2026 Comprehensive-Plan R.F.P. Questions

1. Is there an established budget range for the project?

Cost is a criterion that will be considered in reviewing proposals, and we hope that submitters will be cost-conscious and competitive with their proposals, but we have a cap of $120,000.

2. Does the county have a funding source for this project and what is it (OCRA, other grant funding)?

Pulaski County will be self-funding this project, with half of the cost to be paid out of the Rainy Day Fund, and the other out of the Department of Community Development’s budget.

3. Do you anticipate a lump sum/fixed fee or hourly not-to-exceed agreement?

We believe that a not-to-exceed agreement is the preferable option for this project but expect both parties to be mindful of the use of cost as a scoring criterion when addressing any flexibility in the N.T.E. amount between the originally proposed cost and the $120,000 cap.

4. Does guidance and support of for the county’s incorporated towns translate into developing plans for those towns as well as the overall county-wide Comprehensive Plan? Or just addressing them in the public engagements and planning process

Medaryville and Monterey do not have their own planning jurisdictions and are served by the Pulaski County A.P.C., B.Z.A., and Board of Commissioners. As such, we anticipate these two municipalities being addressed as part of the whole of Pulaski County.

• separate arrangements between the consultant and either Town if the parties would be interested in developing a municipal plan, or
• the consultant’s decision to incorporate Winamac and Francesville more holistically into the County’s plan in a manner akin to Medaryville and Francesville (and ask that it be made clear in the proposal if you intend to do this).

5. What level of formal coordination or concurrence is expected from incorporated towns during plan development (e.g., resolutions of support, staff review, joint work sessions)?

This will depend in part on how the selected consultant addresses the four municipalities (per response above).

6. Will incorporated towns have a formal review period or comment role on draft plan elements, and should this be accounted for in the project schedule?

The exact role the Towns will plays remains to be determine, and we look to the consultant to guide our approach here. However we approach Town engagement certainly should be accounted for in the project schedule.

7. Are you expecting that the Implementation Strategy would create a customized work plans for each department listed or would you envision one work plan with each department’s actions/tasks identified?

We are open to either option or a hybrid if the County and the consultant determine that some departments’ actions and tasks belong outside of the “core” workplan, while others can be addressed in the primary document.

8. What training do you anticipate would be needed as a result of the new Comprehensive Plan? We might identify training to assist in management of the Board of Zoning Appeals or Plan Commission such as those provided by IN-APA or AIM. Or do you anticipate the consultant would provide training?

We anticipate that the consultant will in some manner walk relevant staff and board/commission/committee members through the final plan and how it aligns with the R.F.P., relevant Indiana Code language, and planning best practices and that the consultant will assist us in identifying future training and education opportunities but do not expect the consultant to provide this in-depth training.

9. How extensive do you estimate the staff analysis will be? Is there any preliminary work that has been complied that would indicate that there is an excess or deficiency in staffing levels?

We do not expect recommendations regarding compensation or too-detailed guidance regarding job descriptions but hope to receive big-picture guidance regarding appropriate staffing numbers. We have not completed a significant amount of preliminary work exploring staff levels but did accumulate data in 2023 regarding staffing in several regional and similarly sized counties across Indiana as part of a comprehensive wage study. We also know that, even with third-party engineering support, solar-energy projects consume a substantial amount of Building, Planning, and Zoning staff time (2 FT, 1 PT), while the County frequently relies on Community Development staff (2 FT) to handle non-development related responsibilities, leaving the Department unequipped to manage existing community-, economic-, and tourism-development projects and programs, to say nothing of addressing goals and objectives to be derived from the comprehensive plan.

10. The RFP refers to “a framework for community-impact investments”. Can you elaborate on this?

Pulaski County anticipates receiving between $105-million and $126-million in economic-development payments over a period of about 25 years from four solar-energy developers. The County wishes to use the planning process’s findings and plan’s recommendations as a framework for developing guidelines for how to make best use of these funds for long-term impact.

11. Does the County have financial impact projections from Senate Enrolled Act 1 of 2025?

We have not yet enlisted the assistance of a fiscal consultant for this purpose. Based on earlier State projections, are expecting modest losses in property-tax revenue for a couple of years before rebounding; however, that rebound is subject to change based on anticipated changes to farmland assessments. The County has not yet engaged the four Towns in discussion regarding the restructuring of local income taxes but does not anticipate any substantial loss on this front. While the County hopes to invest these funds in community-impact projects, savings, and debt service first and foremost, solar-project economic-development payments provide a cushion against S.E.A.-1 losses.

12. Are there specific plan elements that the County considers higher priority or that should receive greater depth/status in the final plan?

Community Vision and Goals; Land Use & Development; Redevelopment; Housing; Agriculture, Food Networks, and Food Security; Health and Human Services; Renewable Energy and Other Intensive Uses.

13. Are virtual meetings an option for the engagement process?

To a limited extent, Pulaski County is open to this, but we want our public-engagement process to be public and engaging in a way that not having residents and consultants in the same room does not permit.

14. What is the overall project schedule?

In part, we are leaning on consultants to propose the timeline, and this is included in the scoring criteria. We anticipate formally establishing this during negotiations with the selected consultant based on the consultant’s vision for most effectively balancing time, cost, and product quality.

15. Regarding the project timeline, are there any community events, grant cycle, or other County deadlines that a proposed project timeline should incorporate?

In general, no, but this can be further explored during the scheduling component of contract negotiations.

16. Does the County have a minimum or expected number of public meetings, workshops, or open houses?

There is some room for flexibility here, particularly in terms of engaging certain public agencies in a combined setting, rather than presenting to each individually, but we expect the following to be accomplished in some capacity or another, with the possibility of addressing multiple requirements in one meeting being acceptable:

• at least three and no more than five public-engagement meetings across the entire county, with one each in Medaryville and Monterey to focus in part on how these included communities fit into the plan;
• at least two project-update open houses, one each in the eastern and western halves of the county;
• a multi-commission engagement session with the Advisory Commission on Industrial Development, the Community Development Commission, the Economic Development Commission, the Redevelopment Commission, and the Tourism Advisory Council;
• at least one additional session with the Redevelopment Commission;
• at least one engagement session with the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Medaryville Town Council, the Monterey Town Council, leadership of the County’s school corporations, County Highway, to-be-identified health and human-services agencies, and to-be-identified recreation-focused organizations;
• potentially at least one engagement with the Francesville Town Council and Plan Commission, the Winamac Town Council and Plan Commission, or both depending on how incorporating these two communities in the plan unfolds;
• at least two engagement sessions with the Advisory Plan Commission, the Board of Commissioners, and the County Council; and
• at least one project-update engagement with the Advisory Plan Commission and the Board of Commissioners.

17. What address shall hard copies of the proposal be delivered?

Nathan P. Origer, Executive Director
Pulaski County Community Development
112 East Main Street, Room 213
Winamac, Indiana 46996