by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer

“It seems like a lot of overlap with what we’ve already done with Imagine Monteagle,” said Monteagle Alderman Grant Fletcher citing the public engagement sessions called for in both consulting firm proposals presented for review at the Dec. 11 joint meeting of the Monteagle Council and Planning Commission. Planning Commission Chair Ed Provost concurred, arguing “We need to focus them on what we want.”

Monteagle received a $65,000 grant from the Lyndhurst Foundation to hire a planning consultant to assist Monteagle with implementation of the Imagine Monteagle Plan. Alderman Nate Wilson, who pursued the grant opportunity on the town’s behalf, stressed Monteagle needed professional help with zoning and ordinance decisions. “These are complex decisions,” Wilson said. “And we have a history of litigation and zoning issues.”

Two firms responded to the Request for Proposals. Four firms declined. Two said they could not meet the Monteagle timeline which calls for beginning immediately, and two large firms said they could not offer a competitive bid given the funds available.

Providing an overview of the two proposals, Wilson said Atlanta based Inc Codes (Incremental Code Consultants) began with a review of Monteagle’s ordinances. Based in Franklin, Tenn., TPUDC (Town Planning and Urban Design Collaborative) proposed deriving focus from public input sessions. Wilson objected to TPUDC’s order, suggesting public input would follow at the public hearings required for ordinance approval. He took issue with Inc Codes’ focus on downtown.

“There are a lot more businesses outside the central downtown area than in it,” said Planning Commission member Alec Mosley, agreeing. “We almost never are asked to make decisions about something downtown. The focus must be broader than downtown.”

“What you do with zoning in the rest of the town plays a huge part in how you cultivate businesses in your downtown,” Wilson said, underscoring Mosley’s point. “You can’t separate the two. Maybe we’re asking for too much. Inc Codes told me we don’t not have enough money or time to do the whole town plan.”

Fletcher argued for focusing on clarifying ordinances and codes rather than changing zoning. Planning Commission member Richard Black observed a recent planning commission discussion about signage grappled with lack of ordinance specifics about whether a sign at a closed business should be taken down.

Wilson said both proposals’ costs exceeded the grant allocation, $99,000 for Inc Codes and $70,000 for TPUDC. He suggested fundraising to make up the difference. Fletcher maintained it would be difficult raising money for “intangibles.” Wilson noted both firms charged $20,000 for public input sessions. “We could take that on,” Wilson said, proposing a way to lower the cost. “We need to do public hearings for ordinance approval anyway.”

The consensus among council and planning commission members was the need for in-person interviews with both firms to narrow and define the scope of “deliverables” the town expects to receive from the consultation advice.

Wilson will schedule interviews for the week of Jan. 6, at 4 p.m., in two separate sessions. The interviews will be televised on GCTV6. The project’s timeline calls for selecting a consultant by mid-January, but Wilson conceded, “The timeline may be unrealistic.”