Councilman Burrell: I guess the question I have, I don't have a problem as I was stating yesterday in the hearing of supporting this company. I feel that they have done a good job. I know some of the things that I struggle with in working with the other concessionaire earlier, has been resolved, but I guess my concern was the timing of this. I know the Mayor, you mentioned that the time is urgent and you said we have an August game. I know we've had concessions in there before with pretty large games. Is the August game a major game or what type of game that we can not handle it with what we have at this point? Secondly, have we taken all of the equipment out of the stadium, is that what I'm hearing? Mayor Hightower: All of the equipment is out and the August game, I think is a high school jamboree but all of the equipment is gone. The City owns no equipment in the stadium.

Councilman Burrell: Past the high school game, which I don't see installing all of the equipment back just for a high school game. Is the timing so critical that we can not have a couple of weeks to resolve a couple of questions that we have, because one of them was the one that I posed and I just talked at the last minute before I came into the Chamber about that particular amendment that I had offered and I know we still hadn't gotten clear on that. To me, that is a very, very crucial variation of what the original contract is saying. Because, I guess being in business development myself, a lot of these vendors come to me asking for my help to try to help develop them. And in so doing, we have to look for opportunities that they can take part in, in order to build capacity for those businesses and this type of situation means what we have here, can help them do that. I guess I still did not resolve that amendment, the question of that amendment with Tri Star.

The other thing I know that was mentioned was about the amount of money that we would receive in this contract versus what the previous contractor said that they would offer. I don't have a problem with what we have here because anybody can tell you that it is going to be cheaper if there is nothing else in front of you. And it is almost a disadvantage to have a contract in front of you and then allowing somebody else to come back and say, look we can do it cheaper; that's almost like chopping the bid, I guess you would say. I don' really have a problem with that although Mr. Carmody did mention that but I don't have a problem with that but I do have a little problem with the timing. If we could get past the August game would it give us an opportunity to really hash out a couple of the things that we are looking to make clear so that we can vote with a clear conscious on this, that is the only reason I seconded it for him.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Burrell, and the first game, I think we would have enough stands to be okay. The real problem here is the first big game we have is Grambling which is October 14^th, which will be 25- or 30,000, I don't know what the number may be. But if the City is going to be in the business we have to have every bit of a lead time. Fortunately for the contractor, they can run out to Buckelew's and buy something if they want for run down to Wal*Mart and buy but we can't from the City's standpoint, we gotta go through spec writing, the advertisement and the bid process and we gotta figure out what it is we are going to do. Are we going to sell bar-be-que, burgers or not. We are not prepared to do that. Not that we can't get prepared, I'm just telling you we are going to enter into a contract of disaster that the same one we had before, before the City privatized the business and I don't think that's the business we ought to be in.

Councilman Burrell: I'll agree with you there.

Mayor Hightower: I understand your entrepreneurial question there and I would much rather have the contract and look to do what you do, I know there is some health concerns for people just to be able to come out and set up their tents and bar-be-que hamburgers or whatever the case may be. I think there has got to be some sort of control over what happens with itinerant vendors or whatever you may chose to call them to come and set up shop at a city facility with probably no insurance, no--like I said, there are some concerns there. I'm not so sure that we can't work through those and my understanding is that you went through that with Sickle Cell and you had several people come out and work through the contractor to be sure you had everything out there that you needed. And I know that obviously the contractor is not in the hotdog business or not in the pizza business or not in the fried fish business so they go out and get a fried fish company, they got get a pizza company and they go get a hotdog company to provide the services they need to them and that's, more than anything, I think this is more of a management contract of what is going on out there.

The opportunities I think are abound for exactly what you re talking about and I think they demonstrated that in the past and we don't have any reason to believe they won't, there are some of these amendments, insure that they will. And you heard yesterday during the presentation specifically talk about the Fair share and what the company has done and what the company will do. So I think your fears shouldn't really be fears, I think the company is going to do what they said that they are going to do.

Councilman Burrell: I'm not questioning that, Mr. Mayor, I'm really not. And even on the Sickle Cell Tournament, there were a number of vendors that came forth and wanted to sell their wares, we closed them down because it did not meet the letter of the law. I didn't get a lot of support because I shut them down, but the City says you have to have a certain amount of insurance and we had other requirements placed on them and they did not do it, so they cold not sell. But those that did were there and worked along side the existing vendor, I mean, Tri Star who was out there, and they did an excellent job and we got excellent reviews just from talking with the people there.

My question still goes back to, since the August game, is upon us and it is just a high school game, you mentioned the Grambling game which is in October. Would that 2 week delay hurt us giving the fact that it is in October if we were trying to push for this now for an August game, does that make sense? Mr. Antee: I understand exactly what your question is. But even if the contract were allowed and the contractor was going out to purchase all of this equipment, there is a lot of lead time in the equipment. There is a lot of lead time for the contractor to go and accumulate and get the bids and to get these items. It is not a matter-some items you can run out to somewhere and pick up and have but there is a lot of things like the soft drink machines that have to be installed in these big concession stands that takes a lot of lead time, takes a lot of installation time, and so its more to it than just going and plugging something it. The buildings are going to be complete but once the buildings are complete, then there is a lot of work that has to go on to get these coolers installed, get all this other equipment ordered in and installed and we are pushing that for the Grambling game right now so, two weeks makes a lot difference.

Councilman Burrell: So we are not doing this for the August game. Now, we are doing it for the October game? Mr. Antee: That's correct. There will probably be one concession stand, the center concession stand will probably be the only one utilized in the high school games. Because, I've got some pictures for the Council that we can pass around that shows you how big these are and the center concession stand will be sufficient to handle the largest high school crowds that we have.

What we are trying to get in under the gun is for the big events where you've 15- to 20,000 people. We still would like to have the soft drink equipment in by August, but that's not even certain. But in order to equip these concessions stands and we had pictures that I'll be glad to pass around to give you an idea, I don't know if any of you have been able to look and see, but these things is humongous Its four times the point of sales that we had on the sidelines now. They are not just small little booths. I mean, they are several thousands of square feet of concession stands and windows of points of sale; so, the lead time is tight for the private sector. We couldn't make it by October doing it in the public sector.

Councilman Burrell: Again, I understand that. See a lot of this stuff is now coming to us that we really haven't discussed. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the contract and the vendors, I support that, don't get me wrong. I'm still coming back to the timing end of it so if the private sector can do it faster and we are giving them another 2 months because now we are doing it for the Grambling game, then I guess I'm kind of hard pressed to see where it is a timing factor?

Mayor Hightower: Roy, let me make one other point that the current contract that we have with Tri Star runs through the Independence Bowl of this year. The City owns no equipment. For us to expect the current contractor to go out and be able to service four times the point of sales that we had in the past would certainly require them to go buy the equipment. I have not talked to Tri Star about what their commitment would be to be prepared to have four times as much equipment out there, but my gut feeling is, I would tell somebody to jump in the lake for a six month contract and me have to go buy a whole bunch more equipment for all those points of sale. That's why, part of why the urgency has come up and part of what they have to do is go out and negotiate the contract with their sub-vendors to be ready to go for the October game, the Independence Bowl, and everything else that we have out there. So it doesn't seem like a lot of, I mean maybe it does seem like a lot of time, but a 60 day period is not a lot of time to go out and line up all of your sub-contracts as well and be able to have the equipment, the service, and do the spec-ing that you need and be ready to open on game day. I mean, we talking about a lot of work whether the City does it or whether the private sector does it. And it is their business to do it, but we are going to be, I would suspect, be under served if we do nothing because we are not going to be able to expect those guys go to out and spend. I wouldn't suspect any more money than what they already have invested in their equipment that was taken out of the Stadium when we started demolition several months go; so that's part of the reason for the urgency, the equipment is not there.

Councilman Huckaby: I will oppose any motion to postpone this matter today. I think that we ought to vote this matter up or vote it down, today because I believe that, even though our backs are not up against the wall, time is of the essence in this matter. There is a lot at stake here for everybody concerned. The prospective concessionaire has a lot at stake, the citizens of this City have a lot at stake, the Administration has a lot of stake. And, we need to know, all of us, all parties involved, we need to know what direction we are going to take in terms of concessions for the City of Shreveport. We can always come back and amend this ordinance if there is something of significance that we need to deal with. But, I believe that it is in the best interest of the City and all parties concerned that we act upon this matter hopefully positively today so I would oppose any motion to postpone.

Councilman Serio: I have got a whole list of things I want to go over, so if you will bear with me for a few minutes. The last couple of six almost seven weeks now, this piece of legislation has sat on the agenda for discussion for any in-depth look into this contract for the history of this contract and unfortunately I hate that we wait until to the very last minute and try to postpone it to go bring it out for 10 or 11 weeks now.

We did this previously. We had this before us almost three years ago and we had two companies, we had bids that went out to 20 companies, 2 came back. We had Sports Café and we had Tri Star and at that time, Tri Star was basically on the short end of the stick as far as the discussion from the Mayor's Office and from the Administration. It wasn't from Keith Hightower's Administration but from Bo Williams' Administration when this contract was signed. This is a carry over contract from the previous Administration.

Sports Café had the contract previously. We had a survey that was done prior to the contract being signed by the Administration and in that we had several questions that we wanted to be answered. One of the questions was: From the following choices how satisfied are you from the overall training provided by the concessionaire? Twenty eight (28%) percent responded they were very satisfied, twenty eight (28%) were satisfied, thirty nine (39%) percent were not satisfied with six percent (6%) no responding. One of the other questions was as far as cash handling: Did your group perform cash handling for the cash register? Fifty percent (50%) said, yes; fifty percent (50%) said, no. The third question that was of interest. It says of the following choices:: How satisfied were you overall with the cash handling procedure provided by the concessionaire? Twenty-two percent (22%) were very satisfied, thirty nine percent (39%) were satisfied and thirty nine percent (39%) were unsatisfied. We had a question at the time with the previous concessionaire and whether or not the groups that were working with them were confident in what they were getting paid. That question came before the Council and one of the issues, one of the key issues were those payments.

Further through the discussion we were concerned with using local companies, and that was primary, using a company that was a Shreveport company. We didn't have any history on Tri Star, any history on Arcadian except for what they were doing in the local private sector. We elected, the Council voted to take that opportunity to use a local company. It was voted 6 to 1. So far, if you noticed yesterday, in yesterday's conversation Lola May came up and said what a problem she had previously, but now her group gets paid and that's what she wants. That is what any group wants, is to get paid. I think the other day, last night on the news one of the stations reported that currently Hirsch has not been paid or the State Fair has not been paid by the concessionaire that we are discussing right n ow as a possibility. We had 20 RFPs go out, we 2 come back. The current one we had and we had Arcadian. The Council did vote and I think we made a good decision. I think one of the nicest things is that we are taking a local company and they have done a very good job and they have expanded outside of the city of Shreveport. They took on the concession program at the Holiday-In-Dixie Program out at Barksdale. Two hundred thousand people and they did it and they didn't have any hitches. And the nice thing that they have done, is you can get better than one cold hotdog and a cold coke when you go to the football games now. You can get pizza, you can get tacos, you can get things that we never thought about getting. We've got people coming in, they are selling products. Its worked. We did something right. We really need to pat ourselves on the back. We really did something right. Yo go out to the games, I don't care. Somebody called me today saying, I don't want to eat when I go to the game; so be it. I want to have a good time and I do have a good time when I go to the game. And I want my kids to have a good time when I go to the games, but everybody doesn't like one cold hotdog and a corn chips and a coke. We've got variety.

I would oppose holding this up for one reason and one reason only. We've wasted seven weeks right now with this program. We have a contract with the current company through the end of the year. We need to move forward and look at what is going to go into this Stadium. We expanding the Stadium. We've got a ver good, a very important ball game takes place in the Stadium every year; so, we've done great with it.

Joe was up here yesterday commending for the game, the Cowboys and Saints game. I have asked numerous times, the Sports group, to see about getting us more college games to put in the Stadium and one thing I liked, Joe said, when he said yesterday, he says we'll look at it. If we can get the six college games from him. Great, I'll take them from them. If Sports Authority doesn't put them together and Tri Star wants to put a group together and try to put all of those college games in there, that's fine. That means that facility is getting used and the tax payers' dollars are working. But it also means, that all the kids that go out there and work, all the minor jobs that are created, we are creating an opportunity in the City of Shreveport. I can't see holding this thing up one bit. I mean, all of the amendments we've got. I hate to look at all the amendments we've got on this particular contract. I think it is time to move forward. We've got an important season ahead of us. Madame Chair, I'd like to call for the vote. Mr. Carmody has asked for a two week lay over on this. I would ask my fellow Council members to vote no and we put this issue up for a vote.

Councilman Spigener: The question has been called for, is there any objections? Councilman Stewart: I object to it. I think everybody, including Mr. Shyne and I should be given an opportunity to speak as well as yourself. Councilman Serio: Mr. Stewart, I agree. I'm sorry. I rescind it.

Councilman Stewart: I think most of you know I don't speak a lot and then Mr. Hightower probably say I talk too much. I bring that to the table only for the sake of a little bit of levity here and I'd like to share my thoughts with you about how important this is and how important I think it is for the Administration as well as the Council, not just our City.

First and foremost, I am the biggest proponent to my knowledge of privatization of government, I have bee since I came here in the early 90s and I still am. Therefore, am in favor in this type of proposition. (2) I would prefer to vote on it in two weeks but I am only one vote. That is not to delay things, that is in no way to infer, Mr. Mayor, that I am anti but I am sitting here in a situation where I like, each of us and the Mayor, taken an oath to do what is right. And I think what is right is what we are discussing to do, but I think what is wrong is the amount of time we've been given to look at what has been presented by the Mayor and what we have in front of us. Therefore without question if it is delayed, I will be ready to vote in two weeks.

I want to speak clearly because of some things that have been inferred about the Mayor and Mr. Serio and I guess all of us. I am always inclined to support people who support me. I always will be. I think anybody that does anything to the contrary is foolish and anybody who chooses to allege and infer that, that's wrong, really is dabbling in less than truthful posture themselves. However, that requires an extra measure of safety, sensitivity, and objectivity on each of us and that's what I am hoping that we will employ here.

Mr. Pernici and I spoke in the middle of the week, I believe Wednesday, and he asked me and I said, why don't you just tell me what your question is (I was in the car). He said, are you in favor of me or not? I said, certainly I'm inclined to be in favor of you, I don't know if there is any question about that. But I have one question, one thing I need. I need something in front of me in writing. I need a summary. I need an understanding. The first time I saw that was yesterday and I certainly thank Mr. Salpietra and Mr. Pernici for presenting it, giving me the basis for which I think I can make a positive decision. So it is not a yes or no, it is really what the nuances associated with it.

I think the timing is unfortunate, but I do not like to receive something, which is a document the Administration gave us Monday afternoon yesterday and be prepared to be vote on (inaudible) of a response today particularly in light of the numerous issues that are sitting here as amendments. I did seek Mayor's Hightower's guidance on two different commentary moments, I think on Friday about his response to Mr. Carmody. There is a lot of what Mr. Carmody has proposed that is, I think, objective. There is a lot of it that raises questions, there is a lot of it that I do not necessarily agree with, but I do agree with one thing, we're here to get answers, and I am concerned that I am not in a position to objectively vote today on the documents in front of me. If forced, obviously, I'll have to vote. If given the opportunity, I will be obviously prepared to approve the entire idea with subject to the nuances of the contract. I do not, in any way, Mr. Mayor, or anyone else choose to go back to the problems of the past. I am very comfortable, regardless of any inference with the people that have been selected by the Mayor. My only issue is contract and the obligation to clearly understand the response as well as the contract. Thank you.

Councilman Burrell: Again, I want to reiterate that I have no opposition. If anybody want to know the truth, I was the one who made the motion for Tri Star to get the contract in the first place whenever there were others who were scared to even put that forth. So, I want to make that clear for number one simply because we were having some problems at the time, and many times those unpopular things people don't want to discuss, I care less. If it's the truth, you know, it's the truth, and it should be discussed and we're discussing it. Secondly, yes, we've had a big tournament this year and I've gotten support from Tri Star. They've been very, very supportive of us, because they did a wonderful job, a magnificent job out there at that major tournament that we had and we asked for part of the concessions to help support it, and they agreed on that. I realize that I run the risk of losing that not that they would at this juncture since the agreement has been made, but even with that in mind, I still have a responsibility to the people that I represent that if there are questions in mind that needs to be answered, because they're going to come and ask me those questions then I still have an obligation to raise those questions and to discuss those questions to the extent that I have an understanding. I've talked to the Mayor about it to try to get clarification. I've talked to the company about several things to get a clarification, bu there were several other things that I had not gotten a clarification on that are very, very important to me. This is why I wanted to try to get a better clarification on the situation itself. And given that, this is why I wanted to clear up on the time schedule, because the biggest problem I had with the time schedule. I think I'm pretty clear in my mind that although October is still a short date even after August, but it does give a couple more months to deal with this situation; so, hopefully, we could still get the equipment there in time and in place and it can be functional.

Councilman Serio: One point of reference on what Mr. Burrell was just saying that not only you have two weeks, but you also have another week to ten days after the Mayor signs it.

Councilman Burrell: Well, I want to correct something. The motion was made by Councilman Serio on the contract, but I seconded it, that's only because he made the motion first. Let's put it that way.

Councilman Spigener: I'm glad we resolved that gentlemen from how many years ago.

Councilman Shyne: I'm usually the quietest Councilman on City Council and I don't usually talk very much. I do want to make it clear that I was not involved in making the motion, seconding the motion, voting on the motion or whatever. So, I'm not here to take any credit for doing anything. I do want to make it clear that I only know these gentlemen by passing. They have not made any contributions to my campaign. They have not even bought me an ice cream cone. I really don't even know them well enough to call them on the telephone; so, I have no personal interest.

I was a little uncomfortable in the beginning with the length of the contract, but after it was explained to me and I would say that there are a lot of things that I vote on on the Council that I'm uncomfortable with; so, that's not an unusual situation to be in. But I did want to make sure that there was a minority percentage of participation in this contract. One thing that Councilman Huckaby and myself have fought for from Day 1was minority inclusion. We lost some and we won some and some got rained out, but at this particular point, I am looking at who can provide the best services for the City, and I think that we all need to be concerned about this. Who will be able to provide the best services? This is what I'm concerned about. Madame Chairman, I'm ready to vote if everybody has said what they wanted to say. I have so many ideas coming in and out of my head until I feel good.

Councilman Carmody: One last comment and that is I don't know these people, and I don't know that they're the best for the City. I understand that their contract does go through December 31^st of this year, and I would have anticipated that having a contract and knowing that you're under an obligation to fulfill that contract through the end of the year that you would have some type of a contingency plan to provide to fulfill that contract. I certainly have seen where the Administration has worked to try and get every dollar they can. I know that we're trying to play for the artificial turf which is about somewhere between $700- and $ 1 million dollars a month, I hadn't seen the final number on that. I know we moved $560 plus thousands out of the Department of Water and Sewer budget in order to do some work out at the Stadium, and you guys have got to be commended for trying to find every dollar you can here and that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to find out if and Joe said it, and I think we're all right here on the same page, we're all trying to do what is best for the City.

I understand Councilman Serio's comment that he's surprised to see the number of amendments that we're going to sit here and go through. The only intent of adding amendments to a contract is to do it right. The comment has repeatedly been made that in 1997 there was an RFP put out. An RFP, I was not on the Council, but I did read the paper. The RFP was for Independence Stadium only. What we're talking about here is expanding to now the City facilities that are listed in this particular contract; so, let's kind of go apples to apples. We have not had an RFP for this particular set of venues. So, again, my emphasis here is to do what's right by the citizens of the City of Shreveport. It's hard for me to have a comparison without looking at others who might want to bid. As I mentioned to the Mayor last Friday, there is so many things that I commend this Administration on doing correctly that it just seems like it would have been in the same spirit of everything else that's been accomplished that we would also do this one correctly, and so, therefore, my work today, and I will ask the Council's endurance on going through these amendments, is to do it correctly.

Mayor Hightower: Certainly, I don't have any problem with amendments. We're going to have, I think, 13 amendments to this particular ordinance and contract maybe not the contract but certainly the ordinance. I don't have a problem with that at all that's not out of character for anything that comes before the Council. I was on the Council for eight years and introduced many, many amendments as each of you have; so, and I think that's healthy and Thomas has done a good job on that. He's thought some things through, put some proposals on the table that you have the opportunity to vote on. Councilman Burrell added one as late as a couple of hours ago, and like I said, I don't see any real problems with that other than the potential health and liability problem but that may be something that needs to be worked through.

One comment you made about the contractor going through December and whether they can perform. I don't want to mislead you. They're going to perform. They're just not going to be able to perform at four times the point of service as compared to what they were able to do last year, because I don't believe they'll go out and by four times the equipment to service us from August through December. So, that's my point and that's the only reason, that coupled with the rehabilitation of the Stadium are the only reasons that this contract is coming up at all. If we were doing no work at Independence Stadium, we would have no reason to look to bid this or extend this or do anything else with this contract at this juncture. We'd be waiting until the end of the contract. Certainly, we'd be working on it at this point, but we wouldn't be voting six months out on who was going to be our next contractor. I think when you do that you may give someone the incentive not to work very hard over the next six months if they're not the contractor of choice and what we do think we have is the contractor of choice.

So, again, I think we just need to be fair, and if anybody has any questions today that they don't feel like they have been answered by either the Administration or the contractor themselves, we can call Mr. Salpietra forward and get him to answer any of those we can, but again, time is of the essence and money is certainly of the essence, and we don't want to spend any more than we have to, and we certainly want to bring in all that we can. The RFP that was done in 1997, the Council back then felt like this company provided the best opportunity for the City. As Councilman Serio said, there were 20 RFPs sent out and two respondents. I don't mind telling you given the choice of the two, we've offered up the one that we think can do the job, can do it correctly, and we'll take care of the people that they contract with.

So, in fairness to the City Administration, whether we get back in the business or not and in fairness to the contractor, both parties need as much lead time as we can possibly have. I hate that the discussion has come down to the final minute, but it has been ongoing. It has been the agenda. We did have a public hearing yesterday and if there are any specific questions that we can clear up to get a vote today, I'm certainly at your disposal at this meeting and again, we can call Mr. Salpietra forward if we need to do that to clear up any matter.

But, I would still urge you to vote on this matter today one way or the other so that in fairness to either the private sector or the public sector we have the opportunity and the time to get out there and get the equipment ordered or negotiate contracts with people that can put the equipment together for us so that we're not embarrassed when football season rolls around.

Councilman Spigener: I know that we have a motion and a second on the floor, and we've had quite a bit of discussion about the possibility of postponement. I know as the Mayor has indicated or several of you have that we have about 13 or 14 amendments. We were fortunate enough to get 9 of those yesterday to be able to review them last evening. However, I have 4 that were given to us today that I haven't even looked at. Had I had all of this information yesterday and could have reviewed it, I would have felt much more comfortable but voting on four amendments that I haven't seen, kind of puts me in a position as some of the other Council members. I do, and I know time is of the essence and the Mayor and I have discussed that. We do have one other alternative and that is to have a call meeting, not have to wait two weeks but have a call meeting perhaps one day next week, if that would be a happy medium and a center ground that we might come to some agreement on. However, as I said, we do have a motion and a second on the floor. So, it would be up to the persons that made the motion and the second as to how you would like to go with that. Am I mudding the water more or would this assist us?

Councilman Stewart: I think we're ready to vote.

Councilman Spigener: Okay. We've had the question called for. It seems that we're either ready to vote yes, let's postpone it or no we do not. That's our motion, I believe, that we're voting on now, as do we delay this or do we vote on it today?

Motion denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Huckaby, Serio, Spigener, and Shyne. 4. Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody and Burrell. 3.

Amendment No. 1:

By: Councilman Carmody

Amend the ordinance as follows:

On page 1 in the fifth WHEREAS clause delete the word and figure "ten (10)" and substitute the word and figure "five (5)"

On page 2 at the end of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED paragraph delete the period, substitute a comma, and add the following:

subject to the following changes and limitations:

a) said draft shall be amended in paragraph XI and in any other paragraph to the extent necessary to provide that the contract shall be for a term of five years, more or less, beginning on the date of execution and terminating on the last day of December, 2005.

b) said draft shall be amended in paragraph V. (i) and in any other paragraph to the extent necessary to provide that the price of the equipment shall be depreciated at a rate of twenty percent (20%) per year for each year of the contract.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart for adoption of Amendment No. 1.

Mayor Hightower: Just for the record, the Administration is against this amendment. The contractor needs the 10 year term to be able to depreciate and have the cashflow to be able to pay off the equipment purchases. So, we would ask that you vote no.

Amendment No. 1 approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, and Burrell. 4. Nays: Councilmen Huckaby, Serio, and Shyne. 3.

Motion by Councilman Stewart, seconded by Councilman Burrell for reconsideration of Amendment No. 1. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: Councilman Carmody. 1.*

Motion by Councilman Stewart, seconded by Councilman Huckaby for adoption of Amendment No. 1. Motion denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Ayes: Councilmen Carmody and Spigener. 2.

Amendment No. 2 A by Councilman Carmody:

Amend the ordinance as follows:

On page 2 at the end of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED paragraph delete the period, substitute a comma, and add the following:

subject to the following changes and limitations:

a) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

b) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

c) said draft shall be amended in paragraph V. (i) and (ii), and in any other paragraph to the extent necessary, to provide that the mayor may terminate the contract for convenience or cause and the council, by resolution, may cause the termination of the contract for convenience or cause.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Burrell for adoption of Amendment No. 2A.

Mayor Hightower: Madame Chairman. On this one, we discussed this a little bit what I want to be sure of on this particular amendment we have thousands of contracts throughout the City, and the City Council certainly has to authorize the Mayor to enter into them what we want to be careful about here is that we don't have eight people that any contractor in the City has to come answer to. All of the other contracts in the City, the contractors (the private sector) answer to the Administration who is charged with administering all the contracts of the City after the City Council approves them. We have a little concern from the Legal Department standpoint over whether we are crossing that boundary and in essence creating eight people that the contractor has to come through. Obviously, if we have a contractor whether they be in concessions, health care, copy products, you name it that doing a bad job and the City Council is getting enough complaints from their constituents, there's going to be enough pressure put on the Administration to either correct the contract or cancel the contract, but we want to be sure that this particular amendment says can cancel for convenience. I think that's a little loose for anybody to want to go out and make those investments but not only am I worried about this specific contract, that worries me about every contract in the City and who does the contractor actually answer to. Do they have to come get eight yes' before they decide they can move forward on whatever it is they're asking if they can do or you know, if the concrete is poured thick enough; so, the Legal Department brought that to our attention. So, we would ask that we be cautious that we continue to separate the legislative branch from the executive branch when it comes to administration of contracts.

Councilman Spigener: Am I not thinking correctly that this amendment was to be attached to this ordinance only applying to this contract, specifically, and not other contracts that would be my interpretation.

Mayor Hightower: And that's my understanding as well, but I certainly think that it sets a precedent on what happens not over the next two days or two months or two years but over the next 200 years as do we have eventually have 1,000 contracts out there that have the same type language in them that definitely have a cross over between the legislative and the executive branch, and I think there needs to be one decision maker or one administrator and that's what the current ordinances calls for. So, this certainly does change that on us and that's been of some concern to the Legal Department.

Councilman Spigener: Is there anything in this amendment that gives a specific length of time before the contract can be terminated?

Mr. Thompson: The contract itself says that it can be terminated for a convenience by the City with a 45 day notice.

Mayor Hightower: We just want to be sure that there's calls and if there is on any contract, I know I personally as Mayor would entertain a request by a resolution of the Council to cancel the copier product contract, you know, provided they weren't performing up to their standards, but I think we have a problem and like I said when we create eight bosses that the copy man has to answer to or the concession man has to answer to; so, that's our concern with that particular amendment.

Councilman Shyne: That was really my concern too. I don't want to use the word eight bosses, and Mayor, it's probably alright for you to use that term, but I use to work in the cotton fields, you know and you hate to say well, there comes the boss. It kind of a little sticky term with me. But I really didn't want us to pass anything that would tie the Administration's hand, but I do want the Council to understand that there is a certain amount of power that we need to retain. I don't want to see us giving up all of the power to the Administration although I like the Administration and I enjoy working with them, but this is strictly business and I really think from time to time we've had a tendency to do that, but I still don't want to see us tie anybody's hands where it would make it uncomfortable for them to work with vendors or whoever we sign contracts with. I do think if we can get it from the Legal Department, if we do not pass this, we could still come back. Let's say if the Council was not satisfied with the type of services that we're getting, and we could negate the contract at any time that we would want to. And, if we passed this, would this tie the Administration's hands where we don't want to say where it will be eight bosses, but maybe we would have too many people making the decision?

Mr. Ramon Lafitte: That is correct. If you passed it, you would have several people in the decision making process.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, you don't mind if we use that instead of saying bosses?

Mayor Hightower: I'm with you.

Councilman Serio: Mr. Shyne, it almost sounds like too many cooks in the kitchen.

Councilman Shyne: Well, know that happens sometimes.

Councilman Stewart: One of the main reasons that I suggested we take some different action than was my original desires today is a simple one. I have had more complaints over this contract and the ways its being handled than anything else since I've been in this particular term. I want to say clearly and remind everyone that I've already stated, and I am comfortable with the contractor and I'm comfortable with their performance in my past experiences with them that is a business position, that is an objective statement. I say that because I think it is directed unfortunately at the process. Therefore, I think conservatism on this particular issue is to everyone's benefit. I have never sought nor will I ever nor do I now desire to take any power from the Office of the Mayor. I think the current Mayor would certainly know that from all the commitments that I have made. Do not want to do anything illegal, but I suggest that we pass this and then if it needs to be reworded then let it be reworded accordingly since it is specific.

Amendment 2A approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, and Burrell. 4. Nays: Councilmen Huckaby, Serio, and Shyne. 3.

Amendment No. 3 by Councilman Carmody:

Amend the ordinance as follows:

On page 2 at the end of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED paragraph delete the period, substitute a comma, and add the following:

subject to the following changes and limitations:

a) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

b) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

c) see Amendment No. 2 if adopted

d) said draft shall be amended to require the concessionaire to use the City's Purchasing Department to purchase the equipment needed to fulfill this contract, under the terms and conditions the City would use if the City purchased the equipment.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Burrell for adoption of Amendment No. 3.

Councilman Stewart: This one has caused me difficulty because of the time frame scenario that has been imposed upon us. The time issue has been a great concern in any shape, form, fashion. Mayor, I would appreciate your response on this while I would certainly support the philosophy with this particular amendment. The attention to the time issues would tend to tell me (I'm not trying to lead you, sir) that this would create greater problems. Is that a fair statement, sir?

Mayor Hightower: I don't think there's any question about that, and on top of that, we're trying to contract with a private sector and to make them use the public bid process to go out and do their private business. It makes it awful tough to work. In the private sector, they can go out and buy used equipment if they want to. We're not going to have that option through the public sector. They can go out and make a 10 year deal with the hotdog man to supply them with the equipment if they buy their hotdogs. We can't do that through the bid process. So, if we're going to be in the private sector, we ought to give the private sector the opportunity to do what they have to do to run their business, to make a profit so that we get service the way we ought to be served. But you are correct, the time frame certainly does make a big difference. If we go and we make them use the City's bid process to do the bidding then we go back to the time frame I talked about before, spec writing, 30 days worth of advertisement, 30 days worth of receipt, ordering, receiving, installing; so, certainly, timing is a big problem.

Councilman Carmody: And of course the reason for the amendment as I explained to the Administration was that part of this contract calls for the concessionaire to purchase equipment that'll eventually belong to the City of Shreveport and therefore, to assure that we know that we're getting a competitive price that is the reason asking for the requirement that if we go through the public bid process so that we know that we're assured of the quality and the cost of the equipment that we eventually will end up owning as a municipal asset.

Mayor Hightower: If the contract is canceled.

Councilman Carmody: Correct. Well, either way the contract went for the full term. At the end of it, I assumed that it's depreciated out to the point where we maybe we should clarify that. Is Mr. Salpietra in the audience? Can you tell me that?

Councilman Spigener: Mr. Carmody, shall we have him come forward?

Councilman Carmody: I'm sorry. Yeah. Please.

Councilman Spigener: Mr. Salpietra, would you come forward please?

Ken Antee: We can answer that. It's in the contract.

Councilman Carmody: How does it read, Mr. Antee?

Ken Antee: Basically, the only way the depreciation is involved is if the contract is terminated. If the contract is not terminated and it goes through the length of the term, then it doesn't come into play. The City will not own the equipment at that time. It will still be owned by the company. The reason that language is in there is to protect anybody from going out and making a big investment, and then a year later having the contract terminated and they've got a million dollar note with only one year to recoup. So, the relevance to take your argument that the City is going to end up owning it, that's going to assume that we're going to terminate the contract. And to think that any reasonable businessman would go out there and not get the best deal that they can get which when you go to the public bid law, you don't automatically get the best deal. We found that out throughout the entire bid process. If you're able to go out and negotiate rather than be tied to whoever the lowest bidder may have submitted, you don't always get the best deal, but for a reasonable businessman to bet and say, I'm going to go out and buy more expensive so that when the contract is terminated, I can get more money for the equipment is ludicrous. Because no reasonable businessman in their right mind is going to be betting on failure and that's what you've got here is,] you're stating that the concession company is going to go out, knowing that the contract is going to be terminated so that when the City buys the equipment for their depreciated value, it's going to be a lot more which means they would have had to pay a lot more; so, I don't see the logic in that argument. Hopefully, that answers your question.

Amendment No. 3 denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Huckaby Stewart, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Ayes: Councilman Carmody. 1.

Amendment No. 4 by Councilman Carmody

Amend the ordinance as follows:

On page 2 at the end of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED paragraph delete the period, substitute a comma, and add the following:

subject to the following changes and limitations:

a) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

b) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

c) see Amendment No. 2 if adopted

d) see Amendment No. 3 if adopted

e) said draft shall be amended to require the concessionaire to comply with the city's Fair Share program.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Burrell for adoption of Amendment No. 4. Motion adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: Councilman Serio. 1.

Councilman Serio: May I say this and the reason I voted against this one is that I think it is incumbent that we realize that the organization of the business here is being doing a very good job already without having an imposition of government regulation on top of them. I'd like to commend them for what they have already accomplished without any government regulation.

Councilman Shyne: Madame Chairman. I agree to a certain extent, but I do want the organization to realize that I'm deeply concerned and I made a commitment, and I think it's only morally right that we reach out and help those that we have traditionally not helped. It's pretty ludicrous for you to ask me to pull myself up by boot straps and I don't even have any boots on. So, I would hope that we would stress this at every level, at every point, because if we're ever going to become the great city that we need to become, we got to reach out and help everybody.

God has a way of blessing people who show compassion to the less fortunate ones. It's pretty hard for you to expect for me to keep up with you, and you've had three or four hundred years start on me. I think you're asking me to do too much and although you might say, well, you know, Joe, I wasn't here. You might not have been, but you benefitting from those that were here. I want to make it clear, Mr. Mayor, and to my colleagues that I will always be concerned that whenever we do a contract with anybody if it's for buying toilet paper to make sure that the Fair Share agreement is involved in it. And Mr. Mayor, I know I've gotten your word and the words of my colleagues on that, and I think that God will help us to become the great City that we can become on the banks of the Red River.

Councilman Stewart: I've already stated my belief in the group and their experiences here. However, I think issues of this merit while we all are in agreement in many ways, we do have to face in a contract of this measure the unfortunate possibility that people that are with us today might not be here tomorrow. I'm merely talking about accidents that happen to all of us. Unfortunately, might be. So, certainly, this type of issue is an important part of it and doesn't speak to the people. It really speaks to the contractor.

Councilman Spigener: Amendment No. 5.

Ms. Lee: That would be 5-A.

Amendment No. 5A:

Amend Section X of the proposed contract to add Section X (M) to read as follows:

X. GENERAL PROVISIONS

M. The Concessionaire is encouraged to permit non-profit organizations to sell concessions and/or provide other work, and to negotiate a share of the concessions profits for special events or activities held in any facility subject to this contract.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart for adoption of Amendment No. 5 A.

Arthur Thompson: Madame Chairman. The Clerk passed out a new set of documents not the ones that you took home and 5A was included rather than 5.

Councilman Spigener: Okay that's my confusion. I guess. I have the set that we were given yesterday.

Amendment No. 5A approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Amendment No. 6 by Councilman Carmody:

Amend the ordinance as follows:

On page 2 at the end of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED paragraph delete the period, substitute a comma, and add the following:

subject to the following changes and limitations:

a) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

b) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

c) see Amendment No. 2 if adopted

d) see Amendment No. 3 if adopted

e) see Amendment No. 4 if adopted

f) see Amendment No. 5 if adopted

g) said draft shall be amended to permit the City to negotiate a share of the concession profits with sporting events as an incentive to having the event in Shreveport.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Huckaby for adoption of Amendment No. 6. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Burrell. 6. Nays: Councilman Shyne. 1.

Mr. Thompson: This is another. This is 7-A rather than 7. It's in the new packet. Councilman Spigener: I guess I need to let you all tell me which ones coming next.

Amendment No. 7A by Councilman Carmody:

Amend the ordinance as follows:

On page 2 at the end of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED paragraph delete the period, substitute a comma, and add the following:

subject to the following changes and limitations:

a) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

b) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

c) see Amendment No. 2 if adopted

d) see Amendment No. 3 if adopted

e) see Amendment No. 4 if adopted

f) see Amendment No. 5 if adopted

g) see Amendment No. 6 if adopted

h) said draft shall be amended in paragraph "1. Scope of Services" and in any other paragraph to the extent necessary, to provide that the rights granted the Concessionaire in this contract do not extend to the management of the kitchens and to catering services at Exposition Hall, Convention Hall and the Barnwell Center.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Burrell for adoption of Amendment No. 7A . Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: Councilmen Huckaby and Serio. 2.

Amendment No. 8:

Amend the ordinance as follows:

On page 2 at the end of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED paragraph delete the period, substitute a comma, and add the following:

subject to the following changes and limitations:

a) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

b) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

c) see Amendment No. 2 if adopted

d) see Amendment No. 3 if adopted

e) see Amendment No. 4 if adopted

f) see Amendment No. 5 if adopted

g) see Amendment No. 6 if adopted

h) see Amendment No. 7 if adopted

i) said draft shall be amended to include a provision specifying that suites in Independence Stadium that will be sold or rented are excluded from the concessions agreement.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Shyne for adoption of Amendment No. 8. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, and Burrell. 5. Nays: Councilmen Serio and Shyne. 2.

Amendment No. 9 by Councilman Carmody:

Amend the ordinance as follows:

On page 2 at the end of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED paragraph delete the period, substitute a comma, and add the following:

subject to the following changes and limitations:

a) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

b) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

c) see Amendment No. 2 if adopted

d) see Amendment No. 3 if adopted

e) see Amendment No. 4 if adopted

f) see Amendment No. 5 if adopted

g) see Amendment No. 6 if adopted

h) see Amendment No. 7 if adopted

i) see Amendment No. 8 if adopted

j) said draft shall be amended to include a provision specifying that only the facilities specifically named in the contract are covered by the contract, and new facilities cannot be added without City Council approval.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart for adoption of Amendment No. 9. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Amendment No. 10:

Amend Section VII of the proposed contract to read as follows:

VII. PAYMENTS

1. As consideration for this contract, Concessionaire shall make payments to the City as follows:

(A) Independence Stadium Events: Concessionaire shall pay the City the sum of fifty cents ($.50) per ticket accepted at the gate and reconciled and verified by a Count Committee for each event held in Independence Stadium beginning on the date of execution of the contract and continuing until December 31, 2002. Beginning January 1, 2003, the Concessionaire's payments to the City shall increase by two and one-half cent ($.02 ½) each year for the remaining years of the contract.

The Count Committee shall be comprised of representatives from City's Department of Parks and Recreation, Internal Audit and Finance and representative(s) of the Concessionaire.

(B) Cargill Park, including Athletic Facilities: Concessionaire shall pay the City a lump sum of $833.33 per month for any and all events held in Cargill Park, including the athletic facilities, beginning on the date of execution of the contract and continuing until December 31, 2000.

Beginning January 1, 2001 and continuing throughout the term of this contract, the Concessionaire's payments to the City shall be in the amount of $10,000.00 per year, payable in the amount of $833.33 per month.

(C) Other Facilities: Concessionaire shall make payment to the City in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the Concessionaire's gross revenue, net of sales taxes, for each event held in all other facilities subject to this contract for events beginning on the date of execution of this contract and continuing to the end of the contract term.

2. Settlement with the City for all sums due under this contract shall be made on a monthly basis, with payment due by Concessionaire no later than the 15th day of each month. Concessionaire shall install and maintain such bookkeeping and accounting methods and records of inventory and cash controls, as to permit City to accurately compute the fees due to City under this contract. such records shall be made available to City at all reasonable times after written notice.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart for adoption of Amendment No. 10.

Mr. Thompson: In the resolution the payments were listed that you have before you, but they were not in the contract. This actually puts those payments, the amount that the City is going to receive in the contract.

Amendment No. 10 approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: Councilman Huckaby. 1.

Amendment No. 11 by Councilman Burrell:

Amend the ordinance as follows:

On page 2 at the end of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED paragraph delete the period, substitute a comma, and add the following:

subject to the following changes and limitations:

a) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

b) see Amendment No. 1 if adopted

c) see Amendment No. 2 if adopted

d) see Amendment No. 3 if adopted

e) see Amendment No. 4 if adopted

f) see Amendment No. 5 if adopted

g) see Amendment No. 6 if adopted

h) see Amendment No. 7 if adopted

i) see Amendment No. 8 if adopted

j) see Amendment No. 9 if adopted

k) see Amendment No. 10 if adopted

l) said draft shall be amended in paragraph "1. Scope of Services" and in any other paragraph to the extent necessary, to provide that the City reserves unto itself the right to permit non-profit organizations to provide concession products that are not provided by concessionaire at Cargill Park, including the athletic facilities, and Southern Hills Park.

Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of Amendment No. 11. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, and Burrell. 4. Nays: Councilman Huckaby, Serio, and Shyne. 3.

Amendment No. 12:

Amend the Ordinance as follows:

On page 1, amend the eighth "WHEREAS" clause to now read as follows:

"WHEREAS, for events at all other facilities excluding Independence Stadium and Cargill Park, including the athletic facilities, payments to the City shall be in the amount of ten percent (10%) of Tri Star's gross revenue, net of sales taxes, for each event; and"

Councilman Stewart: Who is the sponsor of this amendment?

Mr. Thompson: The Administration.

Mayor Hightower: Madame Chairman. What we wanted to do there was we were talking about when you were figuring gross receipts what we want to be sure is that we're at a net figure that does not include sales tax is what that includes. We don't want them to have to pay a portion of sales tax back that obviously is a pass through cost to the government bodies.

Councilman Stewart: Mayor Hightower, I would assume that this would be consistent with any other contracts of this measure executed at any other circumstance and that the benefits would be extended to all other parties in similar circumstances?

Mayor Hightower: That's true. Yeah. We don't want to use sale taxes in the calculation.

Councilman Stewart: Thank you very much, sir.

Councilman Serio: I don't even know if this is even needed, because in your gross statement, you would hold the sales tax. Ramon, help me on this. On gross statement, income statement, you're going to withhold sales tax anyway to show what your gross sales are, minus taxes for net sales; am I correct?

Ramon Lafitte: For net sale purposes you would.

Councilman Serio: So, is this amendment even needed? Because any time you fill out a tax statement, for sales tax received that statement is going to show gross sales minus Caddo Parish, State, Shreveport sales tax for a net amount; so, do we even need this amendment?

Ramon Lafitte: If they're going to pay the City based on the net amount, you would not need it. If you want to be certain that the taxes are not included and therefore, they won't be paying us double, I guess you could say, this would be needed.

Mayor Hightower: What the original amendment says is shall be ten percent of Tri Star's gross revenue what we have included is net of sales tax. So, we just want clarity to be sure that when there's an event, and you total up, and somebody looks at the bottom line and it's not $100, it's $108.25 that $8.25 comes off and that number is computed at 10% of the 100.

Councilman Serio: So, you're taking the City and the State off the top and then for the computation for the groups, that theirs is off the net value of the product that is sold.

Mayor Hightower: Right.

Mr. Antee: Actually, what this is doing is this is defining gross revenue so that we don't get into a situation to where they do charge a sales tax and you got a total number that's been collected and in that was the tax, and the City and the concession companies and the argument as to what gross revenue means. It's just purely defining what everybody intend for it to mean. So, it's more of a definition or further definition as to what the intent of the contract is.

Councilman Spigener: Okay. Thank you for that explanation and that clarifies the reason we have the ordinance for me.

Motion by Councilman Stewart, seconded by Councilman Serio for adoption of Amendment No. 12. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby Stewart, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: Councilman Carmody. 1.

Motion by Councilman Huckaby seconded by Councilman Stewart for adoption of the ordinance as amended.

Councilman Carmody: Very quickly. I'm just going to publicly state the same thing that I had explained to the Mayor last Friday. I do not know Tri Star. Ya'll seem to be a good organization. I commend Mr. Salpietra for his presentation yesterday. My vote will be no, and it basically is a reflection on I do believe that there would have been a more proper way to handle this and that the process should have been opened up for RFP's. If the City is responsible enough to know what type of plan we want to enact in order to maximize the amount of money that we can put into this stadium facility, we should have been doing this back in the Spring instead of coming down to now we're talking about October being the game that they got to outfit. So, I just wanted everybody to know. As my good friend, Mr. Shyne, like to say, there's nothing personal, this is just business.

Councilman Shyne: Tom, thank you very much. Gary, I have a question I'd like to ask you. If you don't mind coming forward. It seem like we might have left the door open to have two vendors at the Stadium by deleting the Skybox and the suites. I'm not really asking this for myself, because I know I want be able to purchase a ticket for the Skybox or for any of the suites, but for those persons who are financially able to do that and for the City too, will that cause a conflict. Are we opening up a Pandora's box by doing that or is this something that is generally done, let's say, at the Astrodome or the Super Dome or the what are the names of some of those other big stadiums?

Gary Norman: I can't answer what the other facilities have done. I can say, you know from our past here we have excluded the Skybox and the Press Box in the past. There are a lot of games. Councilman Shyne: You say we have or we haven't. Gary Norman: We have excluded it. Like the Grambling, Pine Bluff game one of the sponsors of that particular game was Pete Harris. They provide food for the Skybox and all for that particular event. So, it gives a little bit more flexibility to people that are going to be renting the Skybox and those who make a sizeable investment and you know, we just get some flexibility as to what they might want to use in their particular suite. Councilman Shyne: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't open up a Pandora's Box; I'm satisfied. Madame Chairman.

Councilman Burrell: We seem as though we're at the end of all of these amendments in which I don't think all of them were discussed. I think the issue again with me is the fact that it's something that you said before there were amendments added at the last minute in which some of us didn't get a chance to really look at. Any time we have changes in something of this nature dealing with contracts, I think it's so important that we take the time to get to understand it, because we have constituencies that will come and ask us about these things. I think it's critical that we as public officials understand it so that we can pass it on to our constituents when there are pieces of legislation that are brought before us and we approve it so that we won't have to go back later and necessarily change it. There's nothing wrong with changing it, but it's even better whenever you understand it before time in putting laws into place for out citizens to having to uphold.

So, in terms of the company itself, I think that the company knows that I've supported them over the period and it has nothing to do with the company, but it does have to do with the different amendments and changes that we make to our contracts and I take this job very, very seriously, and I normally try to be thorough before I do certain things. So, under the circumstances, I have no problems with our existing vendor and looking forward to them to provide even better service later on.

Councilman Spigener: I know this is taking a long time to go through these amendments, but I think it's very good that we've let the public know what we are dealing with and what we're facing, what are the issues, and I believe we are ready to vote at this time.

Councilman Serio: I have one question. I'm trying to go back through and see exactly which amendments we voted for, up and which ones we voted down. Could I get a clarification on that at this time, because there's so many amendments.

Madame Clerk: One - adopted, 2 - adopted, 3- failed, 4 - adopted. 5 - adopted.

Councilman Spigener: So, all of the amendments passed except Amendment No. 4? Mayor Hightower: Except Amendment No. 3. Councilman Spigener: I'm sorry, Amendment No. 3.

Councilman Serio: The reason I asked is that with the change from the ten year that the Mayor was asking to the five year, I'm curious if the company, if Tri Star will even be able to sign the contract with the City of Shreveport and if not, what would then occur?

Mr. Antee: Councilman Serio, that was one of the things that had been negotiated, and there was a lot of different things that were negotiated in extending the contract. One of the things was the term and the primary factor from the contractor's standpoint on the term was an order to amortize the debt. To amortize it over 5 years puts a burden and that's what was addressed yesterday in the presentation based upon the numbers and all that was presented and that to amortize it over 5 years and to be able to go out and try and get financing with a 5 year contract would be extremely difficult when you're talking about anywhere from $800,000 to $1,200,000 or whatever that financing may be. I think all of the amendments after Amendment 1 and this actual motion is all purely suspect, because it's my understanding that they will not be willing to do it for 5 years and that's why we presented the 10 year contract rather than the 5, 7. It started out with a 5 year extension. They wanted a much longer term, and it was negotiated down to a ten year for that specific reason.

Councilman Serio: Do we have anyone here from the Accounting Department that can help us with that? From Finance, I don't see Liz Washington or anybody.

Councilman Spigener: Ms. Washington, would you come forward, and Ms. Washington is our Director of Finance.

Councilman Serio: Liz, from your standpoint in finance for municipal governments, municipalities, for depreciation schedules, is it 5 years as opposed to 10 years is that something we can live with or something we can use? Is that livable?

Liz Washington: In government we don't usually depreciate. We will start in 2000 probably doing some depreciation, but it depends on the amount investment you have, how long you're going to depreciate.

Councilman Serio: For accelerated depreciation schedules, what is the shortest accelerated depreciation schedule you can use on equipment? Are we within that time frame?

Liz Washington: I don't know, because like I said we don't normally depreciate things in government. However, I would think it would depend on the investment when you expect to get your return on investment, how fast you would depreciate it.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Serio. I think a depreciation schedule versus a cash flow payment schedule are two different things. Depreciation in talking to a local vendor that Mr. Carmody was also talking to, it's my understanding that some of the equipment will depreciate out in five years. But given a simple math equation of a million dollar investment over a ten year period, you have a hundred thousand a year to pay back with no interest. This coming year, for example, we have two money making games at the stadium-Grambling and the Independence Bowl. So, my assumption is that between the two games, Tri Star has to at least net $100,000 only to pay the principal payment of their million dollar debt. Now, whether they can net $50,000 per game or $100,000 per year this year, I don't know but that's where we put the burden on the contractor to go out and help us bring more events to Independence Stadium so that they can spread their exposure over more than two games per year. Hopefully, they can spread it over five or six and whether that's games or concerts or soccer games or tractor pulls, I don't think any of us care. What we want is more use of that $25 million dollar addition that we have out there whether it's five years. Equipment depreciates in five years or not is relevant. We shouldn't care if it does or not that's an accounting nightmare for them to have to deal with. If the equipment lasts for ten, so be it. If it lasts for two, so be it. They have to replace it that burden is on them, but the burden to pay the bank note is also on them as well to the tune of assuming that it would be divided equally $100,000 a year that's why they asked for the ten. When you look at five, we're now asking them to pay $200,000 a year, and we know they've got two games that they'll make money on this coming Fall. So, now we have to assume that they'll be able to make $100,000 net only to pay the equipment note at Grambling and at the Independence Bowl. So, that was the reason for the ten years, and it really didn't have anything to do with the tax laws as for as amortization goes or depreciation goes on equipment.

Councilman Serio: Keith. So, the completion schedule right now puts the completion of this stadium in what month next year? June, July, August?

Mr. Antee: July 31.

Councilman Serio: July 31 of next year. So, essentially, they will have two games two opportunities for events over the next 12 months.

Mr. Antee: Money making events.

Councilman Serio: Money making events over the next 12 months. They will not after football be able to put a concert or anything in there during that time period.

Mr. Antee: That's correct.

Councilman Serio: Mr. Huckaby. I don't know. I'm wondering if we're tying a noose around our neck on this one or a noose around their necks on this one.

Councilman Huckaby: I'd like to make a suggestion, Mr. Serio.

Councilman Serio: Please.

Councilman Huckaby: I think that the passage of this amendment is really devastating. All the other amendments combined do not have the impact that this one amendment does. I think it places the concessionaire in a very bad position. I don't think that they'll go out and buy a million dollars worth of equipment knowing that they'll have to pay it back in five years. I would like to see us take a brief recess, discuss this matter and hopefully, when we come back that somebody on the prevailing side will move to reconsider that amendment, that one alone, because that five year amendment really kills the deal. It will show no profit. The concessionaire can see no profit in going out buying a million dollar worth of equipment they didn't have to pay back in five years. It kills the deal. They didn't arbitrarily pick 10 years out of the air. They had to look at this from a financial standpoint and the 5 year deal kills the deal.

I hope that we will come back and that somebody on the prevailing side will realize that if we go through with this, if the concessionaire signs the contract, and I have serious doubts that he will. If he signs it, I seriously doubt that he'll go out there and spend a million dollars on equipment as he has proposed to do, so I hope that someone on the prevailing side will come back and move to reconsider this one amendment. It is devastating.

Councilman Spigener: Are you requesting Mr. Thompson, do we need a vote?

Mr. Thompson: You can ask for one. If there is objection then it would be granted. If there was an objection, you would need to vote on it.

Councilman Shyne: I appreciate that. It makes me feel good to come before Roy one time. I agree with what Councilman Huckaby is saying, but as I look out in the audience, I see some of my friends that are here for the Greenwood Road Truck Stop vote, and it seems like I see on some of their faces, we have to go to work or either we have to go and pick up our kids, we have to go and wash or we might have to go and get a little food ready before our husbands and wives get home. If it's any way possible, I would like for us to take care of that item on the agenda. Councilman Huckaby: Suspend the rule. Take it up now?

Motion by Councilman Shyne to suspend the rules to consider Ordinance No. 101 of 2000 and BAC-53-00, seconded by Councilman Huckaby; motion unanimously approved.

Clerk's Note: After consideration of Ordinance No. 101 of 2000 and BAC-53-00, the Council took a five minute recess and upon its return, held discussions about reconsideration of Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 93 of 2000.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of the ordinance as amended.

Councilman Serio: We were in discussion about the longevity of Amendment No. 1, that that was going to work for businesses and if we needed to reconsider the 5 year versus 10 year, we were discussing that, and I think that is when Mr. Shyne had asked that we yield to a particular vote that was in his district that he was concerned about. Councilman Shyne: I believe that Councilman Huckaby had asked that we reconsider.

Councilman Huckaby: My concern is that we passed Amendment No. 1 which reduces the term of the contract from 10 years to 5 years and I believe that this really destroys the deal. I think it is devastating.

I would like to ask those on the prevailing side to use reason and sound judgment and move to reconsider the vote on Amendment No. 1. Mr. Carmody voted against this ordinance even with most of his amendments passing, including this one that is most devastating. We can't please Mr. Carmody today, under any circumstances, that is obvious from his no vote. We have to act in the best interest of this City and we need to take action to move forward with the concession. This company will not spend $800- to $1 million or $1.2 million dollars for equipment knowing that they'll 5 years or less to pay it back, it doesn't make sense. Two hundred thousand $200,000 a year, they would be fools to go out there and spend a million dollars with 5 years to pay it back. Either we are going to move forward or we are going to stand still and be back where we've been all the time. We need to move forward. And hopefully I can prevail upon somebody on the prevailing side to move to reconsider Amendment No. 1 to go back to give it 10 years.

Councilman Stewart: Mr. Thompson, I'm happy to move for reconsideration of this item. I would appreciate instructions from you or Mr. Lafitte as to the appropriate motion. Mr. Thompson: You were on the prevailing side. A motion to reconsider is in order.

Motion by Councilman Stewart, seconded by Councilman Burrell for reconsideration of Amendment No. 1.

Councilman Burrell: From the beginning I didn't have a particular problem with the length of the contract. I guess part of my vote was a protest vote because I felt that there was a number of amendments that was dumped on us at the last minute, you made the comment. And again, I asked if we could postpone it until, at least with a call meeting, that we could consider it so that at least we could have digested the amendments. But since all of those have passed and under the circumstances, I see no reason again, why not to extend that time so that they can have a repayment on their investment. I realized before 5 ½ years is not proper, but at the same time it really kind of ticks me off when we have situations where we have a number of amendments and we are not able to have time to digest them all; so, I would consider my no vote on this particular amendment.

Councilman Stewart: I just would appreciate, for clarity, on the vote. Mr. Thompson: For consistence, we would ask that there be a motion to adopt with the understanding that the person who made the motion would want you to vote no. Our records, generally, for all of our ordinances have a motion to adopt. And If you do not agree with that, you would ask your colleagues to vote no.

Councilman Spigener: Mr. Stewart's motion is that we adopt Amendment 1. Mr. Thompson: With the understanding that he's requesting you to vote no.

Councilman Serio: Do we need to vote two votes? Do we need to vote yes we will reconsider re-vote this? Mr. Thompson: You've already voted to reconsider, now a motion--Councilman Spigener: This is the motion to reconsider.

Motion to reconsider Amendment No. 1 approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: Councilman Carmody. 1.

Councilman Stewart: Mr. Thompson, I do not have the information in front of me, the appropriate motion for the 10 year period, please? Mr. Thompson: It's a motion on Amendment No. 1 to change the term of the contract from 10 years to 5 years and depreciates the equipment in 5 years rather than 10 years. For consistency, we generally ask that you would make a motion to adopt and then ask your colleagues to vote against the motion. Councilman Stewart: I believe everyone has heard him, I move for adoption and request a no.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of the ordinance as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: Councilman Carmody. 1.

• Ordinance No. 95 of 2000: An ordinance amending the 2000 budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on June 27, 2000 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Spigener, seconded by Councilman Serio adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

• Ordinance No. 96 of 2000: An ordinance amending the 2000 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on June 27, 2000 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Serio, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

Amendment # 1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Under Fiscal Year 2000 Funds:

Appropriate $2,500,000 to Section 108 Grant (Fairmont)

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Under Prior-Year Funds:

Delete the $15,000 appropriation to "Providence House" and appropriate $15,000 to "Public Services."

Decrease CDBG Program Income by $100,000.

Appropriate $50,000 to Paint Your Heart Out-Shreveport.

Appropriate $50,000 to Administration - Contractual Services.

Decrease Prior-Year HOME Program Income by $250,000.

Appropriate $250,000 to Dollar Incentive Program.

Under 2000 Revenues:

Increase Section 108 (Fairmont) by $2,500,000.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Burrell for adoption of the amendment. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Huckaby for adoption of the ordinance as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

• Ordinance No. 97 of 2000: An ordinance to amend Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by amending and reenacting the Illuminated and Electronic Sign paragraph of the On-Premises Advertising Signs section, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Mr. Kirkland: What it does, this is on-premises, what it does is allow more latitude in the riverfront entertainment area. An area geographically bounded on the west by Spring Street, on the north by Cross Bayou, on the south by Lake Street and on the east by Red River. And in that area, it allows signs to blink and flash and do their thing. That's part of the attraction in the area and frankly, it is letting the businesses have a little more flexibility. We recommend your approval.

Having passed first reading on June 27, 2000 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Serio for adoption.

Councilman Serio: The Strand's being doing it for years, Mr. Kirkland.

Ordinance adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

4. Ordinance No. 98 of 2000: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the NE corner of MLK Drive and Hill Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District with MPC approval, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on June 27, 2000 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Huckaby, seconded by Councilman Shyne adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

• Ordinance No. 99 of 2000: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the SW side of MLK Drive, 850 feet NE of Rear Montana, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-2, Neighborhood Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on June 27, 2000 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Huckaby, seconded by Councilman Stewart adopted by the following vote: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Serio: I want to say congratulations to Mr. Huckaby, looks like you got some new businesses. Councilman Huckaby: Yes, sir. Councilman Shyne: Mr. Huckaby, look like you in the business development business, too. Councilman Huckaby: Pushed for it hard, real hard.

• Ordinance No. 100 of 2000: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the north side of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, 400 feet east of Dean Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1D, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on June 27, 2000 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Serio for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

Amend the ordinance as follows:

Delete lines 18 through 21 and substitute the following:

• Development to be in substantial accord with revised site plan showing the hard surfacing of the driveway and required parking with any changes or additions to require review and approval by the MPC.



• Waiver of the fencing requirement is granted until such time that a written complaint by an adjacent property owner is filed with the office of Zoning Administration, at which time the Zoning Administrator shall have the right to require that the required solid wood screening fence(s) be installed.

Councilman Spigener: If I'm understanding this correctly, that no fencing is being required at this time. Mr. Kirkland: That is right. Councilman Spigener: There is a provision that fencing could be required? Mr. Kirkland: If there were complaints, yes.

Councilman Spigener: And also there was a question on this, I think about paving, that is required? Mr. Kirkland: That's not being waived. The only thing as we appreciate your amendment would be the fence requirement is waived but the hard surface requirement for parking is not. Councilman Spigener: That's correct and I would ask you to vote to approve this.

Motion by Councilman Spigener, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of the amendment Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Stewart: This particular issue, is it of sufficient size that the landscape ordinance? Mr. Kirkland: The Landscape Ordinance requirements are automatic and in fact there is no real waiver of that. The only relief is to ask for alternative compliance and anyone who ask for it, typically is granted that approval. It is a city function, but nothing waives the ordinance on landscape requirements.

Councilman Stewart: The reason I asked just for the record, since it is in your district, Ms. Spigener, is that I have just written a letter to the Mayor stipulating, according to reports to me, three new construction areas, parking lots where it obviously has not been embraced. You'll get a get a copy of it for your--- and it was not embraced at inception.

Mr. Kirkland: Let me just say that there are a lot of existing uses out there that were there prior to this ordinance amendment and as I said, there are a number of--I just have to have a specific to give you specific response, but what we are saying that since that ordinance was adopted in the mid-80s typically it has been a requirement of every plan unless something was already zoned prior to that and had a site plan part of that, but we can respond to that.

Councilman Stewart: A copy of the letter will come to you. Mr. Kirkland: It helps me if I know and I have an address and give you specifics.

Councilman Spigener: I can think of one that you may be referring to. And there was an issue there, here on this, about a fence that was not required by the MPC and other businesses of this nature that enters into a residential area that is obviously going commercial and this complies with what has been done in the other businesses.

Motion by Councilman Spigener, seconded by Councilman Huckaby for adoption of the ordinance as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

• Ordinance No. 101 of 2000: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the NW corner of Greenwood Road and Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-3, Community Business District and B-3 (SPI-2), Community Business (Industrial Park Overlay) District to I-1, Light Industry District and I-1 (SPI-2), Light Industry (Industrial Park Overlay) District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on June 27, 2000 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Huckaby for adoption.

Councilman Burrell: Madame Chair. This has been a very, very emotional issue for the people in my Council District over in District G in the Greenwood Acres acre, I'll put it that way, not only the Greenwood Acres area but the subdivisions that are adjacent to it which is Deer Creek and also Timberline. They happen not to be in the City, those two subdivisions, but they are right adjacent to this particular business. As you know, there have been a lot of controversy surrounding our truck stop not because of the business itself, but sometimes what it produces in terms of high traffic, dangerous traffic, many times the large truck has a disregard to our smaller vehicle. As a matter of fact, I've been run off the road at that location once myself going over into Greenwood Acres and if it was some way that we could control some of that that would be fine, but it puts a lot of our citizens at risk in this area, and Greenwood Acres itself, since I've spent a lot of time in that area, has a lot of senior people. It's an older neighborhood that I-20 split right down the middle and even the people who live in that area, you do have a lot of seniors who are there. You also have a large church that has a large congregation that goes out into that area that has been affected by it. My experience with the existing one that's there, although it's not on the campus of the truck stop itself but as a by product especially on the south side of I-20 in the Greenwood Acres area, it has brought with it prostitution and drug and you can't just say that the business itself created it. But sometimes the business is a draw for this type of activity, and it only hurts the people who live there. So, I'm respectfully asking my colleagues if they would-what is the vote to go against this? Mr. Thompson: We would ask you to make a motion to adopt and then you would ask your colleagues to vote against it. Councilman Burrell: Okay. It would be a motion to adopt and to vote against that. Mr. Thompson: That's what I'm assuming you're going to ask them to do.

Councilman Burrell: Yeah, and I would appreciate their support on this. If it was any other way that we could get around it, then I would understand it, but it is not something that we feel that is conducive to the area that it is in. Secondly, with it being on Greenwood Road, it's a two-lane road just like a small street. It would be something different if it was four-lane. I guess similar to the situation up on Blanchard Road, but we have that situation here. We have no stop light there and it makes it even worst. Given the fact that we have Greenwood Road being a two-lane, it will also create traffic from Greenwood, Louisiana which has a big truck stop called Kelly's down to that location. So, you're going to see increased traffic between that section as well as where they get off on Pines Road a lot of those large trucks that service that subdivision there they will come down Greenwood Road down to this location. So, you're going to have tremendous amount of traffic from the large truck; so, again, I ask for their vote against it.

Councilman Shyne: This is not an emotional vote for me, and I have not had to agonize over it. From Day 1 I knew it was bad. This is a bad business decision. So, I don't want you all to think that I have any emotions going into this. This is strictly a bad business decision. It's strictly a bad decision for that neighborhood not only for that neighborhood but for any neighborhood. We don't need to put truck stops in any neighborhood and it's not an emotional issue, and I don't want you all to think that I had to agonize over it, because I didn't. I want to be truthful with you. From Day 1, it was bad, and I think all of the members on the Council understand that. You would not want this in your neighborhood, period.

Councilman Serio: Madame Chairman. I've got one question. This has gone through the MPC? Mr. Kirkland, what was the response from the MPC? Mr. Kirkland: It was heard by the Planning Commission. The vote was 6-1 to approve. There were some conditions. The conditions were that they honor the site plan that was presented. Also, there were references to improvements and ingress and egress from the interstate. The applicant was willing to meet all of those requirements, and frankly, the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals both approved on majority votes. Any other questions on that answer?

Councilman Serio: I'm going to ask you the same question I've asked just about every time. If none of these ever pass, is our laws on this going to be suspect at the Supreme Court?

Mr. Kirkland: Mr. Serio, that's impossible for me to answer. I know Mr. Lafitte tried to respond to that yesterday as to, I think the main question there was liability. A court would take all of the evidence, and if a lawsuit were filed, it would also be defended. Whatever action the Council takes, the City Attorney would defend that and depending on the judges or whatever no way to know what the final verdict might be. All of the practical elements are going to be weighed though and that is that we have laws that do permit truck stops and that would contemplate that there would be locations where they could be approved, but I can't predict what the ultimate outcome would be.

Councilman Spigener: Mr. Kirkland, then the MPC felt that this location, and it is an industrial location, correct? Mr. Kirkland: There's no question that this is an industrial area. There are too many other uses that have been approved through zoning that allows for industrial uses at this location. This specific site needed rezoning from B-3 to I-1 for the purpose requested. The Planning Commission felt that this was compatible and that was why they voted the way they did.

Councilman Spigener: And there is industrial zoning in very close proximity to this? Of course, there's a truck stop across the interstate, and I understand there is industrial zoning further west. Mr. Kirkland: That's correct. In fact, ya'll have the vicinity maps in your books that clearly lay out every bit of that as for as all the zoning, and you'll see that the industrial zoning has just one aspect to this case that's clearly compatible. That's one issue that you're about to vote on now as whether the zoning is appropriate or not. The gaming itself is a subsequent vote I presume you'll take today on the Zoning Board of Appeals action. So, you're voting on the zoning only as this function, but I understand and respect your right as elected officials to make the decision.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Kirkland, I just wanted to ask is all the applications that we have seen come through for this type of facility, in your estimation, how do you feel about this particular location, and the reason I ask you that is because I'm familiar with it in that we've already got an existing truck stop I guess directly across the interstate from it. Mr. Kirkland: You've got two. Councilman Carmody: The two that are there now, but this is the only application, I think that we've seen come through this process that was on I-20. Mr. Kirkland: That's correct. Well, one of the reasons is our laws have evolved and changed as time has gone on, and Kelly's was one of the first that was approved before we had zoning requirements and then the other truck stop, of course, didn't need that either. So, under the State rules at the time, they didn't need to come before zoning laws. But in my opinion, it's an appropriate location, and there have been three in our City, all three have been denied. I'm just telling you my opinion. Councilman Carmody: Right and that's what I had asked you. Councilman Spigener: I need quietness in the audience. Mr. Kirkland: That's supported by the Board's decisions on the cases that I've just cited as well. Councilman Carmody: Thank you, sir.

Councilman Spigener: That was one of my questions. We have dealt with several of these issues, and I believe as Councilman Carmody stated, this is the only one that we've had either on I-20 or I-220 which are truck routes, and there's no question about that. And am I correct in that the ramp over 220 would go directly into that location and well, I guess I need to look at this again, but I think I understand how the entrance is to be into there. So, I guess I'm thinking out loud here, I'm assuming.

Councilman Burrell: Madame Chair. Although this may be adjacent to I-20, it is actually on Highway 80 which is Greenwood Road where you have subdivisions. You don't build subdivisions on I-20. Subdivisions were built along Highway 80 which is now pretty much as it relates to the City as almost a local road all because the City maintains it. It's maintained by the State. Mr. Kirkland: That's right. Highway 80 is a State road. Councilman Burrell: Not by the Federal highway like Highway 20 is maintained. So, you have people who live along there that drives along there that will take Highway 80 rather than I-20 to keep away from the traffic and by putting large trucks on Highway 80 in which this will induce the large truck traffic along Highway 80, it's just like putting it out on Lakeshore Drive and letting 18 wheelers go down Lakeshore Drive right pass my house or maybe even on your street.

You don't live on I-20. You live on a street. Highway 80 is Greenwood Road and it's actually a street. It was once a US Highway, because that was the only way you could get from east to west that's the reason they placed I-20 there.

Madame Chairman, although the usage may be appropriate and maybe at one time they did put an I designation there, but even when they have I designations in locations, laws have been modified to add things that people who live next to those areas cannot live with and what I'm hearing is from the people who are in that area, that there are certain things that have come with this, not necessarily with the zoning, with some of the applications that are used with that particular zoning that has been added since the original zoning was put in place that are now being placed there that is adverse to what the neighborhoods around it feel that it is good for the well being of their community. And because of this, sometimes from where we stand here on the Council, we have to look out for their interest, because they're the one who put us here. I'm pro business, not doubt, but I'm even more pro neighborhood because that's where I came from. So, I have to sort of weigh these things a little differently. Again, I don't want it to get overshadowed, the issue to get overshadowed by I-20. I-20 is a separate situation from Greenwood Road where these people live, and I can't reemphasize that it is something that I have experienced with on the south side that didn't have prostitution, that didn't have drugs until the truck stop got there. The person who runs it, I have no doubt that he keeps his place clean, but I could assure you, you go right across the fence, not even 50 feet on the other side of his property into a little neighborhood called Greenwood Acres, and you have prostitutes walking up and down the road, that's Lewis Place, which is the street that is adjacent to the neighborhood that was cut off by I-20, and these people are bottlenecked in there, and you have prostitution and drugs. If you will recall, a young man came because there was a motel out there, they call it Motel California. And it was once a very tough place, and you have a lot of kids in that area, but the new owner, we gave him permission to open that motel up with the condition that he will work with the neighborhood association to help clear up some of the prostitution and drugs that use to frequent that motel. And when these people come in on these trucks, bless their hearts, but they're going to go and do what they need to do before they get back on the road to go out somewhere else. They care less about those neighborhoods that are there. And we as representatives of those neighborhoods have to suffer from the calls and the conditions of these young people who are in that area that wind up taking part in it, because I'm just thinking about the article that was in the paper today with the guy taking these two young girls down to south Shreveport, and before they would be raped, they jumped out of the vehicle. Im through with you, but I'm on my soap box now, because it just congers up a lot of nightmares that I don't want for that neighborhood out there, and I know these type of facilities, although they are nice facilities, they create jobs, I even went to Vivian and looked at the one up there just to be fair, that's one thing but the conditions that they create is another thing and that's what I'm telling you that will happen there.

I remember one on Bert Kouns and Linwood. I don't know whose district that's in, and I think Calvary Baptist Church and a lot of other churches just turned out in droves. They were no where near that location. I mean they were a way from the location, but they were afraid of what they knew that it would create, and we've had these truck stops just like a clock been moving around the city, and now they're in District G. And I'm asking, given the fact that I have experience with one and I know what it does or have done for that neighborhood, I'm asking you all to vote against this for the betterment of that community out there just as I supported you all on yours when it came to your district that's all I'm asking.

Councilman Shyne: Madame Chairman just one more point. You know, let's be realistic. This isn't about a truck stop. This is about gambling. It's all about gambling that's what it's all about. It's not about a truck stop. They got enough truck stops out there to facilitate three or four times the uses. This is about gambling. Put yourself in those people's position.

Would you want this in your neighborhood? I wouldn't want it in mine, and I live in kind of a rough neighborhood, but I wouldn't want no truck stop and gambling in there. If you truly believe that I am my brother's keeper, now, if you truly believe that, you can see beyond this little scheme of this is a good business deal and this is where it ought to go. This is not about a good business deal. This is about gambling. I don't gamble. Don't really have anything against it, but it's enough of it go down on the riverfront. That's what we set aside for the riverfront. All of the gamblers out of Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas. If a trucker wants to do some gambling, let him go down there and do some gambling. We don't need this in these people's front yards, not in your back yard but in your front yard. This is morally wrong. This doesn't have any sound business deal. I wouldn't even go look at the one, because I was against it from the beginning. I didn't even want to play around with it. This is not fair and you all know it's not fair. You know it's not a good business deal. And let's don't sit here and say what the judge is going to do. I think it was one sitting back in the audience just a few minutes ago. I don't know how a judge might rule. He might get up one morning feeling one way and rule this way and come back tomorrow and rule some other kind of way. I think we need to protect our neighborhoods. If we are going to ever become the All America City that we say we are. How we going to go out and say we're All America City, and you look around and you got gambling and truck stops in every other neighborhood. Madame Chairman, I would beg and ask my colleagues to please, let's turn this down, because next time it's going to be in your neighborhood, and we don't need this. I would beg you to please let's maintain a certain amount of dignity and integrity within our neighborhood. Let's give these people an opportunity to work hard and then come home and have some decent peace and some decent rest. Let's don't put this in their neighborhoods behind that scheme of it's a good business deal because it's zoned such and such a thing. Please. Let's don't do that to these people. I beg of you. Let's don't do that. Thank you very much.

Councilman Spigener: Any other comments? I believe we have a motion and a second and would you restate what our vote will mean? Mr. Thompson: The motion is to adopt. If you are not for the change in the zoning, you would vote against it. If you are for the change in zoning, you'll vote for it.

Councilman Spigener: So, if you want to change the zoning to allow this, we will vote yes and a no vote means we will not change the zoning.

Councilman Burrell: So, I'm asking for your support on a no vote, Madame Chair and Council.

Ordinance denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Shyne and Burrell. 4. Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, Serio, Spigener. 3.

Councilman Burrell: I guess I want to make a comment since, hopefully we won't have a truck stop going at Greenwood Road and Bert Kouns, I may recommend that I know some locations in other districts that it will go well in. So, they may be shopping in your neighborhood soon for a location; so, I hope you welcome them.

Councilman Stewart: You'll get several "no" votes for that.

Councilman Spigener: We really don't have time to re-address that issue at this point, we'll move on to Unfinished Business.

The adopted Ordinances, as amended follows:

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH CADDO PARISH FOR THE LEASE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT MOORETOWN PARK FOR A NEW BRANCH OF THE SHREVE MEMORIAL LIBRARY AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, La. R.S. 33:4712 authorizes a municipality to sell, lease for a term of up to ninety-nine years, exchange, or otherwise dispose of property which is, in the opinion of the governing authority, not needed for public purposes; and

WHEREAS, the Shreve Memorial Library is a joint city - parish public library under the control of a Board of Trustees, pursuant to Section 8.05 of the City Charter; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport owns certain immovable property adjacent to or part of Mooretown Park, more particularly described in the lease agreement, which is separated from the rest of the park by a drainage ditch and is not needed for park purposes; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has requested the use of the property for the site of a new branch library building.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement between the City of Shreveport and Caddo Parish substantially in the form filed in the office of the Clerk of Council on July 11, 2000.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that said agreement shall be subject to the following minimum terms and conditions and such additional terms and conditions as included in the final lease agreement:

1. Said lease shall be for the purpose of construction of a branch of the Shreve Memorial Library at a cost of approximately $ 1.7 million in accordance with the plans, specifications, other drawings and the location mutually agreed upon by the Lessor, the Lessee and the Board.

2. Said lease shall be for a term of ninety-nine (99) years, commencing on the date of the execution hereof.

3. The property leased herein shall be used only as a public library. Lessee shall be responsible for all improvements and will maintain such improvements in a presentable condition and all structures erected by the Lessee on the leased property shall be for library related purposes only.

4. If mutually agreed in writing, said construction may include a bridge from the leased property across the concrete ditch to provide access from the library to the park.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that notice of this proposed ordinance shall be published three times in at least fifteen days, one week apart, in the official journal of the City of Shreveport, together with notice that the City Council proposes to take final action on this proposed ordinance at the meeting of the City Council on July 11, 2000, at 3:00 p.m.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

/s/Patricia G. Spigener, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONCESSIONS CONTRACT WITH PWS LLC, D/B/A TRI STAR ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City contracted with PWS LLC, d/b/a Acadiana Catering & Concessionaire ("Acadiana") to provide concessions to patrons at Independence Stadium on October 31, 1997; and

WHEREAS, Acadiana is now doing business as Tri Star Entertainment Services ("Tri Star"); and

WHEREAS, the current concessions contract will expire on December 31, 2000; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a new contract with Tri Star to provide, operate and manage concessions and related food and beverage service operations at Independence Stadium, Convention Hall, Exposition Hall, Civic Theater, Municipal Auditorium, Barnwell Center, Cargill Park, including the athletic facilities, and Southern Hills Park (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the facilities"); and

WHEREAS, the contract shall be for a period of ten (10) years, more of less; and

WHEREAS, for any Independence Stadium event, Tri Star will pay the City the sum of fifty cents ($.50) per ticket accepted at the gate and verified by a count committee beginning on the execution date of the contract and continuing until December 31, 2002. Thereafter, the payments shall increase by two and one-half cents ($.02 ½ ) each year beginning on January 1, 2003 through the remainder of the contract term; and

WHEREAS, for events at Cargill Park, including the athletic facilities, Tri Star will pay the City a flat fee of $10,000.00 per year, payable in the amount of $833.33 per month; and

WHEREAS, for events at all other facilities excluding Independence Stadium and Cargill Park, including the athletic facilities, payments to the City shall be in the amount of ten percent (10%) of Tri Star's gross revenue, net of sales taxes, for each event; and

WHEREAS, the services to be provided by Tri Star at the facilities will provide a benefit to the public.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is hereby authorized to execute an contract with PWS LLC, d/b/a Tri Star Entertainment Services, substantially in accordance with the draft hereof which was filed for public inspection with the original of this ordinance in the office of the Clerk of Council on June 13, 2000, subject to the following changes and limitations:

c) said draft shall be amended in paragraph V. (i) and (ii), and in any other paragraph to the extent necessary, to provide that the mayor may terminate the contract for convenience or cause and the council, by resolution, may cause the termination of the contract for convenience or cause.

e) said draft shall be amended to require the concessionaire to comply with the city's Fair Share program.

g) said draft shall be amended to permit the City to negotiate a share of the concession profits with sporting events as an incentive to having the event in Shreveport.

h) said draft shall be amended in paragraph "1. Scope of Services" and in any other paragraph to the extent necessary, to provide that the rights granted the Concessionaire in this contract do not extend to the management of the kitchens and to catering services at Exposition Hall, Convention Hall and the Barnwell Center.

i) said draft shall be amended to include a provision specifying that suites in Independence Stadium that will be sold or rented are excluded from the concessions agreement.

j) said draft shall be amended to include a provision specifying that only the facilities specifically named in the contract are covered by the contract, and new facilities cannot be added without City Council approval.

l) said draft shall be amended in paragraph "1. Scope of Services" and in any other paragraph to the extent necessary, to provide that the City reserves unto itself the right to permit non-profit organizations to provide concession products that are not provided by concessionaire at Cargill Park, including the athletic facilities, and Southern Hills Park.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

/s/Patricia G. Spigener, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET FOR THE POLICE GRANTS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the City Charter provides for the amendment of a previously adopted budget; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2000 budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund, in order to appropriate unspent funds from prior years, and to correct current fund balances.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 163 of 1999, the 2000 Budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund Budget, be amended and reenacted as follows:

In Section 1, Estimated Receipts, amend the ordinance as follows:

Increase appropriations for Combined Operational Projects Grant by $ 7,300.

Appropriate funds for 1998 Asset Forfeiture Grant at $ 7,400.

Appropriate Prior Year Fund Balance for Police Block Grant at $ 15,600.

Under Fiscal Year 2000 Funds:

Appropriate $2,500,000 to Section 108 Grant (Fairmont)

In Section 2, Appropriations, amend the ordinance as follows:

Combined Operational Projects Grant - Increase Personal Services $ 7,300.

COPS More Grant - Increase Materials and Supplies $7,600, decrease Contractual Services $7,600.

Appropriate funds for 1998 Asset Forfeiture Grant - Increase Personal Services $ 7,400.

Appropriate Police Block Grant - Other Charges $15,600.

Under Prior-Year Funds:

Delete the $15,000 appropriation to "Providence House" and appropriate $15,000 to "Public Services."

Decrease CDBG Program Income by $100,000.

Appropriate $50,000 to Paint Your Heart Out-Shreveport.

Appropriate $50,000 to Administration - Contractual Services.

Decrease Prior-Year HOME Program Income by $250,000.

Appropriate $250,000 to Dollar Incentive Program.

Under 2000 Revenues:

Increase Section 108 (Fairmont) by $2,500,000.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 163 of 1999 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such activity shall not affect any other provisions, items, or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications; and to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

/s/Patricia G. Spigener, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City Charter provides for the amendment of any previously-adopted budget; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2000 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund, to provide additional program funding and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 161 of 1999, the 2000 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund, as amended, be further amended, as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Under 1999 and Prior-Year Funds:

Increase Prior-Year Workforce Development Entitlements by $76,300.

Under Fiscal Year 2000 Funds:

Increase HOME Entitlement by $3,000.

Decrease State ESG Grant by $7,600.

Appropriate $8,600 to Private Donations.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Under Prior-Year Funds:

Decrease Housing Program Income by $265,000.

Appropriate $250,000 to Shreveport Emergency Recovery Program.

Appropriate $15,000 to Providence House.

Increase JTPA II-C by $76,300.

Under 2000 Revenues:

Increase Public Services by $16,000.

Decrease Purchase Rehab by $16,000.

Decrease State ESG by $7,600.

Increase Down Payment Assistance by $3,000.

Appropriate $8,600 to Paint Your Heart Out-Shreveport - Private.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications; and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

/s/Patricia G. Spigener, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ILLUMINATED AND ELECTRONIC SIGN PARAGRAPH OF THE ON-PREMISES ADVERTISING SIGNS SECTION, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that Sec. 106-1123(j) of Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:

Sec. 106-1123. On-premises advertising signs.

* * * * * * * (j) Illuminated and electronic signs. Illuminated and electronic variable message signs shall be constructed and located so as to protect the general welfare of all citizens and the safety of the motoring public as follows:

• The light from any illuminated sign shall be so shaded, shielded, or directed that the light intensity or brightness will not be hazardous or objectionable to the adjacent or surrounding areas.



• Except in the area bounded by Lake Street, Spring Street, Cross Bayou and the Red River, no sign shall have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or other illuminating device. Beacons or revolving lights shall not be permitted.



• No colored lights shall be used at any location or in any manner so as to be confused with or construed as traffic control devices.



• Neither the direct nor the reflected light from primary source shall create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares.



• Except in the area bounded by Lake Street, Spring Street, Cross Bayou and the Red River, no exposed reflective-type bulbs and no strobe lights or incandescent lamps exceeding 30 watts shall be used on the exterior surface of any sign so as to expose the face of the bulb, light or lamp to any public street or adjacent property; however, electronic variable message signs will be allowed subject to the additional requirements:

a. Time, date, and temperature must be displayed at least three seconds without changing.

b. Other messages must be displayed at least five seconds without changing.

c. Approval is to be tied to a specific location and should sign structure be moved, a new permit shall be necessary.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

/s/Patricia G. Spigener

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NE CORNER OF MLK DRIVE AND HILL STREET, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1H, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH MPC APPROVAL, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of the west 0.874 acre of Lot 335, Jones Mabry Subdivision, Unit #4 and Lots 6-8, Joseph Redd Subdivision, property located on the NE corner of MLK Drive and Hill Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District with MPC approval.

SECTION II: THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to compliance with the following stipulations:

• Development to be in substantial accord with the site plan submitted with any significant changes or additions requiring further review and approval by the Metropolitan Planning Commission.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

/s/Patricia G. Spigener

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SW SIDE OF MLK DRIVE, 850 FEET NE OF REAR MONTANA, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1H, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO B-2, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of the SW'ly 122.34 feet of the NE'ly 182.34 feet of Lot 17, Jones Mabry Subdivision, less R/W, property located on the SW side of MLK Drive, 850 feet NE of Rear Montana, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-2, Neighborhood Business District.

SECTION II: THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to compliance with the following stipulations:

• Development to be in substantial accord with a revised site plan showing landscaping in compliance with Zoning Ordinance (or alternative compliance) requirements, with any significant changes requiring further review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.

• The required screening fence is waived for the rear portion of the site abutting woods. A letter will be required from abutting homeowners to waive the fence abutting residences. At any point an abutting homeowner requests a fence, the Zoning Administrator may require that a 6' wood screening fence be erected.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BERT KOUNS INDUSTRIAL LOOP, 400 FEET EAST OF DEAN ROAD, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1D, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of the south 350 feet of the east 112 feet of Lot 30, L.E. Walker Subdivision, less R/W, property located on the north side of Bert Kouns Industrial loop, 400 feet east of Dean Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1D, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District.

SECTION II: THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to compliance with the following stipulations:

• Development to be in substantial accord with revised site plan showing the hard surfacing of the driveway and required parking with any changes or additions to require review and approval by the MPC.



• Waiver of the fencing requirement is granted until such time that a written complaint by an adjacent property owner is filed with the office of Zoning Administration, at which time the Zoning Administrator shall have the right to require that the required solid wood screening fence(s) be installed.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

/s/Patricia G. Spigener

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

UNFINISHED BUSINESS (legislation remained tabled):

• Ordinance No. 211 of 1998: ZONING: C-64-98, QUERBES LAND CO; N side of E 70th St. between Sand Beach Bayou and Bayou Pierre from R-A to B-2 and B-3, shopping center. (C/Carmody) (Tabled on November 10, 1998 and Postponed on November 24, 1998)



• Ordinance No. 54 of 1999: Creating a Police Department Citizens' Review Board. (A/Huckaby) (Tabled on August 10, 1999)



• Ordinance No. 82 of 2000 by Councilman Serio: An ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport relative to subdivision streets, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Councilman Serio: You should have a copy of a letter from the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Mr. Kirkland and the Planning Commission has been working for the past couple of weeks since we tabled this particular piece of legislation to try to come forward with some information in draft of possible legislation concerning streets that run from neighborhood to neighborhood or commercial streets that tend to run into a neighborhood. Of course, my big concern has been speeding and traffic control within neighborhoods which has become a problem, a very serious problem. We've had kids hit, we've had the introduction of, I call them, launch pads in some of the neighborhoods that is just, exceptionally large and we've found that the speed between these ramps, these speed bumps have actually increased by radar account, since we put the bumps in. So, in an effort to come up with something else, some other ideas, I want Mr. Kirkland to elaborate a little bit on this and the draft that he's come up with.

Mr. Kirkland: The idea is a good one and what it simply says though and I guess a premise to all of that it is finally good to have some development back in the city that we can even argue about whether standards should be required or not. And thanks to policies of the city over the last few years, and the last, I guess about 2 or 3 specifically, we've begun to see residential development in the city again and we want to see that continue.

So, the real question was how to work with developers and land owners, and home builders as they develop old areas and new areas and incorporate those into street designs that's there. It seemed to be the simplest thing was to use a process that was already in place, the Design Standards Committee, which includes now the Department of Operational Standards, City Engineer, Traffic Engineer and MPC Office personnel, basically to look at what suggestions could be made to developers, landowners that would mitigate and minimize impact, negative impact, to existing neighborhoods and street patterns. And frankly, that will be fairly easy to do is as one of the review processes that developers already go through. The other was that we've had some development pressure on the south part of our city and on the southern loop which as most of you are familiar with I believe connecting Norris Ferry to Wallace Lake, eventually go to I-49. The developers and landowners there said we want to minimize the number of curb cuts. We want the street to function and to handle traffic. That also was an excellent recommendation from land developers and property owners. We've incorporated that in this Mr. Serio, as well. To look at how to minimize the number of curb cuts, again not to say that it is absolute or will not be waived but to work with the developer community, to find ways to basically say that we are going to minimize the number of curb cuts but at the same time, we are not going to stop development from occurring or drive the cost up to where it prohibitive. We think your recommendations are good, it was good food for thought.

These amendments should be heard in September. You should have them on your calendar sometime mid- to late September for adoption. We will certainly invite the home builders and land developers in to comment on this give us some feedback, but we already know that we've got about five of them, land owners and developers, builders: Randy Mason, Steve Simon, Witt Caruthers, and some other, Aaron Selber, that are in support of a number o these requirements; so, we look forward to a positive outcome and appreciate your recommendations.

NEW BUSINESS:

• C-42-00, DEWEY F. WEAVER, JR., 4900 Monkhouse Dr.; variance in spacing requirement, the front yard setback and the maximum sign height in a B-3 District; off premise sign.

Councilman Burrell: I was requested again to postpone this to see if somehow we can work it within the confines of the law, and I'm asking that you support a postponement of this at least for one more meeting.

Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Stewart to postpone the application until the July 25, 2000 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

• BAC-53-00, SPORTS MALL, LLC & RANDY'S TRAVEL TOWN, INC., 7288 Greenwood Road; truck stop with gaming, restaurant with the on-premises consumption of alcohol and a convenience store with the packaged sale of beer.

Councilman Spigener: The ordinance is defeated. Okay that moves us then to take care of this to New Business, BAC-53-00. So, we don't need to vote on that, right? Mr. Thompson: Yes, we do, Madame Chairman. The Board voted to approve the application with certain stipulations. The Council can either make a motion to uphold or a motion to overturn the decision of the Board. The Council can either make a motion to uphold the decision of the Board or a motion to overturn the decision of the Board. The voting would allow the gaming operations and the other things that they request. Councilman Spigener: I guess I'm a little bit confused as to why we need to vote for this when we have defeated the. . . ? Mr. Thompson:  Is that correct, Mr. Kirkland? Mr. Kirkland: I'm sorry, what was the question? Mr. Thompson: Whether or not the Council needs to vote on the decision of the ZBA? Mr. Kirkland: You've stated it exactly correct and based on the advice that Legal has given before, on ordinances, they will motion in the affirmative, but on ZBA resolutions, it's not an ordinance, it's a resolution, Mr. Thompson's advice is correct. Mr. Thompson: But I think the question is. . . .Mr. Kirkland: Motion to overturn or to uphold either one.

Mr. Thompson: I think the question is because the zoning is not there, can you now have the activities that they requested before the Zoning Board of Appeals and therefore, is it necessary to vote on that particular? Mr. Kirkland: I certainly think you ought to vote, because this matter may wind up in court. If one part of it is in the positive that means the other issue would be contested; so, I say vote on it yes or no. Councilman Spigener: Okay. Thank you.

Councilman Burrell: Madame Chair. If I'm in order, then the order to vote this down would be a no vote. Am I correct? Mr. Thompson: It's a motion to overturn the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Councilman Burrell: Okay. I make the motion to overturn the decision of the ZBA. Mr. Thompson: You would then vote yes if you agree with Mr. Burrell.

Motion by Councilman Burrell, to overturn the decision of the Board, seconded by Councilman Huckaby. Motion approved by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Shyne and Burrell. 4. Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, Serio, Spigener. 3.

Motion by Councilman Huckaby to be at ease for five minutes, seconded by Councilman Burrell.

Motion approved by the following vote: Aye: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Burrell: Well, it's more so for the Council, I guess too I appreciate you all restoring the integrity of the community, and maybe now they can have a better quality of life without this truck stop at that location.

Councilman Spigener: Thank you, Councilman Burrell. We will take a five minute recess, and Council members if you will get back in promptly after five minutes, please.

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMITTEES. None.

CLERK'S REPORT. None.

COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.

The Council resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on motion by Councilman Serio, seconded by Councilman Shyne. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Burrell and Shyne. 7. Nays: None.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Serio that the Committee Rises and Report and convene itself as the Council. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Spigener, and Shyne. 4. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Stewart, Serio and Burrell. 3.

There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.

/s/Patricia G. Spigener, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council