What is an RFP? Request for Proposal ?

Under construction:

March 18, 2026 — City Council Meeting

Discussion Item — Planner / Beckett & Raeder / Agenda Process

2:00:30

A council member stated that there was not enough background information available to have a meaningful discussion about the planning consultant. The concern raised was that Council did not know whether the City currently has a contract with Beckett & Raeder, how long the relationship has existed, or what the terms of that relationship might be.

The member explained that when items are brought forward under Old or New Business, the expectation is that the City Manager will provide the necessary background so Council can make an informed decision. Without knowing whether the City is under contract, how long the planner has been retained, or whether there are performance concerns, it is difficult to know what action, if any, should be considered.

The member also asked whether there was a specific issue with the planner’s performance, and whether the discussion was being raised because something was not being done that should be done. The concern was expressed that items are sometimes added to the agenda without sufficient information, leaving Council feeling unprepared to discuss them.

The City Manager responded that the Mayor approves the agenda, and that when documentation is provided through that process, it is included based on the Mayor’s recommendation. The Manager explained that this item was listed as a discussion item, not an action item, and that the Mayor had requested it be placed on the agenda.

A council member then raised an additional concern regarding the public comment policy, noting that written comments submitted to Council are supposed to include a name and address. The member pointed out that the letter that prompted the discussion was described as a collective suggestion from the community, but did not include signatures or identifying information, which raised questions about how it should be treated under the City’s rules.

Another speaker responded that, regardless of how the letter was submitted, the item had been placed on the agenda as a discussion item, and once it is listed that way, Council has a responsibility to discuss it publicly. The speaker said the purpose of a discussion item is to allow conversation with the public, not to avoid the topic because additional information may still be needed.

The speaker continued by noting that the issue relates to broader planning decisions, including the Master Plan and the role the planning consultant has played in past processes. It was stated that Beckett & Raeder had been heavily involved in prior planning work, and that in some cases Council and the Planning Commission relied heavily on the consultant’s guidance. Because of that, the speaker argued that it is reasonable to ask whether the City has the right consultant in place moving forward.

The point was made that this discussion does not have to result in an immediate decision, but that public feedback is important before continuing with major planning efforts. The speaker said that if there are concerns in the community about how past planning processes were handled, those concerns should be heard openly so Council understands the full scope of the issue before proceeding.

The discussion concluded with the understanding that the item was for discussion only, and that additional information may be needed before any future action is considered.

 

WLHS context for understanding.

A community member brought the suggestion of a RFP for Zoning and Planning Services to us. The action item ( Published below) was submitted to the Mayor for consideration as an agenda item, with a document explaining the situation( Background). That’s how the City’s system works – City Council members hear from the community, and their asks and needs are carried forward to the meetings. Agenda items are set by the Mayor and the City Manager. 

Mayor Tom’s Grahams’  RFP Request for discussion agenda item was placed in the March 18th City Council packet by the Interim City Manager.  According to those that attended the meeting,  there was great consternation that the document was not labeled by name or had a signature attached. 

We Love Harbor Springs has discovered that letters in the packet often do not mean very much. We have also learned that a 3 minute community public comment does not lead to many responses, nor actions. But an agenda item does, and we had allowed enough time and education that asking for an RFV should have been a positive decision for all involved. To start the conversation is the first step. 

The City Council voted against taking up the decision – and passed the responsible business decision to the Planning Commissioners who decided not to vote on this in their recent meeting because they did not have a full quorum. 7 of 9 Planning Commissioners were in person or on zoom at the meeting.

Here is the Meet Packet insert to download and also below as a jpg. 

RFP from Packet 3.18.26 

Reasons a Municipality May Issue an RFP for Planning and Zoning Consulting Services – Research 

(After Several Years with the Same Consultant)

Municipalities commonly retain planning and zoning consultants for multiple years, particularly when those consultants have developed familiarity with local ordinances, master plans, and development patterns. However, it is also standard practice in municipal governance to periodically review professional service relationships through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. This practice is not necessarily a reflection of dissatisfaction with current services. Rather, it is part of responsible public administration and good governance. The following are four widely accepted reasons a municipality may choose to issue an RFP after several years with the same planning consultant.

First, municipalities have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that public funds are being spent wisely. Periodically testing the market through a competitive proposal process allows the municipality to confirm that the current consultant continues to provide the best value in terms of cost, experience, and services offered. Guidance from organizations such as the Government Finance Officers Association encourages periodic competitive procurement for professional services as part of sound financial management. Even when the current consultant is performing well, the municipality has an obligation to verify that other qualified firms could not provide equal or better service under current conditions.

Second, issuing an RFP supports transparency and fairness in public contracting. When a municipality works with the same consultant for many years without competition, it can create the perception that decisions are being made without adequate oversight. A formal proposal process provides an open and documented method for evaluating qualifications, fees, and scope of services. This protects both the municipality and the consultant by demonstrating that the selection process is based on objective criteria. Many municipal purchasing policies and audit standards recommend periodic review of professional service providers for this reason.

Third, an RFP may be appropriate when circumstances, leadership, or the scope of work have changed. Over a period of several years, the needs of a municipality often evolve. A new zoning ordinance, a master plan update, changes in state law, increased development activity, or the hiring of a new city manager or staff may all require different expertise than was needed when the consultant was first retained. Professional planning guidance, including recommendations from the American Planning Association, recognizes that municipalities should reevaluate consulting relationships when future work may differ from past work. An RFP allows the municipality to determine whether the current consultant remains the best fit for the next phase of work.

Fourth, periodic competition helps reduce the risk of over-reliance on a single consultant and helps maintain independence in municipal decision-making. When one firm serves in an advisory role for many years, there is a possibility that the municipality becomes dependent on that firm’s approach, or that the firm is perceived as having undue influence over policy decisions. Government auditing standards and municipal ethics guidance both emphasize the importance of maintaining independence and avoiding situations where long-term relationships could limit objective review. Conducting an RFP at reasonable intervals helps ensure that the municipality continues to receive fresh perspectives and that professional advice remains independent.

For these reasons, issuing a Request for Proposals after several years of working with the same planning and zoning consultant is considered a normal and responsible practice in municipal government. It allows the municipality to confirm value, maintain transparency, respond to changing needs, and protect the integrity of its decision-making process, while still allowing the current consultant to compete and be retained if they remain the best choice.

Reasons a Community Member May Request Anonymity When Asking for an RFP – Research 2

In small municipalities, it is not unusual for residents to ask that their name not be publicly attached to a request, especially when the request involves a professional service provider or an issue that may be sensitive. Requesting anonymity does not necessarily indicate a problem. In many cases, it reflects the realities of living in a small community where personal, professional, and civic relationships often overlap. Several simple and reasonable explanations may apply.

One common reason is the desire to avoid personal conflict. In a small town, residents often know the individuals involved in municipal decisions, including consultants, staff, and elected officials. A resident may support the idea of issuing a Request for Proposals as a matter of good governance, but may not want the request to be interpreted as criticism of any specific person or company.

Another reason is concern about social or professional repercussions. In smaller communities, people may work with, do business with, or be neighbors with those connected to municipal projects. Asking for anonymity allows a resident to raise a procedural or policy issue without creating tension in those relationships.

A third reason is the wish to keep the focus on the issue rather than the individual. Some residents prefer that a request be considered on its merits, without the discussion becoming about who asked for it. When the subject involves procurement, contracts, or consultants, keeping the discussion centered on policy rather than personalities can help the governing body make a more objective decision.

A fourth reason is simple personal privacy. Not every resident who participates in local government discussions wants their name publicly circulated, especially when agendas, minutes, and recordings are posted online. Requesting anonymity can reflect a preference to stay involved as a citizen without becoming a public figure in the discussion.

For these reasons, a request for anonymity when asking that an RFP be considered is not unusual in small municipalities and can be consistent with normal civic participation. It may simply reflect a desire to encourage good process while avoiding unnecessary personal attention or conflict.

3.19.26 Meeting Notes:

Agenda Amendment – Planning Consultant / An RFP

Discussion occurred regarding City Council’s request that the Planning Commission provide feedback on whether the City should consider issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for planning consultant services.

Key points:

• Qualified current consultant (Beckett & Raeder) works on an as-needed basis.

• Services are billed hourly, approximately $25,000 per year. The Professional Services # is about $75,000 a year – we need to check this number. 

• No fixed contract term.

• Consultant was originally hired through a proposal process in 2022 By Victor, and approved by Matt Bugara. 

• Decision to hire consultant is made by City Manager, not Planning Commission.

Discussion points from members:

• Reviewing consultants is part of fiduciary responsibility. In running any business.

• An RFP should not be viewed as criticism of the current consultant.

• Input from all Planning Commission members should be obtained.

• Input from the future City Manager should also be obtained. 

Consensus:

• Add RFP / consultant discussion to a future agenda.

• Prefer discussion when full commission is present.