The agenda for the Shreveport MPC meeting today (Wed.) included the discussion and review of the ONLY response to Request for Proposal for an update on the Caddo/Shreveport master plan.
At the direction of MPC executive director Alan Clarke this item has been removed from the agenda.
**The following column reviews the RFP **
SHREVEPORT MPC SHOULD RE-ADVERTISE RFP FOR MASTER PLAN UPDATE AT TOMRROW'S MEETING
The Shreveport Planning Commission, not to be confused with the Caddo Planning and Zoning Commission, meets today (Wed.) at 3 p.m. in the chambers at Government Plaza.
The agenda includes the approval of a contract for an update study on the 2030 Master Plan.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued by the Shreveport MPC for these services.
The response to the RFP raises many good government questions.
Here are salient facts that the MPC Board should consider tomorrow in its decision-making process:
1. Only one response to this RFP was received, that being from a firm in Austin.
2. The RFP response from this firm lists local subcontractors Community Renewal and Richards Creative.
3. Community Renewal is closely aligned with Allendale Strong (AS), which opposes the proposed I-49 Inner City Connector (ICC) route through Allendale. Kim Mitchell of Community Renewal presented the AS power point presentation opposing this route at the recent MPC meeting.
4. The MPC chairman is a board member of AS.
5. Reportedly Richards Creative has a business relationship with the MPC chairman.
Good government practices dictate non-acceptance of the response to the current RFP and the issuance of a new RFP if this endeavor is to continue.
Good government practices also direct that the MPC chairman NOT preside over the presentation, discussion and vote on the pending RFP response.
Furthermore, he should recuse himself from any vote on this matter.
This proposed update also raises many other questions dealing with agency jurisdiction and funding:
a. The Shreveport MPC has jurisdiction over all property within the city limits of Shreveport.
b. The Caddo Planning and Zoning Commission has jurisdiction over properties within the so-called "five mile" zone adjacent to the Shreveport city limits.
c. The Shreveport MPC is funded by the City of Shreveport.
d. The Caddo Planning and Zoning Commission is funded by Caddo Parish.
e. Both of these planning bodies utilize the same staff.
f. The 2030 Master Plan encompasses both city and parish property.
Obviously, the City of Shreveport and the Parish of Caddo have a vested interest in the master plan and any update. Since these governmental bodies have separate planning commissions, seemingly the approval of this update should also be approved by the parish Planning and Zoning Commission.
The issues raised above do not preclude several basic and underlying questions:
i. Is an update of the master plan really needed, and if so, how much time will this update and any approval by the two zoning bodies be needed?
ii. Is the suggested update fueled by the AS opposition to the ICC?
iii. What impact will any update study have on the current approval process for the ICC?
Today's meeting should focus on the singular response to the RFP.
The other issues are very important and should be addressed without regard to the MPC vote today.