Committee of the Whole Meeting 07/13/2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2sP6kYh0FI Automatic captions; not audio-verified. [6:00] for the committee of the hall for the city council of Highland Park, Illinois July 13, [clears throat] 2026. Will the clerk please call the role? [6:07] Council member center present. [6:08] Council member Brockman here. [6:10] Council member Ross here. [6:11] Council member Tapio here. [6:14] Council member Lure here. [6:15] Council member Goldberg here here. Is everyone okay with council member Tapia participating via phone? Yes. Sure. But do we know who he is? [6:24] Um I'm going to take his word for it. [6:26] Yes. [laughter] Um and with that may I have a motion to approve the minutes of the consolidated [6:34] meeting of the committee of the whole from June 29th, 2026 and the closed session consolidated meeting of the committee of the whole also hold held June 29th, 2026. [6:44] So moved. Second. All in favor say I. I. Thank you. [6:48] Those minutes are approved. On our scheduled business this evening is an update regarding the comprehensive plan. Um thank you. [6:56] Thank you, Mayor. Um we have one item for scheduled business as part of this committee of the whole meeting. Um so I'm going to introduce Director Joel Fontaine to come forward. We have a [7:05] staff report in the packet providing an update on our comprehensive um plan [7:12] process thus far to secure a consultant um to take us through the comprehensive plan update. Um we are anticipating a [7:19] two three-year update. Um but we're looking for your feedback right now as we finalize the number of consultants down to two and then just looking for [7:27] your policy feedback as it pertains to next steps. And then um subject to uh the discussion this evening, we'll go back with the preferred consultant, [7:36] refine a contract, and then work to have that on the next agenda for consideration. Okay. Thank you. [7:44] Thank you. [7:46] And I assured um council that we'd have opportunity for questions, insights, and so forth, discussion that it's not just [7:54] a presentation and then Oh, it's a short presentation. Yeah. Yeah. We have great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. [8:01] Okay. See manager just did this uh slide. Okay. Um so just to just by way of background um we had discussed the [8:10] scope of work previously at committee of hall meetings uh most recently last year. Um and had uh email updates [8:18] regularly provided to city council from the city manager and we conducted a a formal procurement process for these [8:25] services. Um the [clears throat] scope of work reflects the uh city's uh planning initiatives and legislative changes since 2001. Ensures internal consistency among planning documents. [8:36] Re-examine select policy to ensure alignment with current needs and goals. [8:40] Identifies operational implementation plans that will be needed post the uh comprehensive plan and uh most [8:48] importantly creates an updated comprehensive plan for the city. [8:52] Um so outlined in the uh January RFPRFQ um and we developed that you know with council feedback regarding the [9:01] components of that. So we have an existing conditions report community engagement program internal consistency report economic analysis housing element [9:09] sub area plans guidel design guidelines translation services and of course the final plan deliverable. [9:17] So, uh, four firms initially responded to the RFP RFQ in the fall of 2025. Um, we reposted the RFPQ for wider [9:26] distribution. Um, we posted to a service called Quest, um, which goes nationwide. [9:33] Um, and personally and directly uh contacted uh, staff contacted 27 consulting firms uh, with AIA membership [9:41] and comprehensive planning experience based on that uh, that website. Um we [9:48] also uh posted on various organizational websites. Um the American Planning Association, American Municipal Planning [9:56] Organizations, and Planet Citizen, Planet Citizen. Um seven firms responded uh to the reposting. Um the evaluation [10:05] team uh reviewed the proposals. Hello, Hart. Sorry. Um and the team consisted of the city manager's office, representatives from [10:13] the city manager's office, community development and public works. City interviewed five of the seven respondents. Uh four firms were invited [10:21] to submit detailed proposals. Three firms were interviewed a second time and two finalists were selected interface [10:27] studios and B. Um updates were regularly provided to council to ensure alignment with council feedback. [10:36] [clears throat] [10:36] summary of final proposals. So both finalists we want to be clear are qualified to successfully complete this [10:44] work. They have two different approaches but what we did is we worked with them to um to make sure that the approach uh [10:52] is similar with regard to engagement. So there was a large difference between the proposals that was narrowed by [10:59] increasing the um community engagement aspect of it. Um so ultimately we are [11:07] looking at house lavine and and interface studios. Hiel has a very you know a very uh efficient approach to [11:14] this. It requires fewer labor hours and is less costly. Uh interface has emphasis on community involvement. It [11:21] proposes more labor hours and is as a result more costly. [11:26] [clears throat] [11:27] Interface's proposal is about 23 and a half% more costly. uh but they do provide 21% more hours in terms of [11:34] labor. Uh travel costs accounted for about 44% of the difference between the two proposals and their travel costs are about $45,600. [11:44] Um house sales is much less because they're their local and they're about 5,000. [11:50] [clears throat] [11:51] So just note that not all items in the RFP can be provided at the least cost lowest end of house range. Okay. So you [11:59] may have you may have heard that you know there is a much lower amount and know that that didn't include sub area planning that we identified in the RFP [12:07] that didn't include design guidelines that didn't include translation services and that didn't include importantly additional community engagement. So [12:16] that's the lowest cost end of things. So please keep that in mind. Having said that, the top numbers here, those percentages, what we did is we brought [12:25] both of the proposals up to comparable levels in terms of the provision of those things and we compared them and there's still a cost difference and we [12:33] talked about that is 23% more costly for interface, but they do provide more person hours. So staff request feedback [12:41] as it pertains to the depth of community engagement and the cost associated with the two types of consultants and the master plan or comprehensive plan as [12:48] we're calling it initiative. Thank you Mary. Thank you. [12:53] Um do you want to oh kick us off or I us may I or Sure. [13:00] Okay. Um, and I I have a a quick question though because I I just couldn't remember [13:09] looking through the and then I want to speak about what I saw in the art our piece. The uh Lakota group um is no [13:18] longer part of this, but that was the third group that was interviewed, right? [13:24] Invited to submit. I'm sorry, not Lakota. I'm so sorry. Um Lamar Lamar is an elm. [13:30] Yes, Lamar. Johnson. So, sorry. And um Lakota did the one in 23. [13:36] Yeah, I I it was just an L. Sorry, that's okay. [13:38] Yeah, the uh Lamar Johnson. Um was that um uh [13:45] we haven't formally rejected any of the proposals. Okay. Okay. [13:49] Right. We have told these two finalists that they are being considered and we indicated that we would provide a follow-up report this week. And and how [13:59] did I I just don't recall how they compared as a overall price to the other two. Were they higher in the middle of the two? [14:07] Um well I guess aside from price we felt that these two firms were the strongest to carry out the [14:15] it's not in terms of strength. I'm just wondering if just in terms of just in terms of cost alone the the other consultants are more along [14:23] the line of the the house you know proposed. [14:26] Okay. Um what I wanted to say is that there while there is a a clear [14:34] difference between the h house seal RFP and the inter the interface RFP and both firms offer you know solid proposals as [14:43] as as you indicated. Uh I I you know look read the their RFPs. Um, and I and [14:52] I really appreciate that the that city staff offers us um, you know, two firms that are each different in their [15:00] approaches. Um, but Interfac's uh, proposal stood out to me more. Uh, [15:08] and you know, we we waited 25 years uh, [15:13] a quarter century. Um, and we we waited that long to do this comprehensive plan [15:21] update. I know we all want to do it as well as humanly possible. And let this plan be a credit not only to this [15:28] council and staff, but community and partners and resident volunteers who will participate in creating it, but also all those folks who put in their [15:36] valuable time and effort and talent 25 years ago, but didn't see much as a result of of their efforts. And I know the firms we choose will take into [15:45] account that history too in creating the comprehensive plan. And I from what I understand of House Seals's proposal uh [15:53] and their you know a really large fairly large firm with seven um offices. I I [16:02] noted um it it seems it's largely to save us money that they're offering it more as a DIY, do-it-yourself approach. [16:14] Um give the kits to city staff to train them and mostly have our staff run it, which is admittedly admittedly a a [16:22] savings in terms of their billable hours. However, um I'm I'm keenly interested in the the talent and abilities of of of the people we're [16:30] we're hiring to have, you know, direct uh work with them. Uh their team, interface team is very impressive and [16:37] will largely run and interact themselves with our community. Uh they've uh won numerous awards. And as a a bonus, I I [16:47] and I hope it doesn't sound bad to say that I I I appreciate that um uh their their training, their uh educational [16:55] backgrounds, which uh from, you know, a university that's renowned for architecture design and urban planning. [17:01] Uh they say from the first page of their RFP, the interface says that they're focused on implementation. Um which uh [17:10] you know, not just the plan, but how successfully it is implemented. Um and they have worked for the cities of Evston and Ann Arbor and there so they are experienced in the Midwest. [17:20] Um they uh recognize all the work the efforts that the city engaged in uh such as move HP and uh sustainability and the [17:29] central business plan. Long list of of efforts that the city has done but they describe it as being developed in a bit of a siloed way and uh they're going to [17:38] address that. uh they uh describe um integration between the clear desire to save and preserve H park's rich historic [17:48] design history but also how to move forward as a city um and to bring together housing, transportation, [17:55] economic development. Uh I also I'm listing a few of the things I liked. [18:01] They like the socio demographic mapping they would utilize to determine what changes are on the horizon in terms of families, young families and starter [18:08] homes as well as seniors and senior housing. Um they looking at employment trends, look at industries in the city compared to the region. Um and what are [18:17] the physical reach for businesses. Uh and I also like that they mentioned working with staff to identify additional language needs to address and [18:26] include all members of our community. Um I would suggest that whatever modeling and communication tools they use, they [18:32] need to find ways to reach um uh the blind and hearing impaired as well. Um that everyone should be included and not [18:40] shut out due to a disability. Um, and as much as I respect uh the Illinois design [18:48] schools that mostly staff at every local design firm, whether architecture, landscape, urban design, uh, you know, [18:55] seem to, uh, to have attended. Uh, I feel that, um, this this team would be a [19:02] provide a cool, innovative approach with very talented and broadly experienced team. Um and uh the the city manager [19:13] told me that staff can go back to interface and tell them that their proposal, you know, is more and where [19:20] could they trim expenses to bring the cost down to make it more palatable to all of city council. Uh, I think that [19:28] any extra money spent on one firm versus versus another has to be viewed and weighed in terms of the many dollars that create city planning could invite [19:36] in terms of outside investment here and in terms of home values and how well businesses do. Uh, great city planning [19:45] will positively impact every Hamilton Park resident and business. Uh, House Seal Lavine. uh seems like I have a [19:54] shorter amount to say about that. Uh seems like a much bigger firm with offices in seven cities. Uh their [20:01] approach seems to rely on developing new technologies for modeling, testing, and analysis that help with city planning [20:08] for use by cities who hire them. But that that's what they seem to stress in their [clears throat] RFP and that they [20:16] have created DIY do-it-yourself kits that draw upon their technologies such as map social um and you know they they [20:25] seem to rely heavily on uh technology um versus the you know uh the the staff you [20:35] know individual expertise [clears throat] interacting with our with our community uh and they they [20:42] listed the different uh groups and and companies and individuals that would act [20:49] as as consultants. Um it it felt like uh interface was was more um in-house and [20:57] and smaller, more nimble, um more personal and and again I I think they're bringing [21:06] uh really serious you know background and credentials uh and education to this really important [21:16] work. And I will reiterate that I think it's worth a worth, you know, spending [21:24] more money if necessary, but also worth going back and and discussing where they might trim their costs to, you know, be [21:33] more in line with the other bids. That's what I say. [21:37] Those are great comments and I really appreciate the nuances that you kind of teased out from the two different proposals and I agree with you. I think [21:44] that I truly appreciate the time that you put into pulling those comments together. Thank you, Marissa. [21:51] Thank you. Um, so I um I'm in favor of proceeding with interface as well. Um, I like their thorough communitydriven [21:59] approach. Um, I like what they they want to do popups in the community, have surveys. Um, and they're relying more heavily um on the community fresh [22:09] community engagement. Um I feel like household's proposal was more going off of what was from 2001. This is a fresh [22:17] approach. Um I do know that the obviously the cost is 20 23% higher. But I did have a question. I know some of a [22:25] large percent of that is due to the travel. Um is that something that could be negotiated especially as since it's going to take a couple of years so [22:33] possibly that could go down. Um I didn't know if that was in the contract or you know what we were looking at with that. We can certainly follow up with them. [22:41] Absolutely. Yeah. Great. [22:43] Okay. Um perfect. That was Yeah, that was my question because I was like looking this is going on for several years. So that was just a comment I had. [22:50] Um but other than that I'm I'm happy with interface. I also think that you know we've heard from so many different residents that they want to be involved [22:58] with this process. So doing you know community events to get the public involved would be very helpful. So, I like that approach and their thinking with interface. So, that's where I'm at. [23:08] Thanks. Thank you, Annette. [23:10] So, um I come out on the other end of things and I come out um um in favor of house seal. Part of it does have to do [23:18] with money. Um I think 23,000 23% when we're talking over $100,000 is a lot of money. This is public money. I like the [23:27] time frame better. It seems that this is more of an 18month versus a three-year process. This community has been hungering for this for a very long time. [23:37] I'm not saying we should rush it. I want to do a very good and comprehensive job. [23:42] I really got the feel from them and I am not an artistic person. So, um, I really [23:49] would defer in the sense of, you know, the artistry of it, but they seemed incredibly data-driven, comprehensive. [23:59] Um they had almost all their uh clients are Midwestern. Certainly in Illinois [24:06] everything was Illinois oriented. Um it w and it was all sorts of different communities but certainly on the Northshore there was Kennallorth Wilmet [24:14] and portions for Evston one. It was less focus group oriented. [24:20] They have several four focus groups. I counted 12 different orientations without any of the add-ons versus 48 [24:29] different ones that are being recommended by um the other group interface. And I just think 48's too [24:38] much. I think people get tired. I think dragging this out for three more years is a mistake. I think while we haven't [24:46] done a comprehensive plan and I really have a problem with that over 25 20 years 25 years 25 we have done a lot of [24:55] independent small studies they referred at every point to [clears throat] different studies we've done and how that would be incorporated and [25:04] how they were going to use it. So, while I did see the do-it-yourself orientation, what I liked about it was the fact that they're going to take our [25:11] updates and I really felt like they were going to use them even if it's just to be a launching point to expedite the [25:19] process. So, they're not starting 25 years ago and they say, "Yes, in this corridor you've studied it and and you [25:26] came out with X, so now we want to build to Y to bring it up to date." And I just felt it was a really good use of the [25:33] studies that our staff and outsiders have done over the last 10 to 12 years. [25:39] That's not enough. Those were peace meal. This is the whole comprehensive plan, but I would like to use those building bricks considering we spent [25:48] money on them and they are updates from the last 20 or 25 years. [25:54] Um I I did think that um I like the idea of working with staff as closely as they [26:02] said in terms of in-house. I have to say in checking with two other there are a couple of other communities that have [26:10] done this recently in house. It's a huge undertaking and I don't want to burden our staff with that. But nobody knows [26:18] our community better than our staff. And so working with professionals who are looking at it from an outside [26:25] perspective, I just got the feeling that this was going to be a real team effort [26:30] [clears throat] [26:31] that they would do focus groups, but that it wasn't going to be so heavily weighted toward that and over such a long duration of time at such a high [26:39] cost that it seemed to me to be too excessive. So I come out on the side of house seal and I think those were most [26:48] of my comments and if we reduced the community you know the groups and went with [26:56] interface and diminished the cost would you be comfortable with interface if we went down 100,000 and if they could do it in less than three years yes [27:04] I am not comfortable it was 80 that was the delta yeah but even adding in because obviously translation services were [27:11] necessary it was 278 8 + 15 and I I just don't see the point of 48 different focus groups. [27:18] But that that's my point. If you took that component and shrunk it down to 24 or something, would you be okay with interface? [27:26] Yes and no. And I'll tell you why. Okay. [27:28] I brought up the whole point about the travel and I asked for those numbers because um while I wanted to do a [27:36] comprehensive search from all over, I still am always happier with local. And so unless they're going to reduce the [27:44] cost and maybe they do a lot of stuff over Zoom after initial interactions and whatever, it it's not enough just to reduce the focus groups, it would need [27:53] to be a reduction in travel. And maybe that's through Zoom. I don't want to have less interaction with my professionals, but if they're not here, but they're [28:01] better, then okay. But it it would have to be a significant reduction in terms of travel. I'm not willing I'm not [28:09] willing to pay that much. $47,000 on travel is public dollars that I don't want to spend. [28:14] I think we all share that priority of being fiscally responsible. Yeah. [28:19] It's just a matter of sort of not to put a pun on it, but how comprehensive our comprehensive planners can be, right? [28:25] And what they bring to the table and so forth. So that's why I'm trying to tease out what are the issues. If it's a straight cost issue, I think you have [28:33] full agreement from this group that we always want to try to do things as economically and responsibly as we can. [28:39] But given that it's been 25 years and we have all of these different projects, who is the right group? If we can say we [28:48] have parody at cost, then where do you land? [28:51] Well, but the problem is I I think they're looking at this as a much more massive undertaking. And frankly, I'm [28:59] not saying um interface. I am not happy. I'm not comfortable with the three-ear time frame to get this done. So, your two issues mainly though are cost and time. [29:09] Cost and time. And um those are two pretty big ones. No, they absolutely and travel and travel because the face [29:18] people's cost. So, you don't care if they travel. You just don't want to spend the money on their travel. And that I understand. [29:23] Yeah. And the other thing is, you know, if we're talking 10,000, 20,000, I I might be more flexible if I felt that, and I know credentially they're they're [29:31] just stars, but I think the other group is really really down to earth Midwestern Illinois, and I think they may have an [29:40] understanding that offers us something that's more gerine to our economy, that's more gerine to our community. So [29:48] yes, I would be comfortable with them depending what they come up with in the same way as I would not do house seal without the translation services at a minute. [29:56] I just want to make sure we're comparing apples and apples and not and I appreciate that. Great. Thank you. [30:03] Yeah, I mean we we almost have like two different scopes. So I think that's what you're trying to get to and [30:10] uh I'm not experienced in comprehensive plants. So like this is not my expertise at all. on listening to, you know, what everybody else is saying, I really [30:18] appreciated how in depth Council Member Ross went around interface and the the nuance of what she identified there. [30:26] Um, they sound like a very competent good group. [30:30] I agree with Council Member Litter's comments around timing and cost. [30:35] Like I I I think three years is too long. The community needs this. I think 18 months is a much more reasonable timeline. Um uh you know if you actually [30:44] compare the costs they're pretty close right right if you look at but on a rate per hour perspective they're pretty close [30:51] uh and if you strip out you know the number of inerson meetings and sessions with the community that like council member was suggesting your travel costs [31:00] are going to come down a lot so you're talking to them about basically a wash in terms of dollars right um and so that's the I think the line of [31:09] question that you were going down with that like who would you go with? You know, I'll default to the group. Um, but I appreciated what council member Ross [31:16] was saying about why she felt like interface was a better fit. [31:19] Great. Thank you. [clears throat] Um, I want to hear from council member Tapia before we go to further questions, but Kea, what did you want to hear? [31:25] Uh, thank you, mayor. So, I just just listening to everyone so far. I just want to add two things. So, one is um we did talk about the importance of [31:34] community engagement because this is such an important initiative, but understanding the feedback that I've heard from a number of elected [31:41] officials, um we certainly could go back to interface and have them just reduce the scope of the voluous amount of [31:48] community engagement and the variety of outreach because I think overall just through our um I'll say our core [31:56] comprehensive community engagement, I think we will make sure that people know what we're doing and give them a chance to engage with us and get their [32:05] feedback. So I think that could be reduced. Um and then the other aspect I just want to respond to council member litter. I mean certainly just being an out ofstate firm or even if they are in [32:12] state even with companies in Chicago I mean we do as much as we can over zoom as to just be for efficiency for our [32:20] staff as well as for them. So that could yield reduced costs as well because if they're not coming here to do popups and [32:28] focus groups and all of that, that naturally is going to take um hours and costs down. [32:34] Great. Um Andre, yes. Um you know, obviously we have two very credible um urban planning um [32:44] organizations here. If you put them toe-to-toe, I mean, they check a lot of the boxes, you know, comparably. [32:51] uh you know, council member uh Senator's uh financial uh summary that others of you have also said that maybe when you [32:58] compare apples and apples to hourly rates and etc. maybe they they don't they're not as uh separate in terms of [33:06] the fees because that that um stood out to me, but I can kind of maybe call that a wash as well. I am very concerned [33:14] about one taking twice as much as the other and to me that's a big factor. [33:19] [clears throat] [33:19] uh we've waited long enough and I don't feel that the the the proposal by how would be a short bunch of shortcuts uh [33:28] because their project plan is very comprehensive as well and uh and the other thing that stood out for me [33:36] besides favor the house one um when I look at differentiators their language is a lot more strategic um through and [33:43] through from the cover page all the way to the end um it um the uh The interface one is more uh a little [33:52] bit more proforma, a little bit based on c categories of things like project planning or design or listening as [33:59] opposed to the more strategic language that um uh house uses. And if you look at pages 1551 [34:07] um of the house you want well actually starting at 49 actually the project understanding I I really like that they [34:15] came up with strategic statements that would be the objective strengthen the Skooki Valley corridor enhance commercial districts explore expanding [34:23] unincorporated areas etc. We have like three four more and I I like an approach that sort of gets to the heart of some [34:32] of the objectives that we're trying to get at outcomes or things lens is to look at the urban planning to as opposed [34:40] to uh interfaces one which is a little bit more generic. It's like here's a proarma, here's how we would approach it. But the I don't see a point of view [34:49] that has been informed by the listenings that they both did in uh in talking to us. And I feel that having a strategic point of view at least coming into how [34:58] this is proposed really stands out to me in a very significant way. And I think one thing that we struggled and my [35:06] perception as a city is that um sometimes we do things a little bit more peace meal and don't have the big picture. That's the whole point of this [35:14] comprehensive plan and both are approaching it. But I think that uh House Seal has a a leg up in terms of [35:22] having approached it very strategically from the get-go which gives me confidence that they will be a much more strategic partner in how they go about [35:30] their um comprehensive plan for the city. The final point I'd made is, you know, we make a big point about [35:38] supporting the local economy and we we're we we do that as a city, you know, as a city hall when we, you know, order [35:45] meals from uh Highland Park-based restaurants as a small symbolic but important thing. And and we make a point [35:52] that we like to use local businesses as much as we can because we want to support the local economy. And I in addition to the attraction of an [36:01] Illinois based organization that has done a lot in this area and urban planning has to kind of be comprehensive [36:08] not only about our our our square mileage but how it fits with the ethos and the cont geography of the area in [36:16] which we find ourselves. I think that's a competitive advantage for this group. [36:20] And in addition, you know, if in the spirit of supporting the local economy, if these are pretty comparable in many [36:28] ways, as I acknowledge, but there's some differentiators. Well, I to me there's an advantage that why give why not give [36:37] the business to an Illinois based company, which then also benefits the state that we're in. Um and so in the [36:45] same day that we support Highland Park based or Lake County based companies when we can. So for all those reasons I my vote is for house. [36:55] Okay. Thank you. Uh Yi um I I [clears throat] [37:01] maybe say this uh a little too often but I I I really appreciate the dialogue and I appreciate hearing everybody's point [37:09] of view whether I agree or disagree. Um, I I do think that if we do this comprehensive plan really well, as as [37:18] obviously we plan to, uh, I I I truly believe we will reap the economic benefits for businesses and homeowners, [37:26] um, with with a really great plan. Um, and I I did not see the difference uh in [37:33] terms of of of uh interface uh being more generic um [37:41] than than house seal. I it to me it it felt that interface was the more nuanced um and sort of richer more in in [37:50] in-depth um uh presentation. Um, and I'm [37:56] I I I I appreciate supporting the, you know, Illinois economy. I'm I'm more [38:04] focused really at this point on it, you know, supporting Highland Park's economy and uh and and and I feel like a a great comprehensive plan will do uh just that. [38:17] um interface in their presentation uh spoke to how they will incorporate and build on work that has been done in [38:25] the past. Um I that was something that was uh in both of the RFPs uh spoken to [38:33] uh the fact that House Seal Lavine has done more work in the Midwest um is [38:41] you know um I want to speak to that. I I I think that there are I I know that there are [38:48] both midsize and and very large projects uh that have been f incredibly well done [38:55] that have been designed by uh you know Chicago for example firms in uh I'm sorry projects in Chicago ranging from [39:05] you know park design like Maggie Daly and the Bloomingdale Trail of 606 to the Obama center that were designed to huge [39:13] success and great acclaim by uh New York City firms. Um, and I I I actually see [39:20] it as a a benefit um an interesting benefit that they're they they're they're from out of town. Um it's it's [39:27] they they they do do work in the Midwest, but they're bringing um you know, to me a uh you know, objective uh [39:35] perspective and and and they seem really talented. Um two points that were raised [39:43] um by my colleagues uh uh you know can we do less focus groups I don't know why we couldn't [39:51] um and can we ask interface to shrink the timeline um I I agree about I am [39:58] concerned about a too long timeline uh you know that and and and certainly at the end of the day I'd like to see it [40:05] cost less money but I think there's still a way to do that Okay. I don't know why they couldn't do less focus groups and and shrink the timeline [40:13] and one drives the other. If you're shrinking the number of focus groups and presumably you're shrinking the timeline. [40:19] So, you know, again, I think we kind of need to be able to compare apples to apples. [40:24] Um, I still agree with your [cough] comments and appreciate the thoughtfulness that you brought to the [clears throat] um analysis. I also just [40:32] felt that this was something that was easier communicated. Um, for some reason this is just harder for me to grasp and understand. Maybe that's just part of [40:41] the culture of the two entities. Um, when you say interface, I'm I support interface, but I'd love to have that first conversation of can we [40:51] compare apples to apples? and we have them shrink down their community engagement and talk about cost reduction and address the timeline issues and then [41:00] maybe bring it back one more time for the council to consider with Tony here unless and I want to say I think those are both really reasonable things to ask I less [41:09] focus groups and a shorter timeline timeline yeah and diminishing the cost right [41:15] right oh yeah I you know about the timeline line. I mean, some of what we wrote [41:23] there was to distribute the costs among three fiscal years. That's more of a staff, right? If you look at the timeline, it [41:31] was more that it's for our budget purposes across three years. It's not three calendar years of doing the work. [41:38] Well, actually, I think two years of work spent over three years. [41:40] Two years of work. So yeah, but the way they wrote it, they actually mentioned um interface mentioned that it is three years in the I thought they said three fiscal years. [41:50] I part of the reason why they said that is because we wanted to do well they said three I believe they said three years and so if that's a change [41:57] I'd love to hear about it. Um I I will say and actually [cough] it will [clears throat] surprise mayor because I think you're more like me and that well [42:04] you're very numbersoriented and this the comprehensive plan from house sale read to me like a very um straightforward [42:14] business plan that was going to look at all aspects and integrate different uh whether that's data from the city from [42:22] former reports um you know information from elected officials information from residents [42:29] Um, I did feel like interface was much more, the word isn't flowery, and I don't mean that in a bad way. I I felt [42:37] like it was a very creative approach that was going to look at so many different aspects and maybe that was very rich. But for my purposes in [42:44] wanting to understand in a very straightforward way um how what what are [42:52] programs that we want to look at? What are ways in which we want to do development? how have things changed? I wanted more of an analytic approach of [43:01] this and that's what I took away because I was fully expecting to like interface better um based on frankly a lot of [43:09] credentials and some of the things that were in there. It was beautifully done. [43:13] But this one spoke to me on a much more straightforward basis. So it was just very it's very funny to me that you say that and I'm not saying in any other way [43:21] than that's exactly what I had the opposite reaction to. Right. So in any event I I would be much more comfortable with house [43:29] with house are people comfortable with and and ga is it possible for us to go back to interface and say here's where we're at and we need to be able to [43:38] compare two similar projects um and then have another conversation at our next meeting. [43:47] Um yes 100% yes. So we'll definitely talk to them about making sure that the [43:54] work can be done in two years. Um we'll look at reducing the number of focus groups and other community engagement. [44:00] Um the only thing about apples to apples um is for a request for proposal. We are looking for the consultants to tell us [44:09] based on their expertise what is the most effective way to get what we want done. So I hesitate [44:16] driving them exactly to apples to apples because we're telling a consultant how to do their work. But we will tell them, hey, we we provided an emphasis on community engagement. [44:25] And um we don't think you need as much as you're proposing. So we'd like you to scale that down. We'd like you to make sure to get this done in two years. And we need the cost reduced. Yeah. [44:36] And so what does that look like? And then they'll and then we'll come back. [44:39] Does that fair? Yeah. And and if they say like, look, no, we want to do it this way. we need this many interviews, it's gonna take this long, then we can decide. Exactly. [44:47] Like that's too much for us or it's not. Right. Right. Yeah. Okay. [44:51] And in terms of going back, I just I mean [clears throat] I don't know if we're talking about the next meeting, but I really believe especially because [44:59] we won't have another meeting until mid August. [45:02] Um some of these RFQS were turned in on February 13th. This is dated April 14th. [45:09] This is three months later. Mhm. [45:11] And I know it takes time to digest this, but we've just spent 6 months digesting. [45:18] And that's 6 months that I view as time we should have already been engaging or hiring or doing it. [45:25] So, if we can get it back for next meeting, I think that's great. [45:29] Well, I'll provide you I've been providing regular email updates to all of you. So, I'll I'll do that if you're comfortable. Sure. And if it works based [45:37] on one-on-one conversation with the majority of you, um yeah, we too like cuz it's going to take time to negotiate an agreement, get it on an agenda. And [45:45] so we'll work to just keep things because if we decide this at the April meeting, it'll be September before we can have an agreement on the for sure, you know, and then a kickoff meeting and Yeah. [45:53] Exactly. You know, I we're going to be into we're going to be into Thanksgiving and that's not where we want to be because that's not when we want focus groups and kickoff meetings. [46:02] gonna say it again that I mean when I first joined council three and a half years ago asking you yeah you know so I really would like this to happen [46:10] yeah for sure okay you bet awesome thanks everybody for your thoughtful analysis of a lot much [46:18] appreciated um can I have a motion to go into close session for purposes of discussing personnel and litigation [46:26] pursuant to 5 ILCS 122 C1 and 5 ILCS 122 C1 11. So moved. Thank you. [46:34] Second. Will the clerk call the vote, please? Council member center. Hi. Council member Brockman. Hi. Council member Ross. Hi. [46:41] Council member Tapio. I. [46:43] Council member Little I. Mayor Ro. [46:46] I. Six eyes. No. We will go into close session. Thank you. [47:20] Republic.