Request for Proposals
Comprehensive Plan Update
The City of Medina is soliciting proposals from qualified consultants to prepare the 2030–2050 Comprehensive Plan Update. The Consultant will lead public engagement and work closely with residents, community stakeholders, city staff, and the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee to develop and draft the update. The Consultant will coordinate engagement and plan preparation, except for the Local Surface Water Management, Water Supply, Sanitary Sewer, and Transportation chapters, which will be prepared by the City’s engineering firm. The Consultant will be responsible for providing relevant mapping, quantitative data, and land use information from the broader Plan to support the engineering firm’s work.
Included in the RFP is a more detailed description of the scope of services, submittal requirements, selection process, and budget information.
RFP Instructions
Questions should be directed to Dusty Finke, Planning Director: dusty.finke@medinamn.gov
Responses to questions will be posted on this page (see below).
Proposals are due October 5, 2026 at 4:00 PM.
Responses to Questions:
Q1: Can you clarify what portion of the proposed $200,000 budget will be allocated for the planning tasks, in contrast to the amount for the technical studies? Or is that allocation flexible?
Q2: I see the budget is 200k for all required elements. Do you have a scope/cost estimate for the transportation and water resources effort?
Q3: The RFP references a $200,000 overall budget that includes both the chapters done by the City of Medina’s engineering consultant and the consultant awarded the RFP. Is there a general sense of how much is anticipated for each?
Response (Q1-Q3): The $200,000 budget was used for budget planning purposes. The City has not determined an allocation between the Community Engagement/Plan Preparation services and the Infrastructure plans services (Water Supply, Wastewater, Surface Water Management, Transportation) at this time. The scope of the Infrastructure Plans services is anticipated to match the minimum submittal requirements for the Metropolitan Council and other relevant agencies.
Although there may be flexibility to adjust the $200,000 budget for the overall Comprehensive Plan process, it is important to note that cost for the Community Engagement/Plan Preparation services is one of the evaluation criteria for the proposals.
Q4: Do you envision the city meetings as work sessions/presentations for the commissions and city council, or are they public meetings designed for broader engagement? Would there be an option to conduct any meetings virtually?
Response (Q4): The twelve public meetings noted in the scope (Steering Committee, Commission(s), and City Council) were anticipated for feedback and involvement by members of these bodies, not as opportunities for community engagement. Council members, Commissioners, and Steering Committee members will be encouraged to attend and monitor community engagement activities so the engagement does not need to be “brought to their meetings.”
The twelve public meetings of the City Council, Commissions, and Steering Committee will be public meetings which occur in-person. Virtual attendance to these in-person meetings (hybrid meeting) is possible, but if this is the intent, it should be noted in the proposal for consideration.
Meetings for project management meetings with staff and other stakeholders could be virtual.
Q5: What are the expectations/desired outcomes of the Hwy 55 / Tamarack Small Area Plan? I’m assuming this is more of a land use visioning and general concept area plan with consideration to infrastruction (utilities, access, etc..)? I’m guessing this is not something needing parcel-level recommendations, market analysis, or implementation?
Response (Q5): The RFP describes the minimum expectation for the Small Area Plan. The minimum expectation would be establishing a land use and density plan and to provide general considerations fo infrastructure. Proposals should describe proposed deliverables for the Hwy 55/Tamarack Small Area Plan. A market analysis and implementation plan was not included in the minimum expectation, but can be included in the Proposal if the Proposer believes it is an important deliverable.
Q6: Does the City have a preferred level of specificity for the Willow Drive and Chippewa Road outcome, meaning goals, opportunities, and next steps only, or goals paired with illustrative concepts?
Response (Q6): The anticipated scope for the Willow Drive and Chippewa Road area of emphasis was engagement, vision, goals, and broad land use. Illustrative concepts were not anticipated in the scope.
Q7: Are there studies or ordinance updates underway or planned during the project term that should be coordinated with this Plan?
Response (Q7): MnDOT is currently working on engagement and preliminary design for improvements to Highway 55 from Arrowhead Drive to County Road 19 and the City Engineer is preparing design for intersection improvements at Highway 55 and Tamarack Drive. The Comprehensive Plan will be completed within this context, but the plans/designs are not really expected to be coordinated with the Plan.
Q8: The RFP indicates City staff will update the drafts, prepare the Metropolitan Council submission, and complete revisions during review and adoption. Where does the consultant's responsibility end: at delivery of the draft for jurisdictional routing in January 2028, or at a defined point after jurisdictional comments are received?
Response (Q8): The Consultant’s responsibility under the RFP scope ends upon routing of the draft plan for jurisdictional review in early 2028 and upon delivery to all data.