SettleTalk.com

In case a reader has been out of town for the last few weeks, its old news that Shreveport’s crown jewel on the Riverfront—the Sciport Discovery Center– will be shuttered on Labor Day and 72 workers sent home with pink slips. And with the closure many dreams of countless donors to the Center will go down the drain—like yesterdays dirty bath water leaving a big ugly ring around the tub. 

In April of this year Dare Johnson, Sciport Board chairman, published a letter to the editor declaring that “Sci-Port Discovery Center” is not closing. You can take us off the endangered species list!” Johnson was replying to what he called “confusion” caused by a Shreveport Times article that focused on a 2016 year end fiscal audit. Johnson said the audit was technically correct but the interpretation was causing concern. Evidently the “panic the near two-decade discovery city is on the brink of extinction” was in fact merited.

At a August 16 news conference, Planet Aqua Group announced that it was taking over the management of Sci-port on Labor Day and that the center would be closed from that day until December 31. (The IMAX movie venue will remain open during this time.) Planet Aqua Group is the company that is opening the Shreveport Aquarium later this month.

In a somewhat lame spin, Sci-Port director Rich Lamb said that the closure should be considered a “rebranding” which would create new efficiencies to ensure survival for the center. Obviously scripted, Lamb called the management agreement with Planet Aqua Group to be “ a very exciting announcement. This is a happy day.” Obviously his perspective was not shared by Sci-port members, employees, and contributors. 

Evidently Rich was the chosen proverbial lamb to go to the press conference slaughter; the political and financial heavy weights on the Executive Committee did not make any public statements. These who were noticeably quiet included Dare Johnson (Board chair), Nancy Alexander (Secretary), Joe Badt (Internal Affairs Chair), Linda Biernacki (External Affairs Chair), Robert Manriquez (External Affairs co-chair), and Robert Stroud (Capital Campaign Chair.) 

And the same can be said of the other Sci-port directors: Elizabeth Buhler, Claire Childs, Mark Crawford, Trey Giglio, Judy Madison, Russ Mathers, Jennifer Pou, Rocky Rockett, Chris Sale, Delton Smith and Mason Woodward.

The press conference was long on hype and short on key details.  A partial list of pertinent questions that need answers include the following:

1.   What will be the source of management fees to be paid to Planet Aqua during the two year      term of the contract ($113,000 per year)? 
 2. Will the City of Shreveport continue to pay for maintenance items for the center of                    approximately $400,000 per year? 
3.  What will happen to the live animals at the center—snakes, snails, small alligators? 
4.  Who will pay for the expense of the proposed renovation/reorganization? 
5.  Will those families who made major donations for set exhibits in the center be reimbursed?
6.  Will the planetarium re-open? 
7.  Did the Board consider other options such as Chapter 11 Bankruptcy reorganization other          than closing down?                                                                                                                       8.  Why did the Board authorize the start of the Children POP construction in May 2106 without      full funding in place?
9. Who authorized the spending of restricted funds for operating expenses, and is their any           criminal liability for mismanagement of these moneys since Sci-Port is a public non-profit         organization?

And the list goes on, and on, an on…….

The dust has not really settled on this major management fiasco; obviously the Board of Directors hope that all the hubbub over the aquarium opening and the possible sports complex will take away the spot light on Sci-Port. Much more revelations on how all this came about are expected and it is possible that litigation will be filed by contributors of restricted funds as well as financial stakeholders. For Sci-port, the fat lady has not sung yet, and when she does, it will probably not be a good night lullaby.

Last Saturday (August 12) a group of 25 (or more) supporters of the Confederate Memorial were on the Caddo Courthouse grounds gathered around the memorial; most of the crowd carried a Confederate flag.

On Sunday (August 13) approximately 100 citizens attended a prayer vigil for the victims of the Charlottesville violence; the vigil was held on the Milam Street side of the courthouse.

Thankfully both of these groups were not on the courthouse grounds at the same time; both of these meetings were at the courthouse were unlawful.  

Caddo Parish ordinance Sec.32-46 provides that “No persons, group or association shall use the grounds and steps of the parish courthouse for rallies, meetings, exhibits, etc., without prior authorization of the director of buildings and grounds.”

The director of buildings and grounds requires that prior to any use of the courthouse grounds or building a Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement must be executed by the Parish and the group conducting the activity. Neither the Confederate Memorial supporters nor the Charlottesville vigil organizer executed the required indemnification agenda. 

A public records request revealed that some groups have in fact complied with this Parish ordinance. Two film production companies utilized the courthouse interior for filming after execution of a Hold Harmless agreement, one in June of last year and the other in June of this year. Repairs were made to the Confederate Memorial this year by a Texas company and People Acting for Change and Equality (PACE) conducted a rally and march this year on the courthouse grounds; hold harmless agreements were properly executed before use of the courthouse grounds.

In a July 24 letter to Shreveport Police Chief Alan Crump and Commission Administrator Dr. Wilson, Sheriff Prator outlined the responsible law enforcement agencies for the grounds of the Caddo Parish Courthouse as follows:

    “1.     When the courthouse is open to the public, Caddo deputies will secure the     interior     of the courthouse because of statutory and contractual obligations.     When Caddo deputies are free from their assigned duties inside the     courthouse, they will be asked to randomly patrol the grounds for criminal     conduct and, if any is witnessed, the conduct will be addressed by the     Caddo deputy until the Shreveport Police Department officers arrive and     relieve the Caddo deputy.
    2.     When the courthouse is closed to the public, the Shreveport Police Department will have all responsibility for the grounds of the courthouse.
    3.     All rallies, demonstrations, or gatherings of large crowds, whether permitted     through the Caddo Parish Commission or not, shall be the responsibility of     the Shreveport Police Department. The Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office and     the Shreveport Police Department will assist each other and share intelligence and information about any such event.”

Prator acknowledged that, after consultation with the parish attorney in 2015,  Section 32-46 is “vague to the point of being very difficult to enforce.” Prator requested that this ordinance be revised to “be clear, concise, objective and most important, enforceable.” No action has been taken by the Parish Commission on amending this ordinance. 
The right of public assembly and free speech are fundamental American principles; nonetheless certain restrictions can be validly set by law. In the wake of the events in Charlottesville, the Caddo Commission should take prompt action to amend the ordinance on public assembly. And in the process a review of Prator’s request to designate the 500 block of Texas Street a public park , along with possible fencing, should be a very high priority.

Goodness, a simple resolution of the Shreveport City Council requesting that the Shreveport City Attorney conduct an internal study on the feasibility  of a city internal planning office has suddenly resulted in unfounded protestations of “politics”. Seemingly the detractors, including at least one MPC Board member, do not recognize the difference between an study, at no  cost to the City, and the implementation of a city planning office.

Cries that the much heralded United Development Code (UDC) will be the baby thrown out in the bath water are totally unfounded; the UDC could easily be re-enacted with substitutions for the MPC staff, MPC Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. No doubt the City Attorney report will encompass these issues. And an internal study will not include consideration of whether MPC Executive Director Mark Sweeney will get a pink slip which has been implied by Sweeney supporters. 

As anyone who has read the UDC knows, “politics” in the sense of final decisions to be made by elected officials is continued in the UDC, much as in the prior zoning ordinances. The Caddo Commission will soon adopt its version of the UDC, with slight variations from the City’s version, and yes, “politics” in the form of debate by Commissioners is a part of Commission’s legislative process.

What is disappointing, in a very big way, is that MPC vice president Nancy Cooper has jumped into the fray. Cooper sent an email to the Shreveport City Council members and the Caddo Parish Commissioners (along with MPC President Theron Jackson and her MPC best buddy Lea Desmarteau) calling out Council Chairman James Flurry who introduced the internal study resolution; she did not copy the other 7 Board members. Cooper accused Flurry of making misstatements while making other unfounded comments on planning.

Citizens of Shreveport and Caddo Parish are entitled to their opinions on the merits of an internal planning office for the city of Shreveport. However, waiting for the City Attorney’s report as well as a $30,000 MPC study dealing with MPC funding, fees, staffing and salaries (which is due at the approximate same time as the City Attorney study} is suggested before crying “fire” and making conclusions. What is appalling, by any measure of appropriateness, is the fact that a City appointed member of the MPC Board has theaudacity to publicly criticize in writing an elected City official while stating that everyone should “take the time to be careful and measured when commenting and making decisions”; obviously she does not follow her own advice.
 

If you ask this question to Caddo Sheriff Steve Prator , he says a fence is long overdue, like in six years overdue. Downtown Development Authority Executive Director Liz Swaine says a fence around the 500 block of Texas Street would make the courthouse look like a jail. Caddo Commissioner Lyndon Johnson, who introduced a resolution to spend $200,000 for a fence at a recent Commission meeting, cites security concerns; his resolution was  referred to the Long Range Planning Commission.

In 2011 Prator suggested a barrier of some sort along with an ordinance designating the courthouse block to be a park to prevent weapons, alcohol, and pubic urination/defecation. If the 500 block was a park, then hours and activities could be regulated like other parks. No action was taken on his letter to Woody Wilson.

In 2015 Prator again addressed the courthouse security issue in letters to then Commission President Lyndon Johnson. Prator’s concern at that time was use of the Courthouse steps and grounds for political announcements, rallies, and demonstrations. Prator’s recommendations again fell on deaf ears.

Prator again addressed this issue in 2016 to then Commission President Matthew Linn. While repeating his prior concerns, he pointed out the vandalism of the Confederate Memorial monument as an example of the need for more succinct ordinances regulating conduct on courthouse grounds. Again, no action was taken by The Commissioner. 

Liz Swaine, the Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), is opposed to fencing in the courthouse. She points out that the homeless are sleeping on the benches, not the courthouse lawn and thus a fence would not prohibit or deter this activity. Swaine believes that a fence would only push the problem of vagrancy to other areas downtown. 
Liz Swaine, the Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), is opposed to fencing in the courthouse. She points out that the homeless are sleeping on the benches, not the courthouse lawn and thus a fence would not prohibit or deter this activity. Swaine believes that a fence would only push the problem of vagrancy to other areas downtown.

Swaine acknowledges that many individuals, whether truly homeless or not, do congregate in the downtown area where it is more “comfortable” in the sense of places to congregate, to panhandle, and obtain free meals and other services.  In addition to the courthouse, many panhandlers and “street peopls” frequently visit the public library across from the courthouse, unoccupied storefronts along Texas Street and the open area across from the courthouse. 

One unanswered question is why street people are allowed to “store” their belongings in public areas, such a shopping carts filled with clothes and other items, backpacks and boxes. A bench in front of the courthouse on Texas Street near Marshall Street always has boxes of personal items and other “mess” under it. Neither Swaine nor Chief Caddo Deputy Gary Parker answered an email inquiring as to why these items were not removed since this a public area.

Many of the problems associated with street people are inadvertently caused by “do gooders” who regularly feed those on the streets, give them money, or otherwise enable their presence in these areas. Swaine strongly urges that these practices cease and that these individuals be directed to the HOPE Connection office that provides outreach services (food, clothing, housing assistance, etc.) as well as counseling.

No other courthouses in north Louisiana have fences. Shreveport is, however, the largest city north of Baton Rouge and its downtown is much more compact than other towns and cities in this area. Courthouses have always been considered to be the most public of public areas and American history reflects free speech and assembly on courthouse lawns as fundamental to democracy. What steps should be taken, if any, to restrict activities on the courthouse block by fencing it in is a good topic for public debate. 

The Shreveport Bossier Metropolitan Planning Commission office has been under fire for closing down completely its office from noon until 1 pm; this decision had been made by its executor director when hired in 2014.  On Monday MPC Executive Director Mark Sweeney advised the Shreveport City Council at the work session that he alone as the contracted Executor Director had the sole authority to decide office hours.  He also stated that he would have his office open during the noon hour if the MPC Board voted for the change. 

On Tuesday, at its regular meeting the Council voted to have the City Attorney do a feasibility study on creating an internal planning office for Shreveport. Once the vote was taken, Sweeney scurried out of the Council chambers with 2 of his board members—Lea Desmarteau and Nancy Cooper. The three of them huddled up in the hallway leading to the water department for about 10 minutes, while the press waited to interview Sweeney.

Evidently the decision was made in this hall huddle to open the MPC office from noon to 1 pm.  A call to the MPC office Wednesday confirmed that the office was now open during the noon hour. (It is staffed by a clerical person; no planners are in the office at that time.) A MPC Board member advised that he had not been polled by Sweeney on the office hour issue.  Evidently Sweeney finally read “the tea leaves” and decided on his own volition to make the office hour change.  

In his statement to the media Tuesday after the Council meeting Sweeney implied that the City of Shreveport could not set up an internal planning office without legislation from Baton Rouge. (The Shreveport Caddo MPC was authorized by legislation in 1962).   Sweeney’s source of legal advice on this question—either from Board member Nancy Cooper who is an attorney or from the MPC hired attorney Rick John— is very suspect, if not flat out wrong.

Sweeney generally has four if not five of the MPC Board members in his hip pocket.  One of these was MPC Chairperson when he was hired (Desmarteau), two went to the Big Apple all expense paid by MPC this year (Jackson and Andrews) and the other supporter was scheduled for the New York City trip (Cooper).  The City Council appointed Shreveport Attorney Curtis Joseph  to the MPC this spring; he was vetted to be a voice of reason but his deciding vote after only two months on the Board to extend Sweeney’s contract was a major disappointment

Maybe Sweeney has finally realized that he does not have tenure as an employee of the MPC and that his future in Shreveport is not bright.  Whether or not this change in hour offices is enough to get him on the hot seat is a open question.  The feasability study should be completed in late September at the same time that a $30,000 study paid for by the MPC is delivered; the MPC study deals with funding from the City and Parish, MPC fees and MPC staffing and salaries.  Together both studies will be a road map for action by the City Council; to say that the fat lady has not yet sung is an understatement. 
 

The Shreveport Bossier Metropolitan Planning Commission office has been under fire for closing down completely its office from noon until 1 pm; this decision had been made by its executor director when hired in 2014.  On Monday MPC Executive Director Mark Sweeney advised the Shreveport City Council at the work session that he alone as the contracted Executor Director had the sole authority to decide office hours.

He also stated that he would have his office open during the noon hour if the MPC Board voted for the change.  Yesterday the Council at its regular meeting voted to have the City Attorney do a feasibility study on creating an internal planning office for Shreveport. Once the vote was taken, Sweeney scurried out of the Council chambers with 2 of his board members—Lea Desmarteau and Nancy Cooper. The three of them huddled up in the hallway leading to the water department for about 10 minutes, while the press waited to interview Sweeney.

Evidently the decision was made in this hall huddle to open the MPC office from noon to 1 pm.  A call to the MPC office this morning confirmed that the office will be open today during the noon hour. A MPC Board member advised that he had not been polled by Sweeney on the office hour issue.  

In his statement to the media yesterday Sweeney implied that the City of Shreveport could not set up an internal planning office without legislation from Baton Rouge. (The Shreveport Caddo MPC was authorized by legislation in 1964). Sweeney’s source of legal advice on this question—either from Board member Nancy Cooper who is an attorney or from the MPC hired attorney Rick John— Is highly questionable.

Sweeney generally has four if not five of the MPC Board members in his hip pocket.  One of these was MPC Chairperson when he was hired (Desmarteau), two went to the Big Apple all expense paid by MPC this year (Jackson and Andrews) and the other supporter was scheduled for the New York City trip (Cooper).  The City Council appointed Shreveport Attorney Curtis Joseph  to the MPC this spring; he was vetted to be a voice of reason but his deciding vote after only two months on the Board to extend Sweeney’s contract was a major disappointment

Maybe Sweeney has finally realized that he does not have tenure as an employee of the MPC and that his future in Shreveport is not bright.  Whether or not this change in hour offices is enough to get him on the hot seat is a open question.
 

In a two page email to MPC Board members, MPC Executive Director Mark Sweeney listed the reasons that the MPC office has a “Closed For Lunch” office policy. His reasons are as follows:

1. Having a designated hour off for lunch increases productivity. 
2. Having a designated hour for lunch is a “no cost perk ”that MPCemployees prefer.
3. Having an hour off increases an employee’s efficiency. 
4. If the MPC was open between 12-1, and lunch breaks for employees werestaggered, that does not necessarily mean the office will be more efficient. 
5. Its unhealthy not to take a lunch break. 
6. American workers sit too much, and its killing them. 
7. There have been virtually no complaints about the office closed for lunch. 
8. We are not the only deer in the forest!Sweeny’s memo advises that “if it is the will of the majority of the MPC Board members that the MPC office stays open during the lunch hours, as Executive Director I will immediately comply with that request.” (See letter below).

The next meeting of the MPC board is on Wednesday, September 6 at 3 p.m. in the Counsel Chambers at Government Plaza. The Board should have on its agenda a vote on the “Closed for Lunch” policy. Readers are invited to express their opinions to the MPC Board of Directors:
Theron Jackson-Chairman-(318) 636-6172
theron.jackson@shreveportcaddompc.com
Nancy Cooper-Vice Chairman-(318) 205-8809
nancy.cooper@shreveportcaddompc.com
Winzer Andrews-Secretary-(318) 631-8480
winzer.andrews@shreveportcaddompc.com
Alan Young-(318) 686-8181
alan.young@shreveportcaddompc.com
Ronnie Remedies-(318) 603-5315
ronnie.remedies@shreveportcaddompc.com
Bessie Smith-(318) 222-6025
bessie.smith@shreveportcaddompc.com
Dale Colvin-(318) 673-3253
dale.colvin@shreveportcaddompc.com
Lea Desmarteau-(318) 222-0885
lea.desmarteau@shreveportcaddompc.com
Curtis Joseph, Jr.-(318) 221-1600
curtis.joseph@shreveportcaddompc.com

Councilman James Flurry will introduce an ordinance at the next Shreveport City Council meeting (Tuesday, August 8 at 3p.m.) for the City to have an internal planning office, effective January 1, 2018. If it passes, the City would no longer fund the Shreveport-Caddo MPC. Flurry believes an internal office would serve the city at least $400,000 a year, provide for more accountability and improve government efficiency. Flurry is hopeful that there would be a large citizen turnout at the Tuesday meeting to voice support for this ordinance.

Metropolitan Planning Commission
Shreveport | Caddo Parish

To:          MPC Board
From:     Mark W. Sweeney, Executive Director
Date:      July 31, 2017
Re:         WHY THE MPC IS CLOSED FOR LUNCH?

Per the administrative authority delegated to me as MPC Executive Director by way of my approved Employment Agreement I initiated a ‘Closed for Lunch’ office policy starting in January 2015. I utilized the same effective business model I was familiarwith at my previous employer, CAPCOG, — which has provided many benefits for its employees. In order to be more productive in any given day, I felt that all MPC staff needed to move away from their desks during lunchtime. Several recent surveys suggest few office workers actually get out of
the office to eat the way they once did. In fact, a 2012 poll found that 40% of North American
workers regularly eat lunch at their desks and 25% don’t regularly take lunch breaks at all. Here are the main reasons why the MPC is closed for a designated one hour lunch break:

1.    Having a designated hour off for lunch increases productivity. MPC employees work hard and need time to unwind. Studies show that a guaranteed 60-minute lunch break is better at allowing the mind to take a real rest and focus on other things, so that employees are refreshed enough to perform at their best. A 2001 study by the Families and Work Institute found that employees that were not given a designated lunch hour were more likely to experience reduced engagement at work, resulting in poorer performance and a dip in productivity. Further support for this comes from a recent University of Toronto study that found that employees who took a lunch break because their office was closed experienced increased work satisfaction. While the study doesn’t directly show that lunch breaks cause more productivity on the job, it does show a link between taking a lunch break and other important outcomes that employers may care about: higher job satisfaction; reduced emotional exhaustion; and greater efforts by employees to undertake work above-and-beyond their job description. Lunch breaks shouldn’t be an option, but a necessity to promote a healthy workforce as well as a productive workplace.

2.    Having a designated hour for lunch is a “ no cost perk”  that MPC employees perfer. Remember that like most organizations we do not pay our employees for their lunch hour. The paid work time is from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. When asked the primary reason that MPC employees prefer having the office closed during lunch there answer was – “it gives them more time to recover from work-related stress”.  Numerous studies show that having a dedicated hour off for lunch shows employees that their employer values their mental health and work/life balance. Because efficiency is not measured in hours, giving employees more time to relax ensures that the hours they are at the office are spent in a more productive environment.

3.    Having a hour off increases an  employee’s  effeciency. Since MPC employees know that the office is closed for lunch, they are more efficient in dealing with applicants and their needs and, as was previously stated above, having a dedicated hour off for lunch shows employees that their employer values their mental health and work/life balance.

4.    If the MPC was open between 12―1, and lunch breaks for employees were staggered, that does not necessarily mean the office will be more efficient. The current policy requires the MPC to place their trust in their employees on how they manage their time with their applicant/ customers, teaching them the important skill of time management. And, because some employee’s duties are very specific to certain applications/tasks, staggering lunches around an employee’s schedule puts the customer at a disadvantage in the long run. Having a set time schedule in which all employees are available to serve the public is actually a more business friendly policy.  Please note that an organization is only as fast as our slowest process. To be successful, we need to target and eliminate  bottlenecks. In general, a

PAGE 1

bottleneck is a process in an operation where the capacity is less than demand placed upon that operation and having a ‘staggered lunch’ will only create more bottlenecks.

5.    It’s  unhealthy not to take a  lunch  break.   Being mindful and present while you eat has
many health benefits. Breaking from work for 60 seconds to chow down your lunch between applicants doesn’t count as a lunch break. Part of the problem is the sheer volume of work expected from employees in today’s economy. To simply keep mounting up demands on their time, many workers who do not have a designated lunch hour have opted to skip the break altogether and carry on getting things done. In many cases, the American work culture reinforces this no-break philosophy, making stepping out for a midday breather seem like an act of professional rebellion or bad customer service.

6.     American  w orkers sit too much,  and  it’s killing  them .  Most American employees spend way too much time sitting down at their desks. The body needs to move. In fact, research supports the fact that sitting for too long is extremely unhealthy. By having the office closed at lunch, most MPC employees actually leave the office, which gets the body moving. This can be in the form of taking a walk, eating lunch away from Government Plaza or getting some quick errands done. Getting active midday not only improves one’s health, but it can also improve one’s mood at work.

7.    There have been virtually no complaints about the office being closed for lunch.  Since this
policy was initiated in January 2015, there have not been only three public complaints regarding the MPC’s office hours, all orchestrated within the last month. The office hours are posted on our website, the front door, and are announced as part of our phone messaging system, which prompts callers to leave a contact number so the staff can call them back in a timely manner. Applicants/customers are encouraged to make an appointment with MPC staff to avoid any scheduling conflicts. Please note that if a meeting with a customer extends into the lunch time hour he or she will always be accommodated regardless how long the meeting takes. Likewise if an applicant requires a lunch time meeting with me or any other staff members they will always be given the courtesy and opportunity to do so.  Also, because this policy has been in place for over 2 ½ years the public has acclimated to this schedule, resulting in very few customers ever showing up at the MPC door during the lunch hour. In other words the inconvenience factor is not an issue as some individuals have recently proclaimed in the media.

8.    We are not the only deer in the forest!  While the City of Shreveport Permits and Revenue
Divisions on the First Floor are not closed for lunch, both do close at 4:00 p.m., which is one
hour before all other offices in Government Plaza close to the public. If access is the greatest
concern of certain Council or Commission members, the MPC has no problem opening its doors at 7:30 a.m. to accommodate its applicants/customers.

In conclusion, if it is the will of the majority of MPC Board members that the MPC office stays
open during the lunch hour, as Executive Director I will immediately comply with that request. 
However, I wanted you to clearly understand that our current policy of being closed from 12:00 Noon – 1:00 pm has worked effectively for both the general public and for MPC staff for over 2
½ years. Please note that the recent complaints did not come from the development community, the average citizen or the majority of the elected officials that we serve on a daily basis. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me accordingly.

MWS

Metropolitan Planning Commission | 505 Travis Street, Suite 440 | Shreveport, LA 71101 | 
318-673-6480 | fax 318-673-6461                                        www.shreveportcaddompc.com                                                                          
                  Page 2
 

The City of Shreveport has the opportunity to realize big bucks and solve major civic headaches , all in one swoop, by negotiating with  SUEZ, N.A. to either sell or operate its Water and Sewage Department (DOWUS).  Public private partnerships are becoming very common vehicles for private sector entities to assume a major share of the risks in terms of financing and construction of public sector infrastructure projects and this is what SUEZ is proposing to the City. 

SUEZ, N.A. has over 120 years of experience in water and waste water management, providing over 7.4 million residents with these services working with over 16,000 municipal and industrial sites to meet their infrastructure needs. For Shreveport SUEZ would assume all of the City’s responsibilities for upgrading it water and sewage operations to comply with the onerous EPA consent decree. And in addition SUEZ would assume all liabilities in the pending lawsuits concerning water billing, and take over the City’s water billing operations which are in great disarray.

If a sale was negotiated, then all of the employees of the Water and Sewage Department would become employees of SUEZ, and would participate in a SUEZ retirement plan . Additionally all of the assets of DOWUS, including the sewage and water lines, lift systems, buildings and equipment would be transferred to SUEZ. With this option, water and sewage rates would be set by the Louisiana Public Service Commission. 
A sale to SUEZ would generate a tremendous windfall to the City; speculation is that the starting price for negotiations would be $500 million. Sale proceeds could completely fund the city’s pension deficit as well as its pension obligations for decades. Additionally, the City would have funds to fully staff the Shreveport Police Department to its authorized number with very competitive salaries as well as add programs to reduce crime. And the list of goodies that the City could spend this new found money would go on and on.

With a concession agreement, SUEZ would operate the City’s water and sewage system, utilizing its management expertise, technological innovation and customer service experience to maximize efficiency and deliver of services as well as cost savings. This partnership would reduce operational costs which could be guaranteed and pass future savings to the City. These additional dollars could provide capital dollars to ensure that water and sewer systems are sustainable for the duration of the concession agreement including the EPA consent decree requirements. With a concession agreement the water and sewer rates would be set by the City in conjunction with SUEZ.

Mayor Tyler and the Shreveport City Council should give serious review and consideration to outsourcing its water and sewer services to SUEZ. The EPA consent decree is a major responsibility that is taxing many City departments and the ongoing water billing litigation continues to ring up substantial legal fees with a large potential liability for the City coffers. Shreveport government needs to be innovative in this time of declining population and deterioration of its tax base. 
 

It’s a poorly kept secret, which Mayor Tyler refuses to acknowledge, that Shreveport’s police are lowly paid in comparison to comparable cities. The continual shortage of police officers below the authorized number is due , no doubt, in part to the pay disparity. And its not rocket science to connect the dots between Shreveport’s increasing crime rate and the lack of officers on the street.

Councilman James Flurry will soon introduce an ordinance to internalize the functions of the Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) as a city department.  There are many good reasons for his proposal and costs savings is one of them.  The City funded the MPC office with 1.2 million dollars this year.  The Parish contributed $240 thousand dollars to the MPC budget; the Parish is repaid these sums through fees charged by the MPC to developers, etc.

The MPC  also receives funds from private citizens and businesses for sign permits, certificates of occupancy, and subdivision filing fees. These revenues were $295 thousand dollars in 2016; the  2017 budget  has estimates from these sources  exceed $297 thousand dollars.

If the City takes over planning, then a new contract  can be negotiated with the Parish to fund the City $240 thousand dollars with NO reimbursement to the Parish. The MPC staff payroll of $1.3 million dollars (and that is with one staff vacancy) seemingly is excessive.  The Executive Director’s total package is in excess of $165 thousand per year, and the Deputy Director’s total salary package is over $124 thousand dollars a year.  Additionally the MPC 2017 budget includes legal fees of $24 thousand dollars.  If the MPC was department of the City it is doubtful any legal services would be needed, and if so the City Attorney’s office could handle the same.

With an internal Planning office the City’s  2018 budget could easily  see a total cost savings in excess of $400 thousand dollars. These sums would fund a very modest, but much needed raise for Shreveport police officers; it would also make the SPD’s pay a little more competitive.  Additionally, the planning office would then be accountable to the Mayor and the Council; currently the MPC Executive Director  runs his shop  as he sees fit.   For  example, the MPC is the only government office in Caddo Parish that completely shuts down from noon to 1:00 p.m. daily. 

An internal planning office for the City of Shreveport is a win win for Shreveport taxpayers.  Hopefully the City Council will quickly approve Flurry’s resolution and a transition process can begin for a January 1, 2018 city planning office.

The Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) is a separate governmental entity that is funded by the City of Shreveport and Caddo Parish. The MPC has jurisdiction over all of Shreveport and in the parish to five miles outside the city. This agency is charged with regulating zoning and building development and enforcing zoning regulations.

Unfortunately, the MPC is not accountable to either the city or the parish.

The city funded $1.2 million to the MPC this year and provides financial services to the agency at no charge. The parish chipped in $240,000. The city and parish, which together own Government Plaza, give the MPC rent-free offices. The MPC also derives income from zoning applications, subdivision platting and other planning services that are required for construction.

The MPC is, in theory, governed by its nine-member board of volunteer commissioners. The city and the parish each appoint four members and they choose the ninth member jointly.

The MPC executive director, Mark Sweeney, has an employment contract
with the MPC board. He is the only public employee in north Louisiana with such a contract. The contract was recently renewed for another year by a 5-4 vote of the board.

Sweeney has run the MPC office as if it were a private kingdom. Since becoming executive director in the fall of 2014, he has closed the MPC offices from noon until 1 p.m., shutting off the lights, locking the doors are locked and setting the phones to be answered by a recording.

Sweeney spent almost $20,000 on a conference in New York City this spring that he, two board members and five staffers attended. He has spent in excess of $80,000 on office furnishings, carpet, paneling and equipment since taking over the MPC directorship.

The legislation that authorized the combined city and parish planning office was enacted by the Louisiana Legislature in 1962, and it is discretionary, not mandatory. Additionally, the Louisiana Constitution provides that the city council or the parish commission can serve as individual planning commissions.

Thus, legally, either the city or the parish can pull out of the Shreveport Caddo MPC and refuse to fund that office in 2017. A simple majority vote of either body will, in effect, pull the plug on the combined office.

The city has many reasons to seriously consider pulling out of the MPC and establishing a separate planning office. Initially the city could offer to provide planning services for the parish in the five-mile area outside city limits, on more favorable terms than it now has with the MPC.

Secondly, city most likely could save money through the economies of scale it would achieve by combining MPC functions into existing city functions. The MPC is authorized for 20 employees and currently has 18, including Sweeney, and they all already currently participate in the city retirement system and heath insurance program. 

Office hours for a city planning office would be set by the mayor and the city council, as would holidays and vacations. Similarly, travel expenses and equipment purchases would be subject to the same guidelines as other city departments. And there would be no need for separate legal council for the MPC.