Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance committee votes to send WSP master drainage plan amendment to council after debate over outreach and cost
Summary
After hearing options from WSP that traded additional public outreach for higher cost, the Finance Committee voted unanimously to send a contract amendment request to the full council that reduces the number of in‑person meetings while preserving an implementation presentation and digital outreach.
The Livingston Parish Finance Committee voted to send to the full parish council a proposed amendment to WSP's master drainage plan contract, after hearing WSP explain two outreach-and-deliverable options and discussing cost, timeline and public engagement.
Mickey McMorris, the parish finance director, told the committee that WSP presented an amended scope and price. WSP representatives said the original engagement had been proposed in three phases and budgeted at $750,000; the firm said it could complete both the master plan and a unified development code within that original budget if some meeting counts and hours were shifted. WSP also offered a more robust outreach option that would double certain public meetings and require an additional fee. The contractor said reducing public meetings from six to three would require roughly an additional $250,000, while keeping the six‑meeting approach instead would require roughly an additional $310,000.
Nathan (WSP representative) explained the difference in practice: the outreach options change the number of visioning, land‑use and implementation meetings across parish areas. He said the "vision" meetings solicit early ideas for future growth and the implementation meetings present findings and proposed code changes. WSP proposed conducting the unified development code work in parallel with the master plan to accelerate delivery.
On timing, WSP said phase 1 is complete and the master plan drafting is about 50% finished; the firm projected the master plan could be completed by July, the implementation presentation in August and the unified development code work finalized by an October 31 target if the expedited schedule holds.
Committee members discussed options to balance cost and outreach. One council member argued two visioning meetings and two land‑use meetings across different parish areas would produce more public input; others said three meetings could suffice if supplemented by online engagement. WSP said virtual meetings and chat Q&A are feasible for the presentations but recommended in‑person formats with printed materials for implementation meetings where attendees mark preferred future‑land‑use maps.
The committee agreed on a compromise: reduce the originally proposed number of meetings, add a combined online "team"/presentation component, and direct staff to send the amended contract and extension requests to the council. The motion to send the request to the council was made by Mister Manning and seconded by Mister Watts; the chairman called for opposition and, finding none, said the motion carried.
Finance staff also reported that contractor Jerome Foyer requested an extension of his agreement for continued hourly work on the project; members asked staff to secure itemized monthly billing for any continued hourly contracts.
The committee's action refers the contract amendment and the requested extensions to the full parish council for final approval.
