and identify constraints, barriers or parameters like height, floor area ratio, setbacks, density, parking for each district or unique area. Um based on this analysis, prepare land use
alternatives and redevelopment concepts. Um develop 3D massing models for redevelopment opportunity evaluation. Um provide district area commercial space guidance regarding building forms, storefront designs, heightened massing transitions, including diagrams and
graphics. um conduct a feasibility evaluation on at least one potential redevelopment opportunity in each district to determine if the existing rules support project viability or if they need modification. Identify catalytic public investments to
accelerate private commercial investments in each distinct area. Four, we then look at mobility and parking. Review the past mobility, traffic, and parking infrastructure and feasibility studies to evaluate the
current and future parking needs of each area. Identify quick build mobility improvements like crosswalks, traffic calming, sidewalk widening, bike paths, bike amenities, share lanes. C, identify long-term mobility and parking
improvements to accommodate the future. Um, five, economic vitality and housing. Identifying market opportunities to support new office, retail, hospitality, and other investments in each area.
Recommend strategies for economic diversification and small business support. Identify opportunities for arts, culture, entertainment, and enhanced activation to drive more customers and foot traffic to Treasure Island.
Um, six, we look at financial and fiscal modeling and economic impacts. Evaluating the current fiscal conditions of each area, including property tax revenues, sale tax estimates, parking revenues, operational costs for public
works, safety, and maintenance. Prepare a baseline fiscal profile for each area. Complete a proforma analysis of catalytic and priority redevelopment sites. Conduct a scenario-based fiscal model for redevelopment concept plans.
Evaluate additional funding mechanisms, grants, tax increment financing, special districts, public private partnerships, streetscape, parking districts, and then identify fiscal impacts on the city's operating capital budgets for future
redevelopment potential. And seven, look at private sector infrastructure funding and development incentive strategies. That would include identifying mechanisms through which developers may contribute to public infrastructure upgrades, repairs, and
expansion. Assess the feasibility of offering development bonuses and height density intensity in exchange for financial contributions and public benefits. Um recommend sound fiscally beneficial policy
frameworks and code amendments to align with the long-term redevelopment infrastructure goals. provide best practice examples from other cities and comparable coastal communities that have su successfully implemented incentive based development tools to support
public infrastructure. Then we'd look at eight an implementation roadmap prioritizing actions either been short, mid or long-term. Short being 1 to three years, midterm being four to seven years and long-term being 8 to 10 year terms.
Identify early winds as a immediate action uh opportunity. Provide recommendations by each area. Recommend comprehensive plan, zoning, and land development code amendments to support redevelopment concepts. And then nine,
prepare and present a draft master plan for public review and comment. Refine the master plan and submit the final plan. Prepare and submit an executive summary. Prepare and provide public meeting presentation materials. And then we'd move into the actual plan.
At the end of the plan, the deliverables would be an existing conditions, constraints, and market-based report, a vision and guiding principle summary, a land use and redevelopment scenarios and feasibility studies package that
contains graphics, testing, and 3D massing. Four, a redevelopment toolbox and incentives policy guide. five draft commercial redevelopment master plan and then a final commercial redevelopment master plan with an executive summary of
four pages and then a public meeting presentation the project timeline for these tasks one through uh nine that I've talked about the task one for the existing conditions would be one month task two the visioning guiding principles would be
two to three months task three the land use and redevelopment scenario feasibility studies would be 3 to 5 months. Um task four the mobility and parking task would be four to five months and then five,
six and seven the redevelopment toolbox and incentives policy guide economic housing and fiscal financial modeling would be five to seven months and then the draft plan public review and refinement eight months and then a final plan with adoption materials in nine
months. So, the evaluation criteria, the city commission will serve as the evaluation and then we'll direct the city manager to negotiate with the highest ranked firm if that's your choice. Um, you can also make a motion to uh interview one
or more of the proposers and do that at a at a meeting which you can set if you that would be your desire. Um as they're scoring the rankings, the rankings were based on four criteria. Um each would score the maximum from one to 25, 25
being the highest. The first is the project approach and understanding. Second is experience with similar projects. Third are the personnel qualifications and experience. And fourth is the availability and firm
capacity. So these are the four criteria that each firm was evaluated on. Again, uh up to 25 points, maximum of 100 points for all four combined together. Those are being tallied now
and should be available soon. And then after that, you can enter into your board discussions. And before you take final action, we'll want to take public comment. >> Thank you. So, it'll still take a few more minutes uh for the scores to be uh
entered into the spreadsheet, but I I guess I'd like to go ahead and and just open up the discussion with a question uh which is is there anything that stood out in particular to you as you read through the proposals? >> I will uh I can kick it off. Um, one of
the things that stood out to me and in the discussion we can kind of figure it out. Um, but with Able City, I wasn't going to start it off by that. Um, but I I will
since you had a qu ask if we had questions. Um, basically um I kind of wrote a little thing here. It just says, you know, our obligation as a commission is to to simply comp not simply comply with the minimum requirements of our procurement
rules, but to ensure the integrity of the process and protect public trust. That means avoiding not only impropriy, but also the appear appearance of impropriy. In the case of Able City, Jim Brainer, a representative of Able City, was
permitted to deliver what amounted to a full presentation during public comment at a regular commission meeting without the knowledge of several commissioners and I believe the city manager. That opportunity was not afforded to the other firms that are competing for this
contract. Regardless of intent, that created an uneven playing field. I know that some may argue that no formal rule was technically violated. However, our responsibility does not end with technical compliance and when a firm
receives access or visibility that others did not. And when the prior personal or professional relationship exists involving individuals connected to city matters, it does raise legitimate concerns about perceived impartiality.
We are selecting a master planner who will influence the direction of the city for decades and public trust um must be complete with confidence and that this process is fair. So, all of that to be said, um, that
explains why I have a zero under the personal qualifications and experience. And it's honestly because I feel like they have an unfair advantage because they've already been able to present um in front of
the public and the commission. So, I will leave that at that. My uh my observations from reading through the nine proposals is uh is I came away feeling anybody who doubted that we uh could benefit from using a
getting having a master plan for this city uh needs to read this. when you read it, I think you'll come away with a a strong feeling that there's a lot of benefit that will will come to the city by going through this uh process. So, so uh when that becomes available, I do
encourage you to read and you don't have to read all 900 pages or however many it is. uh just read, you know, primarily the uh the approach uh and the similar experiences and I think you'll see you you'll see a lot that uh you can see how
the city and our residents will benefit from going through this process. I was also pleased to see that none of the uh uh nine proposals push back on the uh timeline. I was a little bit concerned
that a nine-month timeline was too was uh was short was too short and was going to be too much, but none of them seemed uh at all phased or concerned that that they couldn't accomplish all of this in 9 months. I was also pleased to see that several of them had some short-term
deliverables in and they they weren't going to wait till 9 months uh into the process. uh regarding uh AEL uh city uh as I read through their specific proposal uh I did see that Jim Brainard was one of the
parties to it. He's he is a he's one of the consultants. As you read through these proposals, every company has multiple consultants working with them. I mean there it each of them had maybe anywhere from six to to 20 uh different
uh uh companies or different uh individuals working with them and with the Able City which is a firm based in uh in South Florida. Uh Jim Brainard was one of the multiple consultants that they would be using on this project. So
I'm I'm a little bit less concerned about about uh about those uh issues. So, you don't have any concern that they were able to give a presentation without the benefit of anyone else? >> The uh I do see where that that is was a
benefit, but honestly, when I went through here, I didn't, you know, I didn't pay a lot of attention to to what Jim Brainer uh pitched at that point in time. Uh you know, reading through it like opened my eyes and I realized it's not a one person Oh, definitely.
>> It's not not a one person. This is a multifunctional multi-dimensional uh process that requires a lot of skill and Jim Brainard could not do this by himself. Uh he he uh he can he brings one piece of expertise to the field. So
I didn't uh mark against Able City's uh proposal uh because of that event. >> Just one more thing. Um, the RFQ solicitation was issued on January 8th, 2026. So, that's when this went out for
bids and responses were due by February 6th uh, at 2 p.m. I forgot to state the dates that this was out. >> I just want permission to approach Commission Song. I have a question on his Just for the record, uh, Commissioner
Cis score all ones on Kimley Horn and Able City. So, I'm going to allocate those scores here. While you're doing that, I'll go ahead and have a few things to say. Um, Jim
Brainard uh was a uh a gentleman that came from Indianapolis um Carmel, Indiana, and uh and basically on his own time, his own nickel, basically said, "Hey, you guys have been hit by something that uh that most folks
will never even think about." And um and he wanted to help. And I I I truly do believe that he is a sincere gentleman. Um and that he he did want to help that. It was at a point when we were taking a look at a master planner and I I think
that most people can see a master planner is an individual. Uh a master plan is basically what we have here today which you know each one of these nine firms is basically vying for the position. Um I
when we did the presentation um she she being vice mayor uh Tammy Vasquez um it was not a situation of that they they being able city I would
assume uh had the the advantage because they made a presentation that it wasn't the case at all. Um, at that point I don't even know if he knew Able City, probably knew of the the folks, but uh was not on the staff at that time or anything else. He was speaking as an
individual and a a single planner. Um, and he gave us a what I would believe would have been a, you know, a viable rate um at $15,000 per month. Um, and he was thinking that it would take anywhere
from 6 to9 months. Now, um I haven't seen any pricing and no no pricing was required in this, but there was one of the folks, one of the uh firms that basically said they had put together uh a master plan uh for a one of the uh
communities and uh it ranged in the quarter of a million dollar um point. And uh and you know, I think that when you read through this uh I think that we uh should not expect to see anything less than a half a million
dollars or I'm I it's amazing what they're proposing to do and uh even to get it in under a 9month period of time. Um and that that's that's my concern. I don't want to put too much money out there just in a plan before we even you
know step forward and start uh rebuilding. So, um I I think that uh you know the I'm going to call it game playing uh which basically says that yes, you have you have the ability to do whatever you
want. Um, I basically filled mine out and if you want to take a look at the item three, um, I I took and said basically what I believed uh in writing that they had given to us was there. It isn't as though I gave all of my points
to one candidate and everybody else got one one point in each column. And um, uh, we do have the ability to change it out. Um, we can do that as the committee. we can talk through it, but
once the committee is done talking through it, then then basically those numbers are numbers that'll be finalized. So, for instance, and I'm going to say use Commission Commissioner Clark, uh he's got one in several of the, you
know, just the rows, uh leaning very heavily pointwise to to a single candidate. Um, and you know that uh I unfortunately I I find it uh little bit concerning that uh that we're playing
you know coming through and not evaluating each one on their merit but on one that we want coming into this reading. So >> mayor could I seek some clarification just on what you what you just said? You said you don't think we should expect
anything less than a half million or did you say quarter million? >> Well, it was a quarter million and it was a very small project is is what it appeared. >> Um and uh so I'm I mean I don't know exactly. My wife keeps saying the same
thing is you know how much are we going to spend on this? And uh unfortunately we did take out the pricing element u which yeah which I'm glad we did because I I certainly don't want to set the expectations in advance of how much you know we're willing to go in there. I did
take note of of all of the uh similar projects that the uh each one of them listed and how much all all but one of the nine uh applicants listed how much each of those proposals cost. And uh and
again these were supposed to be similar projects and I can just run down the whole list but 115,000 150 175,000 125 160 398
uh 70 155 183 140,000 150 320 495 450. So it did it did uh I I didn't see too many going up in that in that high of a range. Anyway, I'm glad we didn't include it because I think the process I
think that we're supposed to kind of agree on who we want and then let let go let's go negotiate it from there. The price >> I will say on the I um on the hundred and some thousand and like the 90,000 ones and things like that, it did not
appear to me that those were for master plans. Um, those were more for like checking utility, you know, seeing the capacity and stuff and and I could be wrong, but that's what I saw. But I saw the same thing you did that it's going to somewhere in that I mean there was
one that was I think even $2.1 million and I'm like, oh, okay. >> All right. The the 2.1 million was Southeast Florida Regional Partners. >> That's it. Yeah. >> Uh, but that was for an entire 7count area from from Miami Dade County all the way up to Pal Palm Beach. So, it was a
pretty broad area. Absolutely. And I think I'll just add the two cents on that is I'm actually kind of glad we didn't do the price also so we can kind of look at the firms separately and then my idea just so everybody see if
anybody's you know any consensus. I definitely think that we need to the next step either take the top two or three and then do more of a a one on not necessarily one-on-one but an interview process and let them do a presentation
um so on and so forth. That was kind of my thoughts on that. >> Um I don't know John you mentioned my scoring. I I had three that were just a no-go for me. I'm more than happy to explain why. I had three that were kind of mid-range and I had three that I thought would could do the job. And the
three that I thought could do the job, I base mostly on I think we've had that conversation up here is I think besides a financial planner, we need a business planner. And those my top three had the most financial uh what I thought background and experience. And you and
so yeah, the ones the ones that I scored low were a no-go. I that there's I have three that are a no-go. And I I don't see a problem with that. So, >> fair enough. >> I have a lot of comments that I could just wait on until we have our
discussion. >> Well, I think we're there, right? >> Oh, awesome. So, I'd like to add this to the record uh for Lisa, please. Um, so with AEL City, um, I think it they circumvented the rules to bring
Brainard in through the back door and he's not listed on their website. Um, it's a fairly new company, uh, one and a half years old in Florida. Um, I mean, uh, with Calvin Gordado and Associates, it's a safe build company. Uh, they're
local and already a sub for Treasure Islands and they already work for Treasure Island. So, um, I scored them uh, pretty decent marks. Um the uh redevelopment management associates uh too many sub consultants, weak credentials, light on experience,
coulter and hearing uh mostly landscaping uh big budget uh experience with height and density in coastal communities. So that was a little bonus there for me. Uh do coal and partners, no financial model, good Florida
experience, pretty good decent uh uh ratings there. uh G AI consultants. They were founded in 58. They have engineering urban uh experience and they have a lot of resources. Uh land design.
Um it looks like landscape heavy. Um Kimley Horn, I think they do, uh too much history with Treasure Island in my opinion. I think they move kind of slow, especially with LDR and um everything else that they're tasked to do for us.
Uh we I think we need a new perspective. Uh that's why I scored them low. Uh they're already doing a lot for Treasure Island. Uh and then the Rafius uh they checked all the boxes. They're not local and Victor does have experience with them. So that's a pretty
big positive. So I'm going to read out my uh my items and some questions that I have before there. Um so I reviewed all the proposals and uh most are uh very impressive. I appreciate all the work they did. It's no easy task. Um I also
reviewed the prior uh master plan RFQ where uh we budgeted 50,000 for the services and look to see which firms responded to both uh RFQS in the October 20251 pricing was provided.
uh last time uh the staff who are uh more educated, experienced and knowledgeable about the services served as the evaluation committee. I don't understand why the five of us are the evaluation committee and how and when that decision was made in the sunshine.
I asked that question to of the city manager and he provided me with false information. To my knowledge, the commissioners have never been the evaluation committee in in this city and our own purchasing director who has a long and distinguished career in public
purchasing has never seen it done this way before either. Uh this methodology bypasses our staff experience who have performed these reviews in their careers, including one last week on the public safety comp complex which included a financial
target. Uh Victor, uh why wasn't this one uh included with a a financial target? >> Actually, I I'd prefer that you take uh your comments to the city manager. >> Excellent. Well, city manager, same
question. >> Commissioner Saison, if you remember back in October, we offered one-on-one opportunities for you, each commissioner, all five of you, to sit with me, to sit with a representative uh from Voss, to sit with our economic
development director after this had been presented to you and you had a couple weeks to look it over and make any um suggestions. And from that, four of you took up on that meeting. You, Commissioner Saison,
did not told me to cancel it. Um, you didn't want it, so you didn't come. So, it's understandable why your understanding of the process and questions are where they are. That's fine. No problem. Uh, the city commission, the people that were there,
uh, made it clear that there were original five criteria. One of them was pricing. I think they were all weighted about equally. I don't remember. Um but the decision in the one-on- ons uh was
that they the commissioners would like to be the uh evaluation committee. And Ralph quoted me chapter and verse which meeting and which item that this went before you stating that the city commissioners would serve as the evaluation committee and you guys voted
on it. What what meeting was that Ralph? I'd have to look it uh back up again. >> So, but yeah, this came to you. The majority of the commission voted to move forward with it with the city commission as the evaluation committee and with the four criteria, not the five, the fifth
one including price. So, that's how we got here in the sunshine. >> I for one have never done this type of review before. So, I would like to know who on the commission has uh been on the public evaluation committee before for an RFQ.
Ardan, have you been ever for on the committee for an RFQ? >> No, I have not. >> Mayor Doctor, >> no. >> Vice Mayor Vasquez? >> No. >> Commissioner Clark? >> Public? I've been on them many times at at work. I don't know about a public
one, but I mean >> All right. Well, I wonder how many of these firms have ever done master plans for cities where property being planned is only private property. >> Please, let's not call out anything from the audience.
>> Thank you. Um, why does the RFQ only include five private parcels of property and none of Treasure Island's own property that would benefit from a master plan such as the 2 acres on the 108th, Treasure Bay,
Downtown Central Park, the causeway from the Basco Bridge to G Boulevard. It should also include all of the RFM30 property on the east side of Gulf Boulevard. The criticism of the 2006 plan is that it doesn't cover the entire city, but
this one doesn't either. So, uh, Charles, why is it limited? >> Five areas. The question that I asked, why is it limited to just private property? >> I I'll be commissioner.
>> I'll be glad. I'll be glad. Yeah, that was decided by this by this commission. We were in here and we agreed one evening which areas that we needed focus and we had a unanimous agreement on that at the time. >> Victor size on was present. Correct.
>> Okay. I know these proposals don't provide any cost information, but given that they were targeting 50,000 last time and got at least one proposal for less, what amount are you estimating for this RFQ?
>> It's already been said. >> I am not. The commission in a public meeting voted to solidify this RFQ with four uh selection criteria weighted at 25% a piece. None of them included price and
all of you were given the opportunity to go through that and all of you were given the opportunity to vote on that. >> How much more would you estimate it would be if all the other properties listed above were included in the master plan? I would not make that estimate.
>> One of the glaring emissions I've noticed in this RFQ is that it does not require any financial analysis, including supporting information on comparable properties or any internal rate of return calculations.
Why weren't these included? Mayor, um, would you like me to continue answering the these questions? I mean, the bottom line is this four-page RFQ, it's written in standard, uh, plain script English, was provided to you guys
on three different occasions, and the third was to vote to move forward with this RFQ. So, we can ask why things weren't in there, but simply they were not listed. They were not desired. They were not aforementioned by this commission. And then we voted to move
forward with this. This is asking me why I didn't buy eggs and milk at my last grocery store run. I probably didn't desire them. Thank you for answering my question. Since all of the properties in the RFQ were private properties, there
wasn't a requirement that the applicants had actual experience in private property development. The entire RFQ is solely focused on commercial property, which only provides approximately 20% of our property tax revenue. There is no
focus whatsoever on residential property, which provides 80% of our property tax revenue. I am not in favor of a partial master plan that is not beneficial to the city and spending more than 50,000 that was proposed months ago. Waiting a year or
more for results is something we cannot afford this point. We need to get moving on project specific developments now through the PD process that is transparent and establishes public benefits up front. Thank you. >> So I want to kind of switch course a
little bit and I might lean on Marie Ellen and Joan a little bit on this. So um it was brought to my attention of forward panelis has a new tool um it's a 7D tool and they are currently
helping um Indian rocks beach right now and Largo they can either work on their own and bring in people or they can work with a planner like Kimley Horn or any you know they used them as an example this is a new thing a new tool that they
have um so I sent an email um to um city manager um Joan Mary Ellen, you know, and CDD um and basically just asked if we could have a meeting with them trying to get it in before this one. So,
um I think and and whichever one, Marie, Ellen, Joan, whichever one, what I would like to do is make them part of whenever we do top two, top three, I would like for them just to be able to do a presentation as part of it because I
think if nothing else, they might be able to cut the cost a little bit >> even if they're working with a planner that we pick. And that was the big thing that they brought up is they do that a lot and it can kind of help cut down the
cost because majority of what they do is at no charge. So they might be able to do some of the things that we wouldn't have to have a master planner do and it's already cleared through forward panelis. So they don't even have to do
that. And correct me if I'm wrong. >> But let's here I want I'll start on this. Um >> okay. If if I wanted I would like for uh the city manager to to make a decision whether or not his staff is prepared
or if he wants his staff to to answer. Now we are in a committee meeting right now. This is not the the so we're not as formal as we would be if it was. Uh but I would like uh for um our city comm our
city manager to uh to make the decision as to uh his staff and how he's going to um avail themsself for it. So this was made abundantly clear to me by the commission that majority
commission wanted to be the evaluation staff gave me a funny look when I told him that >> sorry. So the my whole uh process since
November, December, whenever um the one-on-one discussions were had and then on January 5th, item G11, this RFQ exactly was voted on by this commission
in January of this year. I think the meeting night was January 5th. Yes, it was item G11. Um, so I need to hear one more time, Vice Mayor, ma'am, what you're asking to commit our uh department staff to do.
Uh, oh, it was just a question because Joan and Mary Ellen sat in the meeting with Forward Penellis Friday >> and they were talking through with us and it was very last minute because I had just been made aware of the tool and
them working >> and um so they were both um along with um a few more CDD staff were in the meeting >> and so they were there and they heard heard, you know, sorry, I went to Kimley
Horn because that's who they were using as an example. Um, they were listening to what Forward Penellis was saying that they could potentially do for us whether we go with a master plan, we don't go with a plan, whatever. But if we do,
they might be able to really save. there might be a lot of cost cutting um that we might be able to do working side by side with if we choose a a you know one of the companies >> or if we see a presentation
um you know and we go hey maybe they can work with and this is where the example you know maybe they can work with Kimley Horn and save the city a lot of money and still get the same results with the master plan that we're looking for so it was very last minute. Um, which is why,
you know, I didn't ask him to be here or any of that because I I didn't want to spring it. However, um, and you know, neither one of them really have to answer the question. Um, I guess it's more of a thing that the commission could, you know, just say yes or no to
is I would just like for them to be able to present. Um, if we're going to do the top two or three of of scores, I would just like for forward Penelis to also be able to present because we might be able
to use them and since everything has to go through them in the end anyway. Um, it kind of is a time-saving thing as well. Yes, ma'am. >> I think I understand enough to at least ask a question of Mr. Green. Um, and so sorry to put you on the spot here. Um,
so if Ford Panellis does what the vice mayor is describing and it reduces cost, which is yet to be identified, has not been asked for, would that just violate the whole scope of work that we had everybody, these
nine uh proposers respond, or would we have to do what to allow that to happen? Or can we even allow that to happen? >> It it wouldn't be a problem at all. We can certainly do that and that would be part of the negotiation process with whatever firm the commission elects to
move forward with. Uh we would just reduce that work from the scope of services um because we would have in theory for Penllis perform it instead and then we remove the the price from the overall cost of the project. So,
economic development, CDD, other staff inputs into this would take place when during a meeting on March 3rd where they tell us to move forward with negotiating with two or three of these people or I'm
I'm I'm just trying to seek clarity so the full commission can even say if they want this to happen. >> I guess it would be after we hear what Ford Penllis could do for us. um which would give us an idea of what services we could pull out of the scope of work
for the commercial redevelopment master plan. >> So just as a matter of process, we would need to hear from Ford Penllis before we negotiate with firms one and two or three or how many ever they tell us to negotiate? >> I believe so. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Not not the same day and not part of this process. >> Ah >> okay. >> So like more in a workshop type. >> Mhm. >> Okay. And I guess mayor, I'll throw this back to you. If by consensus, do you all want that to happen um before I negotiate with any of the
firms you may or may not select? Let me just add to I think for Panelis acts more like staff uh would than a consulting firm. So they would kind of sit with staff. For Panelis is by Penllis County and they provide planning
services for the various municipalities within Penllis County. So, it's kind of like the county staff and the city staff and the county has these special tools through forward penelis that they could that they could bring to the table and and work with whoever you select.
>> So, sounds like we should have maybe got forward panelis involved in this a little earlier. >> I I have to say something. We have a responsibility here. We need to get this done and identify what firm we're going to negotiate with. This discussion can
happen after uh the discussion but we have a responsibility to to decide a winner or one two three if you want to interview. So we need to finish this process for first >> and we we had not closed it and and send it back to the commission yet. We need
to close it. So do you all agree with the scores as they are uh in the any of you wants after the discussion to change any score? I'm gonna I'm not going to change my score, but I'm going to I'm gonna I guess argue back argue against the
approach here. I was hoping that we could do this without this process without getting political and that we would just rate each firm based on uh their proposal and and and and what they could bring to the table. Uh but it did get political and you know and I hate to
call out you know my my fellow commissioners but you know if if Jim Brainard's uh uh resume or background wasn't in this one proposal I'm sure their scores would have come out much differently. Uh but my concern all along
when I saw uh the approach when I got the email that said you know we rank we were to rank these and submit them in advance is is the way to kill one of one of the candidates is just to give them a very low score. And in fact you know when you give somebody ones uh it kills
them. And I can understand that in some cases uh quite frankly some that especially the ones on the tail end that of the nine if you rate them you just want to just toss them out of consideration completely. I can I can understand that. But to but to to
intentionally tank somebody just because uh one person uh uh was attached one person's name was attached to that uh creates an unfair process. So, uh, even though we all did this independently, uh, I don't think we all used our our
our best judgment about which firms could bring the best value to the city. >> Could I step back in, mayor? >> Sure. If you don't mind, >> I wanted to go ahead and and I know this spreadsheet is difficult to read for everybody. It's very small. Um, I wanted
to read down through the scores just so everybody has an idea of how the the rankings played out. And forgive me in advance uh when I mispronounce some of the names of these firms uh because I know that I will. But uh the the top uh
scoring firm is Cotler and Herring with 377. Uh number two is Rafelis with 372. Number three, Calvin Jordano and Associates 342. Number four, Dover Cole and Partners,
335. Uh, number five is GI Consultants with 334. Um, number six, Redevelopment Management Associates 318. Seven is Able City at 305.
8 Land Design at 304. And Kimley Horn with 276. Uh, as you can see, there are some pretty wide variances and inconsistencies with some of the scores. Uh, I mentioned at the beginning, everybody does have an
opportunity to adjust scores uh, as the discussion unfolded. So, I' I'd like to go ahead and just ask for the record if anybody does have an interest in adjusting any of their scores. I I guess I want to address people have talked about, you know, different low
scores. I had three that I just didn't did for me were a no-go. And I'm happy to explain why. Um Do Cole used Applied Sciences as one of their partners. Applied Sciences, if you'll remember correctly, was one of the people that we sent stuff out to and
they they were the ones that caused us to have to one of one of the reasons we had to reverse TMN. I mean, if you remember, um, I had a resident in here, um, who couldn't build this house because they they sent it back to him 25 times and charged him for it every time.
So, I'm sorry. I don't want to do business with those people. I mean, and and my residents don't either. Um, Kimley Horn couldn't do a simple field dirt ordinance that we asked them to. Um and and you know uh the other one is
safe built that I they've made problems with our um uh per you know our inspections and permitting. So th those three I just I don't they they were throwaways for me. I had kind of a three in the middle and I kind of had three toward the top. So um but yeah I didn't
I didn't tank them because of one person. I I I I tanked them because they have whole departments that have not done well for this city in the past and I don't want want to do business with those people. And I mean my residents would go nuts if
I if I you know brought in someone that applied sciences again that that kept them out of their homes. I mean that's that's that's not that's not okay. I I want to give you another perspective. >> The other thing real quick, no matter
who you pick up here, they can bring in whoever they want. They could go bring in another consultant. They could someone could bring in Jim Brainer that that that wasn't on their list in the beginning. They could they could bring in someone else that I mean this is all they can you're hiring hundreds of
people and they can structure it however they want. So, >> so I have no desire to change my name. I >> I just want to remind the the commission, I mean the body members at this point that you you can call one, two, three, four companies to interview
and bring you your in one day. So, just want to remind you that >> and and mine were based on my top ones were based on the financial component. So, I think that's the thing we need the most. And I know that two of them, Able City and
uh what was the other one? >> Uh RMA, both use datalus, which I think has a really good um reputation on the financial side. So, >> so hearing no one is interested in adjusting scores. The you know, as you
may recall, the purpose of the meeting was twofold. number one to compile the rankings of the proposals. Secondly, to determine next steps. So that first purpose is complete. We have ranked the proposals. The scores are complete. So
at this point, uh it'll come back to the commission as to what you would like to do next. >> This you could take public comment at some point before you make a final decision. >> Okay. Uh this may be a good uh a good point
that so that uh we're going to open this up to public comment. Um I don't know if we had anything out for signing up, but uh so what we will do is we'll we'll take it from the audience. Anybody that
uh that wants to come up and speak, just make sure that uh that you're clear on uh giving your uh address uh and district that you're in. Um and uh we can move forward from there. So um Mark Hoey
>> Mark Hoey 225 104th Avenue District 3 and Arthur Sison does not represent my values. Uh it's interesting and I find it disturbing that uh the vice mayor made a big deal about a
pretty clear transgression of Jim Brainer coming before this group out of order. Wasn't right. We get all that. Uh didn't finish the presentation and kind of got pushed out of it, but whatever. And yet
just a few weeks ago at the PNZ and LPA meeting, uh the chair there invited multiple developers to come talk during the so-called public comments without having it public notice
without uh letting anybody know about it and totally violating that rule. And yet when I sent a email to the commission, including you, uh, I got zero. I got crickets about whether it should be
checked into or there was a concern about that. And just this past week, the chair reaffirmed, oh, it was okay. It was okay to do that. So obviously, we've got two sets of standards here. depending on the projected outcome.
Clearly, the vice mayor's outcome was to tank one of the applicants and that's that's your decision. You'll have to figure that. But when it's done in another manner and you have other local developers allowed to speak freely up to
40 minutes, no, that's okay. That's wrong. >> Thank you, Mark. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Robert. >> Uh, morning, Robert Bazo, 760 KBY Boulevard, uh, Georgia Island. What?
It's a paradise. Couple things. I really respect what Commissioner Clark said. I spot on in terms of looking at each of these, uh, proposals and grading them on the impact on what it can do for the city. uh uh Commissioner Dicki of course
is is to me absolutely a brilliant commissioner and said uh this whole scoring system is a little bit a little bit gaming. There should be no gaming ship but I think each each package should have been um analyzed separately and based on their on that criteria and
not and not the way uh really has been done here. um this RFQ process is it's technical and it's hard and um I'm not sure I would have had or anybody on on the panel had really the knowledge, skills or ability to really analyze
this. Um I mentioned to our public works director as an engineer that um if I was in charge I would have had somebody like him uh take a look at these proposals to really because we're judging qualifications and I I think that's hard for regular people like me and many of
you to really do that. It's a very hard job to do and so I think the scoring system a little bit of gamemanship uh involved. I am very pleased to see that Kimley Horn did not make anywhere near uh uh the top three or four. I have personal experience with them and I
found them to be rather slow and cumbersome and not really responsive to the needs of the community. Again, this is a very difficult job. Um again, uh downgrading a score based on a presentation that somebody gave. Again, I have no dog in this in this in this
show at all. I don't I don't know Brainard, but again, uh that particular company should have been evaluated based on those criteria and certainly not by uh an individual giving a presentation um in the past. So, it's knowledge, skills, and ability. That should have been a key here. Uh my concern is that
there is some uh um momentum on this board to perhaps not follow this master planning process. I really think that the people have spoken and um and that we need to do this. I don't care who's chosen except for Kim Lee Horn. Um and I think we're in the right but I think
there is some momentum that we're going we may decide not to do this. I urge you all to do this. Let's move forward with this. Um another time we'll discuss what the LPA is doing and their and their agenda uh which I think is counter counter uh productive and antagonistic
to what the commissioner decided to do. So tough job. I respect what you're doing and I really appreciate that we're doing this now uh in the public and in the in the sunshine and uh great respect and uh thank you very much. >> Thank you, Robert. Is there anyone else?
Yes, >> Rick. >> Rick Matthew, District 3. Um I would really caution Penelis forward. They're the geniuses that brought us to Sunrunner. They're the ones that closed off lanes on First Avenue and 66. So
they're an NGO. They're in this to make money. I would caution anything we do with them. They came presented a couple months ago and we kind of gave them the nice. See you later. So let's take what they say with a grain of salt. They're
in this to make money and they have some very bad ideas. Thank you. >> Thank you, Rick. Sean >> Sean Burn. Um, I think the only thing that bothers me, I'm against the master plan idea. I think everybody knows that,
but is the criticism of the 2006 master plan of downtown was that it didn't include the whole city. And so, the irony of that we didn't include the whole city on this one just doesn't set well with me. Um, and then also, if we're going to go through with this, I
mean, pick the top three and let's get moving. Time is on the essence. >> Thank you, Sean. Good morning, Michael Fergan, Capri. Um, I know we're going to speak about next steps. Um, did many of these, but not relative to master plans. Just
suggestions. Um, bring in the top two or three, have them come in, but be sure they bring in the people who are going to be on the project, not the principles. Doesn't make a difference what the principal. have the people who are going to be there, have them do the presentation.
The other thing is I I don't necessarily agree with just going and have the the highest scored person get quote um you lose leverage if you only going get pricing from one. Um negotiate with two
or three at the same time because who knows what number one's price is versus number two and that might be an influential with some of these scores by five points. So, um, when you go out for pricing, bring in more within just the top, uh, score. That's it.
>> Thank you, Mike. Come on up. Good morning, Mike. >> Mike Brady, 11 950, 4 Street East, District 1. Um, I mean, I know we're going to go through
with this, and now that we're this far along, we better do it. Um, I am totally against it. I have always been against it. I think it's a total waste of time. I think we should do the PD process. All the other communities use a PD process. It allows input from the city, allows
input from all of us residents and uh we get what we want to some degree and the developer gets what they want to some degree, but I think everything will move a lot faster. So, that's just my two cents worth. Thanks. >> Thank you.
Is there anyone else? Okay, we'll close the public comment. U and I'll bring back the discussion to the committee. >> I'll start. I guess I'll start out. I'm I'm uh I'm concerned that our approach
we we we ended up pro probably where nobody at this table is happy with I think where we're ended up. Uh maybe we we got we got some some of the ones out that uh should not have been considered and I'm fine with that. But I think we I don't think anybody got what they wanted
with the with the uh scores when I see I shouldn't say anybody. It looks like uh uh the highest one uh was uh uh got got some good ratings there. But anyway, I'm I'm a I'm concerned that we're we didn't land at a good spot and I and
I'm just I'm at uh I I don't know where to go from here. I hate to I hate to say let's go with the three highest scores up there and and invite them back when when they're not necessarily the three best candidates. >> I mean, that's the way the process
works. It's scoring. It's one through nine. And just because one of us, and I'm speaking for myself as well, because one of us doesn't agree with what another commissioner scored, that's the process.
And that's what we were left to do. And that's what we did. And we cannot agree, but the fact is somebody may like one or not like one for one reason or the other. And there's five of us. And the scores are the scores.
And unless somebody wants to change them, I mean, I'm all for doing the top three. I mean, I 100% agree with Michael, you know, definitely not doing one, but I I definitely think the top three is is the way to go. I mean, it is
the process. The process is to score. We've scored. That's just where it lands. >> I I what I would propose um Ardan is that we do the top three. And I think Able City should be added on as a fourth
because of uh I think a lot of us one person was singled out and that wasn't isn't really to me fair. >> I don't think that that process is going to work though. Uh we can't just grab one and say, "Okay, we're going to
elevate this person." We we've got to do it by the score. >> I think we should do uh the top three and then uh the fourth and the fifth was off by one point. So if uh one of the top three is way too expensive then we
could reach out to the fourth or the fifth um and then the cuto off would be five but based on negotiations for the first three. >> Yeah, I tend to agree that uh where we are at this point uh we need to take the
uh the top three. Uh I think it would be insane for us to uh select uh an individual candidate now without us seeing um as as was said the people that are going to be you know feet on the the ground uh and helping us out. Um so I
think that what we need to do is is move forward with the top three. Uh we're going to need consensus with it at this point. We don't need a a vote or a committee. um once it goes uh to the commission uh that is where there'll
actually be a uh a solid vote. >> I agree with that. Top three >> consensus on top three. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> We're going to Yes. >> We're going to mention the companies just to make sure we're in the same
page. So the the top three firms again are uh number one CLER and Herring 377, Rafelis 372, and Calvin Jordano and Associates 342.
And as I understand, you'd like these three firms to come in for presentations and interviews. Is that correct? >> Yes. And and I do agree with uh with Rick that uh we need to I I think it was Rick that need to have the people that are going to be on the ground here and
not the principles. Uh we we want to hear from the folks that uh that are uh going to be working with us. >> Yeah, I agree. That's a very good suggestion. >> Yes. Let me also just remind then everyone that the written proposals will
remain closed until there's a final decision or until 30 days from the bid opening occurs and that would 30 days from the opening is Monday March 9th. >> Okay. So just >> so Monday March 9th these come open under state law. Um if you make a final
decision before that um then they'll become open when you make your final decision as a city commission. >> Okay. So, these are not available for >> Yep. They're still not available. They're still confidential under the statute. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> And do we know the date for when you'd like the firms to come in and present? >> Let's pick a date. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Let's choose a date. >> My phone. Um, the sooner the better. I don't know
how uh how long it'll take for these PO people to pull together and uh and get here, but uh I would like to see it uh in March and uh the second week of March,
the week of um March 9th would be a good date for for myself. If others >> I could do the daytime but not the night time. >> Okay. Which day? >> Monday, March 9th, I think he was
proposing. >> Yeah, anytime during that week, but I can do the evenings that week. >> I cannot do the Monday unless it's morning. >> Okay. So, we can move to Tuesday. >> I'm good for any day that week. 10th. I >> the 10th.
>> Tuesday the 10th is our city election for the referendum. >> Okay. >> That's not a good day to >> Wednesday the 11th. >> I'm good. >> In the evening. >> In the evening. Everybody good? >> In the morning for me.
>> I can do Thursday. >> Um Thursday >> evening >> because I think evening is going to I think it's going to be evening. Everybody do Thursday evening. Y'all have somebody here? >> I can do Thursday evening.
>> We have LPA on Thursday. >> Thursday evening. >> Thursday evening or Thursday afternoon meeting. >> Oh, good lord. >> I think it should be in the evening if we're going to bring these firms in. I think the public should be able to, you know, listen to them. Yeah.
>> That uh Five. >> 5:00 PM. >> Yeah. Five. >> Okay. So, we got 5:00 PM. Let's get a date. >> We think we can be done in an hour. >> No. >> Not at all. >> You want to do it on the same night as
the LPA meeting? I'm not getting lost here. >> No. I think we decided not to do it on the same night as the LPA meeting. >> What night at 5? >> That's what we're trying to figure out here. >> Okay. Sorry. And I I think that the 12th, which is a
Thursday, >> the 12th, >> that's the LPA. That's why. Okay. So, >> what about the 11th? >> Yeah, let's go back to the 11th. >> Can't do the 11th, but maybe I could get somebody. >> Did you say you can't do
>> Yeah, I attorney can't do. >> Oh, got it. >> I have another council meeting in the 11th at 6, but I can do the daytime. Did the calendars look pretty pretty uh tight that week. How about the first week of March? March 4th, 5th or 6th?
>> 10th at 5. >> The clerk says she can do the 10th at 5. >> We have a meeting on the 3. What if we did it before the meeting? Uh would they even react time?
>> Yeah, I don't think they one week. >> That's too close. >> Yeah, >> I'd like to think they could, but I doubt that. >> So the 10th is the election. Does that go till 7? >> It goes till seven, but you can >> in this room. >> No, we'll be across the street. >> Oh, okay. Okay.
>> Be available. >> Okay. Okay. >> So the 10th 10th >> 10th at 5. Would that work for >> 10th at five? Works for me. Works for me. >> Okay. So, we will be holding a special meeting
on uh March 10th at 5:00. Uh about the format, do you want the same format uh 15 minutes presentation or 30 minutes presentation and then 45 minutes of Q&As's from the from the members?
>> Yeah, that's fine. 15 or 20 minutes. Uh yeah, >> more time for questions. discussion. >> Yeah, absolutely. Why don't we give them each 20 minutes? They'll take one hour to do their presentations and then another hour to uh answer all the
questions. >> Perfect. >> Okay. >> Just to be clear, did you say two hours per each? >> No. >> 20 minutes. >> 20 minutes and 40 minutes of questions. >> U just I I think that questions can kind of go bow on the back end. we can open
it up but uh for presentations 20 minutes each. >> All right. So the proposals will be open by by then. They'll be open on the 9th. >> Okay. >> So people will see them all. So you could do the um presentations and you could bring them all into the room
together if you wanted to ask them questions together or you could ask them questions individually um while you go through each one. But you could decide that on the 10th if you want. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, you've got everything you need now. Um, we're still in the
committee committee status. U I I think that there should be a little bit more discussion to to go through. Um, there is due to the hurricanes there is money available for planning. Um, I don't know
how much it was like $32 million of of money. We're trying to go after that money as well. Problem is that they really don't know how they're going to make the the application available to get the money. Um, so we're we're hoping
that that that uh you know that we will be able to pull money um out of that whether it be you know $150,000 or $400 or $500,000 whatever whatever it is we're we're hoping to pull money from that especially since you know that uh
we were the hardest hit um especially with Helen and then uh once again with uh um Milton and uh so we're we're hoping that that we're going get some help and uh and that will definitely
make it a lot easier on on our budgets. Um and uh and that's the money's already been earmarked. So, it isn't as though it's being taken from someplace else. It just is um how we fill out our application and how much of that money is going to be available for uh for
Treasure Island. >> That's a beautiful thing. Mhm. >> Um does anyone have any other thoughts or any other >> The only thing I would like to um and if you guys are not for it that's fine but
the um doing like a workshop for forward panel is to present it's a new tool so it's not something that that they've shown us. It's not something they've ever presented or anything like that. So, um I don't know if there's a desire to do that, but um it was just something
that was >> Yeah, I don't have any desire to do it uh moving forward. I mean, I know that we've talked with them, we've seen things and uh but at the stage that we're at now, I think that uh I was talking about even working in tandem with them. That was that was the part
that intrigued me the most when we met with them that they're like we can work in tandem with them as well. But again, that's, you know, it wasn't like an either or, >> right? >> Yeah. >> I actually don't want to work with them just on the fact that First Avenue North
and South were missing the whole lane. So, I agree with Rick on this one. >> That's fine. >> I I'd rather not complicate it with that. >> That's fine. Okay. >> Okay. So, uh, we officially are going to
close the committee meeting and so we are now back, uh, in our status of it being a special commission meeting. Um, I do not have anything, uh, on the agenda for to close out the
meeting. So, hearing nothing, we will adjourn.