Central to the meeting was the evaluation of nine proposals submitted in response to Request for Quotation (RFQ) 26-009. The proposals aimed to develop a master plan to revitalize key commercial districts in Treasure Island. The commission was tasked with ranking these proposals based on predetermined criteria, emphasizing project approach, experience, personnel qualifications, and firm capacity, without considering price. However, the evaluation process sparked discussions among commissioners, highlighting concerns about transparency and fairness.

A notable point of contention arose from the involvement of Jim Brainard from Able City, who had presented at a previous meeting. This presentation, unbeknownst to all commissioners, led to accusations of an uneven playing field. A commissioner expressed concerns about the impartiality of the process, stating that the presentation compromised public trust. In response, this commissioner assigned a score of zero for personal qualifications and experience to Able City. Another commissioner countered that the proposal’s strength lay in the collective expertise of the team, arguing that one presentation should not detract from the overall qualifications.

The debate extended to the evaluation committee’s composition. Traditionally, such evaluations are handled by staff with appropriate expertise, yet the commission itself acted as the evaluation committee this time. This decision, made in a prior meeting, drew criticism from some commissioners, who questioned their lack of experience in such evaluations. The city manager clarified that this approach was intentionally agreed upon, though it excluded pricing from the criteria.

Financial considerations also played a role in the discussions. One commissioner voiced concerns about the anticipated costs, estimating they would exceed $500,000, based on previous proposals. This prompted further debate on whether the RFQ should have included financial analysis to better assess the proposals’ economic implications. Despite these concerns, the city manager noted that the commission had intentionally omitted financial metrics from the criteria to reflect their priorities.

Another layer of complexity was added by the potential involvement of Forward Pinellas, a county planning agency. The Vice Mayor suggested that their participation could lead to cost savings and emphasized the benefits of collaboration with firms like Kimley Horn. However, concerns were raised about whether incorporating Forward Pinellas might violate the established scope of work. The city manager assured that their involvement could be integrated into the negotiation phase with selected firms.

The evaluation process culminated in revealing the scores of the proposals. Cotler and Herring emerged as the top-ranked firm, followed closely by Rafelis and Calvin, Jordano, and Associates. However, discrepancies in scoring among the commissioners were apparent, raising concerns about potential political bias influencing the ratings. A commissioner highlighted that personal connections to proposals might have skewed evaluations, prompting discussions about the fairness of the process.

Public input further complicated the proceedings. Resident Mark Hoey criticized the perceived inconsistencies in the commission’s approach to public involvement, particularly in relation to Jim Brainard’s presentation. Another resident, Robert Bazo, echoed concerns about the scoring system. He also expressed relief that Kimley Horn did not rank highly, citing past experiences that questioned their community responsiveness.

As the meeting drew to a close, the commission moved towards determining the next steps. A proposal was made to invite the top three firms for presentations, eventually scheduled for March 11. The format included a 20-minute presentation by each firm, followed by 40 minutes of questions from commissioners. Additionally, discussions on accessing funds for planning, in light of past hurricane impacts, highlighted the urgency of developing a master plan for Treasure Island.