STAFF REPORT: ZONING BYLAW REVIEW – SELECTION OF PROPONENT

COUNCIL REPORT

TO: Council
DATE: October 30, 2012
FROM: J. Davison, MCIP Planning Technician
MEETING DATE: November 6, 2012

ZONING BYLAW REVIEW – SELECTION OF PROPONENT

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council approves the award of the contract for the Zoning Bylaw Review to Urban Systems in the amount of $59,575.00 inclusive of all applicable taxes and professional fees.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is to present Staff’s recommendation for the winning proposal for the Zoning Bylaw Review.

BACKGROUND:

The Town received four responses to the Request for Proposals for the Zoning Bylaw Review, the competition for which closed on Tuesday, October 16th at 8:30am. The four proposals were from:

• Urban Systems, Victoria BC
• Michael Dillistone (and associates), Victoria BC
• CTQ Consultants Ltd, Kelowna BC
• Bill Boons Consulting Services, Coquitlam BC

STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROCESS:

The Town’s request for proposals included instructions to proponents, several of which were very specific:

• Date of completion (May 30, 2013)
• Budget ($60,000 including HST and all disbursements).

Additionally, the Terms of Reference included a large number of criteria for the project. Chiefly it involves the primary deliverables of:

• a new Zoning Bylaw including digital mapping and GIS layers;
• a fully executed Public Consultation Plan; and
• a comprehensive legal review of the new Zoning Bylaw

Within those deliverables, the Terms of Reference stated specific requirements, and also more generally that the project should:

• create a technically sound Zoning Bylaw embodying the best practices of contemporary land use planning;
• enable community exposure to and understanding of the new Zoning Bylaw;
• be consistent with the 2011 Official Community Plan;
• reflect the initiatives within the 2012 Community Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Plan;
• respond to growth pressure by identifying potential infill and redevelopment opportunity zones;
• enable innovative affordable housing options;
• protect sensitive natural environments within the Town;
• promote and foster social, cultural and recreational assets in View Royal;
• attract and promote suitable economic and mixed-use development in the Town;
• account for sustainable, ‘green’ servicing and utility infrastructure; and
• reflect the Capital Regional District’s regional policies and strategies.

In that context, Staff evaluated the suitability of each proposal. Within the evaluation there were several subjective factors which weighed heavily:

• meeting all the hard requirements (budget, timeline)
• accessibility (local team presence, or not)
• quality of team
• level of commitment (hours available)
• public consultation proposal
• overall strength of proposal (format, comprehension, details)

PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS:

This table provides an overview of the evaluation of the proposals, broken down into sections. Each section is weighted, and the overall score reflects the relative weights of the section.

Bill Boons Consulting Services – Coquitlam BC BUDGET: $64,960

This proposal is substantially over budget after HST, which greatly discounts the suitability of the proponent. The planning team is strong, but the time allocation per team member is not well articulated and the timeline is difficult to follow and poorly edited. The public consultation proposal highlights the lack of local knowledge. Also, staff is concerned over value for money and accessibility given that they are not a local team.

CTQ Consultants Ltd – Kelowna BC BUDGET: $60,483

Proposal is slightly over budget after 12% HST. The proposal is detailed, but difficult to follow and lengthy. The proposal of one Open House is not suitable, and highlights the lack of local knowledge and local experience. There are concerns that their timeline did not allow for much time for revisions after the public consultation process; Staff feels that the process as laid out would likely go on long after the desired May 30 2013 completion date. The concern again with a mainland firm is the lack of accessibility and value for money.

Michael Dillistone – Victoria BC BUDGET: $59,796

This proposal itself is strongly lacking in detail and vision, and that in itself discounts it. Michael has worked at the Town of View Royal in a temporary basis over the years, so the local knowledge is there. Conversely, however, Staff is concerned that a fresh, outsider perspective may be lost as a result. The proposal does not propose taking the document through the Council approval process, which is a large strike against. The positives area that there is a lot of time commitment and with a local team there will be ample opportunity for flexibility and communication.

Urban Systems – Victoria BC BUDGET: $59,574

This was the most balanced and suitable proposal, and immediately made a good impression with excellent, legible graphic presentation, and a clear understanding of direction and vision. The combination of local presence, significant experience and a very strong project understanding set this proposal apart. There is a very strong communications plan, which will be critical in consultation and continued public education around the Zoning Bylaw. Staff feels that this proposal offers excellent value for money, and will set a positive, professional tone throughout the project.

CONCLUSION:

The Urban Systems proposal stands out as the clear winner from the criteria that was laid out in the RFP, and also from subjective and objective impressions at the Staff level. Staff recommends that Urban Systems be the winning proponent.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council approves the award of the contract for the Zoning Bylaw Review to Urban Systems in the amount of $59,575.00 inclusive of all applicable taxes and professional fees.

SUBMITTED BY:
J. Davison, MCIP, Planning Technician

REVIEWED BY:
L. Chase, MCIP, Director of Development Services