COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

FEBRUARY 27, 2001

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, was called to order by Chairman Joe Shyne at 3:15 p.m., Tuesday, February 13, 2001, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilman Carmody.

On roll call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Huckaby (arrived at 3:20), Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Absent: None.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Spigener for approval of the Summary Minutes of the Administrative Conference of February 12, 2001 and Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 2001. Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Huckaby. 1.

Awards and Recognitions of Distinguished Guests of the Mayor Which Are Required By Law

Mayor Hightower had no awards or recognitions.

Chairman Shyne: I would like for former Mayor, Mr. John Hussey, and the Mayor of Mooretown, Mr. John Mims to please stand. I would like to recognize these two gentlemen, they served on a committee which put together some policies and some guidelines by which we could name and rename public property, public streets, public buildings. I feel like they did an excellent job and they will present their report and give us the names of the persons that served on the committee. And Roy, I been down here so long, Mayor Hussey was the first Mayor I served with on this distinguished body and you can tell how young he look and how young I look. Councilman Burrell: Look like it worked wonders for ya’ll both.

Mr. John Hussey: Our report is a two page report. I want to commend the Council and in particular Councilman Shyne for moving forward on this. This is a project that has been talked about for years, but nobody has ever did anything about it so it looks as though we are finally going to be able to do something.

There were six members on our committee in addition to myself and Mr. Mims, were: former Mayor Jim Gardener, Historian Eric Brock, Reverend Earl Williams and Reverend Michael Brown. We met several times. We have several recommendations to the Council for a procedure to follow in naming and renaming public property. If you look on the first page of that report and down at the bottom, there are six recommendations. The first three are really the main ones. 1) We recommend that no public street or other property be named for an individual until at least two years after that person’s death. 2) If a public street or building is already been named for someone, that not be renamed, to use only streets that have and buildings that have geographical or generic names. 3) Before you change the name of a public street, you have the consent of the owners of 2/3 or the property abutting that street. I know in the past street names have been changed without taking into consideration the abutting property owners and they are the ones that are most affected by it. 4) The name of a street within a historic district should not be changed unless there are compelling reasons for it. 5) If a person or a family donates property to the City, then their request for the naming of that property should be followed, but in no case should it be named after someone or a living person. 6) The City Council should be the final authority on naming the street.

On the second page we have a proposed procedure that the Council could follow on the renaming of public property, you understand this is, re-naming. 1) An ordinance would be introduced to the Council and the ordinance would include the existing name of the street or the property and the reasons for that, any historical reasons for it. 2) It should give the proposed new name and the reasons for changing or naming the property after that person. The ordinance should lay over for a 90 day period and during that 90 day period, the Council would run a display advertisement in the official journal notifying persons about the name change and when the Council proposes to act on it. 2) If the name change involves a street, written notice to the abutting property owners or such other actions the Council wants to take to notify abutting property owners. 3) The Council should conduct research to determine the origin and history of the existing name. We think that this kind of procedure would be a deliberative procedure that you could go about in changing the names and it would protect the interest of all persons.

I want to point out that the proposal would not affect new subdivisions and new streets. If a person owns private property and wants to subdivide that property and name the streets after your family members or themselves or their children, that would not be affected by this ordinance.

Finally, we would recommend that the Council consider having some appropriate city department do some historical research to determine the reasons for the names of existing streets. Councilman Shyne and I are still as young as we used to be, but as people get older, they forget these things, some of the names are passing out of memory of many people; that’s our report.

I particularly want to point out that we had outstanding cooperation and help from the City Council Staff, the Clerk of Council and others in his office, City Attorney and we appreciate that very much.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Hussey, thank you very much for your service as well as the other Council members. I am curious the first recommendation is that no public street or other public property be named for an individual until the person has been deceased for at least 2 years, can you expound on why that would be. Mr. Hussey: The state law, for one thing says, that no property be named after a living person, that has been the law, generally. We were never able to find out for sure if there is a two year requirement on the state law. The reason for this is that sometimes an event will happen, many instances it would be a tragic event, and in the emotion of the moment, the street is named after someone without going through a deliberative process. We suggest that you wait for two years before actually renaming the street or renaming property or a street for that person.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, would you like to say anything to the, we have a couple of gentlemen who have had the distinguished opportunity of sitting over in your seat. I think probably one of them was probably sitting there when you were still in elementary and junior high school. Mayor Hightower: If I wink at you a little later, come take this seat.

Mr. Hussey: When I use to come to these meetings, I was getting paid for it.

Councilman Burrell: I did have a question, John, on No. 4. We said that the name of the street that is located within a historical district, shall not be changed unless there are compelling reasons for the change. Is there any definition of compelling reasons or who will make that the decision? Mr. Hussey: As far as who would make the decision, the Council will make that decision. The reason we put it in there like that and I admit that that is vague, vague language is just to point out that before a street in a historic district is changed, that there be a really good reason for it. To give you an example, Texas Street is a street that is in a historic district. Before you would change the name of Texas Street, it would seem to me that there would have to an awful good reason for it. A different kind of street out in the suburb, lets say you have a street named North Street or West Street. It seems to me as though it should be easier to change that name than it would be to change the name of a street like Texas Street that is in a historic district. So, I admit to you that the compelling reasons is not specific, but the purpose for that was to point out that it takes a little bit more or it should take a little bit more to make a change in a historic district.

Councilman Burrell: One other question on this compelling reason. I know we just made a change and it has always been in the back of my mind, was it an appropriate change. And, that was Grand Avenue, which Mr. Brock gave a history of it and the reason why it was named that and we changed to Elvis Presley Drive which I was supportive of it from an economic standpoint, I thought it may have benefitted us from that perspective. Would you consider that being a compelling reason under your guidelines? Mr. Hussey: My first opinion, there is nothing in our proposal that would have prevented that change. I don’t know the history, Grand was not named after a person, I understand.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. Mr. Mims would you please stand. I would like to recognize Mr. Mims. Mr. Mims has made so many contributions to this City. Mr. Mims you want to just come forward and at least say, hello, in a minute.

If I can use this expression, I found Mr. Mims working in Mooretown when I moved out into the Mooretown, I guess maybe, 35 years ago. Mr. Mims has been responsible for getting federal registers to come into the Mooretown area, finding sites for them to set up and to register blacks when we didn’t have very many black people registered here in Caddo Parish. He was instrumental in getting a number of streets paved in that area and a matter of fact we had a discussion about a park out there, Jewella Street Park. Matter of fact, John Mims was responsible for us working to set that aside so that that would become, really not park, but a playground. Airport Park which was the $3.5 million dollar park and it came to fruition under the Administration of Mayor John Hussey which at that time, and it still is a very nice and a very beautiful park and it was a $3.5 million dollar park and you didn’t have those kind of parks really built in minority areas.

I can not tell you the number of people that Mr. Mims has been instrumental in raising money so that they could get buried or so that they could pay their house notes or so that they could pay their water bills or their light bills or whatever. And if it was something that I could name after somebody, I would name something, John Mims. But he understand that we got this new policy that we are going to be looking at that you at least need to be deceased for two years and I want Mr. Mims to say around for another 10 or 15 years. I’m not ready for him to leave here. But, Mr. Mims, I did want to recognize you and just recognize some of the contributions that you’ve made and you can say whatever you’d like to.

Mr. Mims: Thank you Mr. Shyne. I’m glad to work with former Mayor Hussey and other and I appreciate you selecting me for the committee.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mims, thank you very much. We also had former Mayor Jim Gardner and all of you all know the kind of credibility that a person of his magnitude brings to a committee. Eric Brock and you all read about Eric Brock in Shreveport Times and other magazines about historical research; so, we had a good committee. We had Reverend Michael Brown who is one of our young and upcoming ministers in the area. Gentlemen, I appreciate the hard work that you all have done, because it was kind of getting to the point where this was going to be a pandora’s box because we had been getting quite a number of requests from a lot of people wanting to name streets and parks and buildings after loved ones who had been killed or who had died. And I thought maybe we needed something where we could have some guidelines for us to go by in the process of naming and re-naming public property. Again, I really appreciate the time that you all spent and I appreciate the research; thank ya’ll very much, a beautiful report.

Councilman Burrell: We will be introducing a resolution or something to make this a policy of our’s or . . . ? Councilman Shyne: Right, after we’ve had a chance to look at it, we will let the Clerk of Council and the Legal Department take a look at it and it will be formed as a piece of legislation and we will discuss this. If there is any additions you want to make, any changes you want to make, you will be able to do that.

Councilman Burrell: Do we have any time frame when we are considering to place it on the agenda, so we will know approximately how long we will have to review it? Councilman Shyne: Not necessarily, Councilman Burrell, but I can say this, we will leave it to your pleasure. If you think two weeks or three weeks, six weeks or eight weeks. I had thought maybe six to eight weeks. We wouldn’t necessarily have to be in a hurry.

Councilman Burrell: Well, it is your discretion, Mr. Chairman. I’m just asking so we’ll know, have an idea of how long we have to review it. Councilman Shyne: I would say from six to eight weeks and I would hope that that will give you enough time to take a look at it and suggest any changes that you would like to have in it. Motion by Councilman Burrell to accept the Committee Report, seconded by Councilman Carmody. Motion approved by the following vote: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Burrell: Are we at a juncture where we can suspend the Rules to add resolutions or you want to wait further on down the line? Councilman Shyne: Not right now, if you will give me a couple of minutes, we’ll get to it. I believe we have some more Distinguished Guest. I believe Councilman Carmody has a beautiful group of people here and I can say that this is the future of our City and the future of America and I like the diversity in it.

Councilman Carmody: I certainly enjoy the honor and the privilege of inviting the 6^th and 7^th grade St. John’s Girls basketball team to please come up to the front here in front of the podium as well as their Coach. Councilman Shyne: Are they winners, Councilman Carmody? Councilman Carmody: These are all winners. All these young ladies, all these pretty little Cardinals.

It has come to this particular Councilman’s attention and I thought that the rest of the Council as well as our City would want to know of the accomplishments of these young ladies and their Coach as well as their school. I would also like their Coach Mike Spence to please come forward and maybe identify and explain to the public exactly what these young ladies have accomplished.

Mr. Spence: This team is from St. John’s, they are 6^th and 7^th grade girls. They are your undefeated city champions. The girls are mostly 6^th graders, have a few 7^th graders so, the future is great with these girls. It is sad that this will be the last year that St. John’s will have a team because next year the Catholic schools are combining and they will no longer be St. John’s, but hopefully we’ll be back (proceed to introduce each team member).

Councilman Carmody: Coach Spence, I appreciate you bringing the ladies down this afternoon and I guess on a side note, I certainly hope we see some of these young ladies walk across the campus over to Loyola in the near future and contribute there as well. I certainly like to see champions and these young ladies are a fine example of what you can accomplish, a 12 - 0 record is not easy, congratulations.

Councilman Shyne: I just saw Ms. Nina Champion. Ms. Champion, we just got through talking about Mr. Mooretown, Mr. John Mims. You are Ms. Mooretown, Ms. Nina Champion.

Suspend Rules to Add Legislation To The Agenda

Motion by Councilman Stewart to Suspend the Rules to add legislation to the agenda for today, seconded by Councilman Spigener. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Motion by Councilman Stewart to add Resolution No. 27 of 2001 to the Agenda, seconded by Councilman Carmody.

Councilman Stewart: I’m happy to report to the Council, with the guidance of the Mayor and the CAO, this resolution. This has to do with the Entertainment District and authorizes the Mayor to negotiate the terms and conditions, where the developer currently identified as Red River Real Estate Venture LLC and Red River Entertainment Company LLC dba Red River Entertainment District. And there are other issues, obviously associated with it. This was presented to me by Mr. Antee for our presentation.

As a result of my conversation with Mr. Larry Russo, local attorney and with Mr. Joe Rodriguez, one of the principals in Memphis, Tennessee, they asked that we add this today so that we could approve it at the next meeting.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Ferdinand, I see a smile on your face, and does that mean that you are in approval of it? In that case then, I’ll vote yes.

Councilman Burrell: I know that when we undertook this issue sometimes back that there was suppose to be some requirements that were to be complied with, if I remember correctly. May I ask the Administration, have all of those—I’ll repeat it. When we undertook this issue some times back, there were some requirements that we placed upon the applicant that would be fulfilled before such a loan would go forth because we are talking about CDBG funds and those funds were suppose to be used for urban, slum, and blight in CDBG areas. Has the applicant fulfilled all of the obligations of that loan? Mayor Hightower: Mr. Burrell at this point, no they have not but they are inching closer, at least to that. They still do have to have 90% of the leases signed, they have to draw down the money at the same time they draw down their own money. Like I said, there are several hurdles that they still have to climb. They do not have their financing in place yet. They have given us a new date that should be some time in the middle of March to be able to close everything. But there were some hold ups with the 108 money, and that is what the resolution addresses today that you will vote on in 2 weeks.

Councilman Burrell: So, why are we encumbering these funds at this juncture, if these requirements have not been met? Mayor Hightower: Why are we encumbering the funds? Councilman Burrell: Right. Mayor Hightower: Council voted to encumber the funds, I forget how many months ago it was, too long at this point but they are still working towards resolving their loan issues in the private sector and as I just stated, hopefully that is going to come to fruition some time in the middle of March, so we will be able to move forward with the project.

Councilman Burrell: But as it relates to the City of Shreveport, then I assume and let me not assume that, these monies will not be expended until such time all requirements are met; am I to assume that? Mayor Hightower: Absolutely. You don’t have to assume that, that is fact.

Councilman Burrell: And will we know as a Council that the requirements has been met. Mayor Hightower: Can’t wait to tell you.

Councilman Shyne: Just let me clarify this, I think Councilman Stewart, just kind of pulled my coattail, actually what we are doing today is just putting it on the agenda and Mr. Mayor and Mr. Burrell, I enjoyed you all’s dialogue there, we can discuss that a little bit as we. . . . Councilman Burrell: Mr. Chairman, you asked if there were questions and I did have a question, so that is the reason I posed it to the Mayor.

Councilman Shyne: And I appreciate you doing that, but I just wanted to clear up that we would not be expending any funds today, that we would just be adding this to the agenda. Motion to add the legislation approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Motion by Councilman Burrell to add Resolution No. 26 of 2001 to the Agenda and I can explain if you like. Councilman Shyne: I probably don’t think we need an explanation, at this point, without a second. Motion seconded by Councilman Stewart.

Councilman Burrell: Mr. Chairman, now I know we have an audience full of people, but I think that if you give the right to other Council members to explain, I think I should be offered the same right.

Councilman Shyne: Councilman, I was going to give you that right. I wanted to receive your motion, I wanted to get a second. I wanted to treat you the same as I did Councilman John David Stewart. I think you asked me, John David, if we need an explanation, I said, as soon as we get to the question then you would get a chance to give your explanation. But Councilman Burrell, I’ll yield to you if you would like for me to change and you give your explanation at this particular point, I’d be happy to do that. But if you would like for me to get a second and get to the point of question or discussion, I’ll be glad to do that. What is your pleasure?

Councilman Burrell: My pleasure is that if we have issues that I think is pertinent to the welfare of this City, that each of us are given the opportunity to explain because I don’t want people to leave here not understanding what the situation is, that my whole. . .

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Burrell my point was, let me carry it through Roberts Rule of Order and get to that particular point, then if you need 20 or 30 minutes, we’ll be glad to give it to you to explain. Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Huckaby to add the legislation.

Councilman Shyne: Now, Councilman Burrell, you may take your time and explain it very clearly.

Councilman Burrell: Thank you Mr. Chairman and I hope to be brief on this situation because it something that, I think it is very crucial to this City although it is an issue that many times we want to avoid talking about. But, given the fact that we are very diverse City and given the fact that we do have a history that needs to, somehow, be buried and well, not buried but some things in that history needs to be buried. We need to address similar issues that are happening today and try to put a united front to show our citizens that they won’t be tolerated.

And, given the fact that on yesterday I did offer, I think to Councilman Serio was the only one that was not there, I passed out some new articles in which I was very startled once I read them on Saturday and Sunday because I had not seen these articles prior to this when the incident initially happened at the first parade and maybe I missed it through the media that undoubted either did not report it or again as I said, did not see it.

But my concern Mr. Chairman is that the City entered into a contract with these parades in order to provide police protection, barriers and other things that are needed for the betterment and for the better quality of life for our citizens and then when we have occurrences that take place that go against our policy of inclusiveness in this City, then I think these issues should be addressed.

And, what took place in both of these parades is really uncalled for because we had children first of all, well it was the Centaur parade where bottles were thrown at them, according to the papers, sticks and stones, over at Shreve City. And, it frightened many of the youngsters who said that they would not go back, participate in another.

Now, I got some calls from some of these parents because some of the kids that they threw at were from the Byrd High School band and I believe that is in Councilman Stewart’s district and Fair Park which is actually in your district, but many of the students live in my Council district. And I told the parents that I would address this because we have a responsibility in this because if we are going to expend taxpayers’ fund in order to help to assist these parades to take place, we have a responsibility to speak out on these issues.

I think that this is deplorable. I think that this is against what Shreveport is all about as well as what America is all about. And for those who sit and do not speak out when these things happen, in many cases seem to condone the actions and I don’t think that we should.

We’ve addressed yesterday with the Mayor, I know I did first and then Councilman Huckaby put it more plainly, that we need to fully investigate these matters. And also to work with the two parades and their committee to let them understand that they may have to be more selective in the people that participate in their parades and also do something to denounce these type of actions when they take place. This is basically what this resolution is about, is to hopefully, allow the Council to have a voice and don’t always charge it to the Mayor to get things done, that we too on this Council do not approve of what took place here recently; so, that’s the position that I’m taking in this resolution, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Shyne: Councilman Burrell, thank you very much. You stated your position emphatically and I know no one will leave here misunderstanding what your position is and you communicated the Kings English very, very well.

Councilman Huckaby: I want to join with Councilman Burrell in support of this resolution. I agree with you Mr. Burrell that it is incumbent on the Council, not just the Mayor to denounce such criminal activities as we read about in the paper on these children. I’ve received numerous telephone calls since this incident happened and particularly since it was printed in this morning’s paper, my statement about this incident.

One constituent and a friend even wrote me a letter and I received in the mail this morning announcing his outrage and indicates in the letter that he is willing to contribute $5,000 towards a crime stoppers reward fund and I want to call upon the Mayor and the Chief of Police at this time to establish a Crime Stoppers Reward fund so that these criminals can be brought to justice. These minor children who marched in the parade ought to be able to march unmolested and un-assaulted. My grandparents paid the price. Our grandparents for these children to walk and march in a parade unmolested and un-assaulted. And I think a reward fund with sufficient monies will bring forth persons who witnessed this incident, so that these criminals can be brought to justice and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and I want to see that done Mr. Mayor, Chief of Police. I want to see a reward fund established. I have the first $5,000 from a constituent and friend of mine to bring these criminals to justice so that these kids can walk and march in parades unmolested. And in so far as those person who participate in the parade on the float, who shouted racial slurs at these children, I think they too, their organization should be bought in and made perfectly clear to them, that they can not participate in the parades in this City, where we are growing to a point of oneness, they can not participate in parades in this City and shout racial slurs at anyone. I think the entire City ought to be outraged at this kind of conduct in 2001.

Councilman Shyne: Could we vote to put this piece of legislation on the agenda and then we will get some comments from the Mayor and Chief. I asked the Mayor to ask you to come to this Council meeting. We would like you to come forward and at least make a statement or two. Motion to add the legislation approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen ayes: men Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

I also received a letter from the same gentleman stating that he would be willing to put up $5,000, Mr. Mayor. Chief, could you come around so that we can know that something is being done about this. This was a despicable incident that happened in our City and we say that we are our brother’s keeper.

Mayor Hightower: I agree with what’s been said. We have come too far in this City over the past several years to let something like happened Saturday night, this past week and Saturday night two weeks ago, to affect the forward thinking and moving of the City of Shreveport. So, I join with 200,000 constituents in this City that say that, we will not condone this. We do not and will not tolerate this kind of action.

These krewes work too hard year around, literally thousands of them and the number of krewes that we have now, citizens that are participating in something that excites them about what they are doing and excites them about their city and the last thing we want is that enthusiasm for the city of Shreveport and the revelry and the fun that they produce and add to the quality-of-life for our citizens to be tarnished in any way.

I have met with the Chief and he will speak in a minute, but it is something that we can not tolerate. I don’t think anyone that has participated in a Mardi Gras parade, whether it be on a float or on the ground hollering, throw me something mister, wants to see these parades vanish. Quite the opposite is a parent. When you look at the crowds that we’ve received every single year. This past Saturday was a little bit challenged because of the weather. But the event has grown, it is a full several weeks all the way to culmination tonight on top of the Texas Street bridge. It is something that has united and brought together many neighborhoods, many different philosophies, many different walks of life into krewes that have never known each other before.

And again, it provides at least two great weekends of revelry and opportunity and fun for families and friends along the parade route to get together and nobody, nobody will tolerate what has happened and let a few ruin the pleasure of the many. And we will do everything we can, I know that the Captain of Gemini made a public statement the other day that he will certainly look into what happened on one of their floats and the Police Department will do all that they can do and we encourage the citizens of this City not to tolerate that. If we are going to continue to grow, we have to continue to go further than we’ve come over the past several years, and I am confident that our citizens will rise to this challenge.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. Chief, I would ask you to come up and while the Chief is on his way up, Mr. Mayor I would ask you to please, when you meet with the Chief, please keep the Council members informed on what’s going on.

Chief Roberts: Of course I can only echo what the Mayor has already said. These children, along with the krewes, also worked very, very hard throughout the year getting ready for these parades. And, if most of you can imagine walking from Pierre Bossier Mall in Bossier City all the way through our City, that is quite a commitment that these young people have made to participate in this parade, and that is not an easy task, playing an instrument and what have you and they have looked forward to this all year. And, it is unfortunate that an incident such as this will take place.

However, I want to stress, lets not paint the entire parade with the same brush. We are dealing with a couple of groups of individuals that probably in an everyday situation when they have not had too much to drink, are pretty decent people. But when you have the situation that we have during our Mardi Gras parades and a large amount of alcohol is consumed, people act very differently under those situations. And this may or may not have been the case during this particular incident out at the parade. So, lets not make the mistake to label everyone on this side of the river. as making those kind of comments to these young people, because I don’t think that’s the case.

Give you and idea of what we are doing, Captain Clarey who is the Area Captain and was in charge of the parade festivities, he’s directed his personnel under him that was actually at the parade working in a law enforcement capacity, to try to identify these people along the route that had caused the problems. We will also talk with the Band Directors in the school, in addition to an after incident report that we normally do after each one of these parades. We will be meeting with the krewes once this report is put together by the Police Department and we are going to discuss these issues along with some other things that we saw that, that as a Police Department, we didn’t particularly like. There are some other things that are out there on the table that needs to be addressed as well and some of those things will be addressed with the krewes. And we’ll come to some sort of understanding or resolution with it or bring it before this Board to come to a resolution. But, the incident will be investigated. We’ll try to identify the people that were involved in this incident and move on from there and address the krewe as well.

There seems to be a common denominator in our Mardi Gras festivities, and it boils down to, alcohol and the overuse of alcohol. We have made numerous arrests on the parade route before the parade started. I held a news conference and advised people that that type of activity will not be tolerated. This year we had fewer arrests than we’ve ever had out there and it, in part, was due to the stern warning that was given to people before the parade started and we’ll continue doing that. However, like I said, the common denominator seems to be alcohol. It may come to a point that we have to address that issue as a City and work on that.

Another problem we had this year, it wasn’t a problem, we agreed to have both parades end in our City this year because we have a location that the parade can end where it is away from the crowd on Preston Street. It’s a logical place to end the parade. Bossier had problems ending the parade up here at Bossier Mall last year. There was a large disturbance that took place in their City and we agreed to end both parades in Shreveport. Which we don’t mind doing that, but the flip side to it is, you have approximately 2 ½ hours more drinking time on this side of the river before the parade clears; so, that’s something we have to look at.

Councilman Shyne: I agree with you, lets don’t paint the whole parade. I kind of don’t think maybe alcohol was kind of the problem, because I’m kind of like Dr. Cash, neither one of us drink, but I think what you had was probably a small group of cowards and generally cowards act like that because they are people who can drink and they can drink sensible. Usually when racial slurs come out, it is not so much alcohol brings it out, it is in them and they are within a group where they feel like that they can just bring it out, because they feel comfortable. I don’t think it was a big group. I think we need to identify that small number and let them know that we are not going to let them hide being the pretense of having too much to drink and that is why I called somebody a bad name or that’s why I got racist or whatever it is. We are hoping that the money that will be put up, that somebody would come forward and we can identify that little group. Because I find out, that basically people who make racial slurs like that, whether they be black, white, blue or green, are basically cowards and they do it when they get in a group of people where they feel comfortable and if we let them hide behind alcohol, they will do it.

But I would like for you to identify that little group and we’ll let them know, we are not going to put up with that and alcohol didn’t cause you to do that, that was in you in the beginning. You just wanted to be in a position where you felt comfortable to bring that out, and we want to let them know now, I don’t have any problems against them being racists, I would hope that they would adhere to the Christian principle, that I am my brother’s keeper but if you go home and get in your living room, you can call anybody anything you want to but we just don’t want you to do it out in the public and alcohol is not the cause of that.

Councilman Carmody: Chief, you know you and I had a long talk about this the day of the parade, before the parade started and your sentiments were exactly the same as, the idea that you’ve combined a revelry festival-type experience with consumption of alcohol and some people get out of hand.

My comment to you today would be to, and I hope that we can, receive some input from the public outside of trying to garner $5,000 of anybody’s money as to having either, witness and/or video what happened so that we can see because again, it is one thing to throw racial slurs at somebody, its another thing to throw a bottle and there is a criminal act. And that those people do need to be prosecuted if we can determine who they area. I would ask the public and ask you to petition the public, that if anybody has got any information, especially video tapes because so many people along the parade route seemed to have their cameras rolling, at least that was my experience, that we might be able to at least see what had actually happened. These children certainly endured something they should not have had to endure and think that it all of us on this Council, the Mayor, as well as our Police Department want to see that it does not happen again. We are willing to work with you in whatever we can do.

Councilman Huckaby: Chief, Mayor, I want to make it perfectly clear that we are not labeling everyone of anything, but, alcoholism is no excuse for the wick acts of racism that took place at these parades. And I think that we need to insure the young people and all people, that we can have parades and that they can be there without being molested and assaulted by anyone. Alcohol is no excuse. And we need to make it perfectly clear, now, so that this does not happen again. If it happens and there are the wrong black people are in the vicinity of these acts, we could have one of the worse race riots in the history of this nation and we don’t need that in Shreveport, we’ve come to far. We have too much potential. So these few people, not labeling everyone, these few criminals, these few racists, need to be brought to justice. If it takes a reward fund, we have the first $5,000 to contribute to it. They need to be brought to justice and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law so that they and others will know that if you drink for three weeks before the parade, you don’t come out on the streets of this City, and molest people who participate in the parade. And that ought to be made perfectly clear now, so that it doesn’t happen again.

Councilman Shyne: Chief, I want you to know and I want the public to know that we support you 100%, you’ve done a fine job. Councilman Huckaby and I happened to have read in some irresponsible newspaper where the allegation has been made that there were some black politicians—did they say black or minority--Councilman Huckaby: They referred to us, Mr. Shyne. Councilman Shyne: Well, I didn’t want to be that direct, Chief, that we had been to you and we were putting pressure on you to tell you, not to arrest black perpetrators within the black neighborhood. This guy got to be crazy. He’s got to be out of his mind. I live in a black neighborhood. I don’t want no wild folks running around in my neighborhood. I got two little boys that I want to grow up and I thought it was very stupid on his part to even suggest something like that. That’s the kind of stuff that get in the newspapers and it doesn’t do our communities any good.

I think as a community, both black and white, we need to let reporters know, we need to letter editorial writers know, we don’t appreciate that and if you keep that up, we are not going to buy your paper. If you can prove it, come forth and prove it that, you are telling your sergeants or your captain to don’t arrest blacks in black neighborhood. Chief, I know that you know that that is a bald-face lie. And Councilman Huckaby lives in a black neighborhood. I live in a, Mooretown is probably a hundred percent black. Now, you do have some whites who be riding through there or be waking out there, but we know they be looking crack. We understand that any time you see a white person out in Mooretown, ain’t no if, ands, buts and these about it, at 8:00 and 9:00 o’clock at night, unless they delivery something, well they could be delivering some dope. We know they looking for crack.

Chief Roberts: Now, Mr. Shyne, I got out there at those hours at night. I’m out there quite often at those hours of the night.

Councilman Shyne: Chief you spoke too soon, now. I don’t mean you, but there is others. But now, you know that we would not suggest to you, not to arrest anybody in the black neighborhoods because we call you all the time about the different locations where they are dealing crack. And I would just hope that this community, both black and white, because we are our brother’s keeper and if we ever plan to get to be the kind of community that we need to be, we got to work together.

I think we need to let newspapers know and editorial writers know and they are always talking about Jessie Jackson and others who play on racism. You got white folks who do the same thing. They make money out of it, by doing that. He is going to sell some papers by doing that because it is a faction out there that enjoy reading that kind of stuff. We need to let them know, hey look, we don’t appreciate that. I wish it was some kind of way, but I guess it isn’t, when people make those kind of statements about you or the department, we could hold them accountable but I guess because of the Constitution, the First Amendment we can’t do it. But, we do have citizens out there, who when you read that, you all need to call into that paper, call into that Editor and let him know, that we don’t appreciate that. We got to do that. We are here, nobody is going anywhere. People that you see here are not going to move to Atlanta. We are not going to move to Dallas. As a matter of fact, I am not going to even move to the suburbs, I am going to be right where I am. We need to learn how to work together and make this the best community that we can make it. We need to let them know that we are not going to tolerate violence in any fashion, form, or manner. Chief, thank you, God bless you, I love you.

Councilman Burrell: It was brought to my attention that there are two clauses in this resolution that needs to be, possible, be repeated. Because, specifically. . . . is that correct? Mr. Thompson, I was going to get you to read them, that might need to be addressed because it deals first with the CAO and then the Police Chief. Mr. Thompson: I was just reminding you that one of the actions in the resolution would require the CAO to place language in the contracts with the two krewes that would require them to notify people who sponsor these parades that, they would be responsible for making sure that there was no harassment of any person because of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, so forth that, that would be added to the contract that we have with the krewes because I don’t believe that those contracts have been signed. And secondly, the Chief of Police would get with the krewes, the same thing that he has talked about today and make sure that there are procedures are in place and additional police officers, if necessary, to make sure that these actions don’t occur again.

Councilman Burrell: I think these are pertinent points because we are establishing 3 year contracts, we are not establishing annual contracts with these krewes. We are establishing 3 year long contracts with these individuals to expend taxpayers money.

Now, there is one other situation that I know that I am going to send a letter to because, it occurred and I was invited to this particular ball. There was some up–, I won’t say upstanding citizens, but there was some citizens that were a part of---Councilman Shyne: Larry, you were not invited. Councilman Burrell: Well, you were invited Mr. Council Chairman. But there were reports that came back from a ball by the Krewe of Centaur. In which I was invited to that ball I believe by Ms. Liz Swaine. Councilman Shyne: Don’t call her name. Councilman Burrell: No, I was invited and I am sure you all were too and the Royal Court of a newly formed African-American krewe was invited to that ball. From their own mouths they said that, they were treated so poorly and so much disrespect, they walked out in the middle of the event and I think that is a sad, sad commentary.

And I think that again, if you don’t want me there, then don’t invite me there to embarrass me. And this was the comment that they made to me and I told them that I would bring it forward because in order to us to heal ourselves and work with the people, we are going to have to put these issues out and don’t bury our head in the sand thing that they are going to go away, because they won’t, they will only fester and become explosive.

Councilman Shyne: Would you like for the Clerk to prepare those amendments since we have voted to add this piece of legislation to the agenda and the amendment to come or has he prepared it already? Councilman Burrell: They are in there. We were just clarifying a couple of statements that were in there.

Councilman Shyne: I believe I see a group. Mrs. Harris, you and Mrs. Griffin, I believe you all have a group with you all. You all will not be able to speak today, but if you all would just like for the members of your group to stand, we can do that at this particular time and we do appreciate you all coming down. (Comments from the audience were inaudible.) You do have a beautiful group and this is really what democracy is all about, we belong to you all. Now, we might not do exactly what you want us to do all the time, but we do belong to you all and we appreciate you all coming down.

Public Hearing: Ordinance No. 16 of 2001: An ordinance to enlarge the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - A tract of land located along the South Lakeshore Drive in Fractional Section 5 (T17N-R14W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and providing with respect thereto.

Mr. Jim Holt: Tag No: 01-01 concerns annexing 63.504 acres of land into our city limits in the area of town located along the south side of South Lakeshore and east of I-220 and west Shreveport. The tract will become the site of approximately 424 attached and detached townhouse units on 424 lots and approximately 10 lots of single family residential homes. This annexation includes all of the remaining South Lakeshore Drive right of way currently not within the city limits. If this annexation is approved, all of South Lakeshore Drive, will now be in the city limits from Curtis Lane at Lakeshore to a point just west of Lakefront, which is a private drive.

The Chairman called for persons to speak in favor of the proposed annexation.

Mr. Dan Wimberly: I would like to give you a little background, rationale, and community support for the petition to annex the South Lakeshore tract of property into the city limits of Shreveport.

The tract of land consist of 60+ acres which is currently zoned R-A and currently used as timberland for timber production. The rationale behind the request or petition for annexation into the city limits is to increase the potential for development of the site as residential property by (inaudible) city’s utilities, administration and governing body.

Community support for the annexation of the development include support of the President of the Hillside, Lake Village Club Homeowners Association, which I might add, is immediately adjacent to the property. Business owners along Lakeshore Drive and Jewella Avenue (inaudible) law enforcement professionals, health care professionals, Caddo Parish, City residents, surrounding property owners and Fox Hill Trail Homeowners Association. And, I would like to present two additional letters of support with names that have signed in support of the annexation.

Given the reasonableness of our request and as access to all city utilities and services, we request and we urge that you approve the annexation petition.

Reverend Danny Mitchell: I do rise in support of this project by Dan Wimberly. I own the property that adjoins Dan Wimberly’s property, 23 acres of which a development is planned there and we’ve had it rezoned and gone through the process. And I just believe it is a good location for the type of project that Mr. Wimberly is proposing and I am very much in support of it.

Mr. Elmo Bryant: I am a resident at 3839 Lakeshore Drive, not to far from this site. Councilman Shyne: Mr. Bryant, please tell us that you were a former candidate for Mayor of this great city and we appreciate having you down. Mr. Bryant: Well, every once in a while we have to come down and see how things are going.

I would like to say that I am in favor of this annexation. I think it is a good thing for our community and it will be a good thing for our city.

Mr. Leon Wheeler: I am the President of the Shreveport-Bossier African American Chamber of Commerce. I would just like to applaud Mr. Wimberly for a great effort. It is not too often, in our community, that something great happens, all the time; so, I do stand behind this young man in support of this cause.

Dr. Artis Cash: Let me say this, I’m noticing a trend here and I’m somewhat disturbed. The trend is that we have too many black-white issues here. If you look around in the room now, you have a majority of the white people on one side and the majority of the black people on the other side. We have too many black-white issues that we start to try to get away from; so, I am ready to see a change here. I think we need to—I said a majority (inaudible).

Councilman Shyne: Well, you can look at the Council and you can see Tom and I sitting next to one another.

Dr. Cash: That’s good. I think that is wonderful. I just hope that you guys, I hope the closets are clean. Let me just say this here. We are faced with something here. We are faced with starting a middle class housing area. I think is wonderful what this young man is doing. I don’t have a hand in it, but I think it is a wonderful project that this City can start making a switch from that horrendous action that took place here, two weeks ago. A hate crime took place. Lets heal ourselves by making this project move ahead.

Mr. Rod Caston, 6316 Timberman Place: I would like to just applaud Brother Wimberly also on his efforts and even bringing an idea before the Council as to add another subdivision in Shreveport. Often times we travel and visit other cities and we see the growth of new houses. I mean, in Dallas, they are building houses on top of houses, I mean, there is no grass no where over there. I think with Shreveport being the city that it is and on the grow as it is, I think a new subdivision would be great. I mean, a middle-class income subdivision would be awesome, outstanding. Everything is going on out south of town, out of Youree Drive and what not and west of town is growing and up north, so therefore I think right there at the corridor of 220, I think that it is an excellent location. I think it is an excellent advantage for the highway right there also and it would definitely create further industry and maybe another subdivison also out west. I applaud his efforts and I think that the Council should follow suite and lets try and grow Shreveport instead of stunting the growth.

The Chairman called for persons to speak in opposition to the proposed opposition.

Mr. Ron Weems, 6620 Willow Trace Drive, which is in the neighborhood. I’d like to also state for the record, that I would like to be like former Mayor Hussey. In that normally when I appear before this body, I’m getting paid. Today, I’m before you as a volunteer, not as a paid lawyer, as all of you know that I am an attorney here in town. But I’m doing my involvement, my position to Mr. Wimberly proposed development is being done strictly as a volunteer.

I am going to try to focus primarily my remarks on opposition to annexation not the merits of Mr. Wimberly’s project because that is really not germane to this public hearing in that the public hearing was held before the MPC to and at the MPC a decision was made 6-2, to deny the proposed project. And I might point out that, I am offended that some would try to make this a black-white issue.

Those of you who know me in the last 25 years or so that I practice law, know that I am not a racist. Each of you sitting on this Council have enjoyed the financial support from me and my law firm to help you get elected to office. I count among my friends, many blacks. I count among my neighbors, many blacks and frankly, I’m offended that that remark would be made at a public hearing that just because we are white, that this is a black-white issue.

Now, back to annexation. All of you know as many people in this room know, that the only reason this ordinance to annex this piece of property was introduced is that Mr. Wimberly’s project was denied 6-2 which oh, by the way, a black voted against the project at the MPC, I might add, 6- 2 against this project on the merits. It was appealed to the Caddo Parish Commission. That is where it sits today for a public hearing to be held on March 15^th, next month.

So, we might ask why, this unusual annexation petition. Now, I point out that it is unusual in that it only selects out the property that Mr. Wimberly proposes to have rezoned to construct a development that is out of character with the neighborhood. The residents in our neighborhood, over 200 of the 500 single family owners, signed petitions in opposition to Mr. Wimberly’s application and they were present and presented it to the MPC. I might add also, since race was brought up, there were several of my black neighbors signed the petition in opposition to Mr. Wimberly’s proposed development at the MPC.

If you follow the normal rule, if you the City Council follow the normal rule if you annex, you will have divested jurisdiction from the governing body that we all live under, and that is the Caddo Parish Commission with respect to this property. All of us taxpayers and those 500 single family homes out there pay taxes to the Parish and to the City. We attended public hearings, which is our right. Our voices were heard. The governing body that you delegate these issues to voted. Now, what we have is, no one should be surprised about what is a blatant attempt to circumvent a process by which Mr. Wimberly had been informed, his project would be defeated at the Caddo Parish Commission.

We talk about fairness and abiding by the law, I don’t want to preach to you, it is not Sunday morning, but I guess by point is, what is the rush. Spot zoning. Lets look at this piece of property out there, 60 acres. It is directly to the north, it is about a 30 acre tract that is out of the city. It happens to have about 25 homes. The overwhelming majority of which oppose this annexation. Guess why. They are outside the city. They have city water but no city sewer. There is a place out there you can put a lift station, if ya’ll want to put it in, but they are grand fathered in, in an old way, gotten hooked up to city water, but they are outside the city, do not have police and fire protection, and they are not being annexed. Why not? You want to add some tax value to the tax roll. My neighbors may not like this, but why not try to annex that and see how you get.

Lets take the property to the south. There is a 45 acre tract of property immediately to the south, that’s outside in the Parish. Where is that landowner? Why aren’t they asking to be annexed. If you want to limit yourself only to annexation issues, you should look at that entire area, all three of those plots to determine whether or not it merits inclusion in our City. Quite frankly, we are not here opposing annexation, if you will approach it on the annexation issues along and look at all three of those tracts in its entirety.

Let me tell you what it is going to do if you annex Briarcliff. It is going to cost you a lot of money to put a lift station in, because they won’t sign the petition to get in unless you put the lift station in. At least I wouldn’t if I were there, because were told that they would get it when it was brought there and it has never been brought there.

Now, what is the rush? We’ve got a public hearing on the same day that you are going to have the final vote? We asked some of our neighbors to come out. They may be mostly white, but I can assure you and I represent to you that, that blacks in my neighborhood who live just down the street, are opposed to it.

It is interesting too this is also a very unusual annexation petition in that, in order to get by the legal loophole, the landowner had to agree, unconditionally to be annexed. These deals normally don’t work this way. The landowner says, I’ll agree to be annexed, but only if you approve my zoning. In other words, I’m coming out.

Are we setting a precedent? Has there a deal been made somewhere that if we don’t get the zoning, then people will support de-annexation because we don’t want to pay city taxes on unimproved property. Are you sure that the landowners fully comprehend what they have signed or you are going to have an irate landowners thinking that they have a conditional application. Why can’t we have a conditional application? It is obvious. It is a legal problem impediment because jurisdiction would still lie with the Caddo Parish Commission, it has to be unconditional. So, that is why it is before you and I suggest that the landowners may be back before you asking to be de-annexed if you later revoke, do not approve the annexation requested by Mr. Wimberly.

Perhaps a representation from the developer that they are fully aware that they are coming to the City and that you, in all likelihood will not set a precedent to de-annex if the zoning is not approve. I think we got the cart before the horse here.

I had passed out to each of you some numbers and statistics dealing with Mr. Wimberly’s project that I think compel, you to use that word in our ordinance introduced early, to compel, you to uphold the MPC either today and go back to the drawing board on annexation of all three of these tracts by overturning or not voting to annex or if you like, suspend the rules if you do annex, then lets suspend the rules so that we can having a public hearing at the Council if we must re-argue the points that were argued and won by taxpayers.

We are ready to go to a vote before the Parish Commission. They may not want the political hot potato, maybe they are not standing up objecting to you trying to divest jurisdiction, but I guarantee you, I know some of you on this Council and many of you, if the Caddo Parish Commission were attempting to divest your jurisdiction on an issue before you had decided, that you would be offended and I think you are going to find several members on the Commission will feel likewise although they might not express it at this public hearing.

There are number of people in the audience who are supportive of this. I guess rather than ask all of them to come up and speak, I just ask those people to stand if you like, who are opposed to this. I am sorry, my black neighbors are not here, but I represent to you that are opposed. It may be the political heat that is coming down off this deal, so.

But any rate, one last observation is why the rush. What precedent are you setting. Why wait and the let the governing body that we all pay taxes to, decide the issue that has jurisdiction as we speak today.

Councilman Shyne: Ron, just before you sit down and I do want the people in the audience to know and of course, I really can’t control anybody else’s behavior but I consider you to be a friend of mine not a white friend or a black friend. I consider Mr. Wimberly to be friend of mine, and I consider him not to be a black friend. I could not control the gentleman’s remarks, but I do want you to know that to me, this is not a black and white issue. This is a issue that I would look at it. It wouldn’t matter to me if it was all black sitting everywhere. I do want you all to understand that this is a public facility and you can come in here and sit anywhere you want to. If you want to sit on the floor, that’s alright with me. I don’t have no problem with that. And I want you to know that I am not down here to foster integration on where you sit. I wouldn’t want you al; leaving here, thinking that. If you feel like sitting on the floor you are welcome, just take your hat off or your cap off, just act civilized. If you feel like standing up, I don’t have no problem with that.

I want you all to know that I am not in agreement of those kinds of remarks that are made because I think we have too much of that already. I think a lot of us play behind that too much and Mr. Wimberly I know you did not say that, and I know you don’t look at this as being a black white issue. I mean, this is a–I would hope that you would look at it as a quality-of-life issue. I would hope that Ron you all would look at it as a quality-of-life issue and not as a black and white issue. So, I wouldn’t want you all to come down here and feel like that you are being, if I can use the term and it might be the wrong term, beat up on by saying all of the whites are on this side, all of the blacks are on this side. Well all of the young folks are on this side, all of the old folks on this side or all of the short folks on this side or all of the fat folks on this side. Ron, I don’t want you leaving here thinking that, that this is not a black white issue to us. I don’t want you to think how I am going to vote, I’m voting black or white. I wouldn’t want you to think that the way Tom is voting, and Tom I don’t mean to speak for you, but it is not a black-white issue. We look at this as a quality-of-life issue but in the meantime, a lot of times we can’t control comments that are made by other people.

Mr. Weems: I do Councilman Shyne, and thank you for those remarks. I would also so now that the Mayor has returned to the room, on that issue. I was a supporter of Mr. Jackson who ran for Mayor also since we are introducing all of the Mayors and Mayor candidates today, and Theron Jackson, I was one of the few whites in his campaign supporting him when he ran for office. So, again, I recognize that you don’t treat it as black-white, but I want the public record to be set straight that the folks here in opposition to this, are not treating it as a black-white issue. In fact, I’m proud to say that we probably live in the most racially integrated neighborhood in the entire metropolitan area, bar none.

Councilman Shyne: Well, Ron again, thank you and that is why I made those statements because I want it on record. I wouldn’t want the new reporters leaving here saying, hey that’s a racial issue because we got too much of that. This is a quality-of-life issue. Now, I am going to open it, Councilman Burrell, I want to come to you first.

Councilman Burrell: The initial comment that I do have is that I was, what I was going to ask was, were was the other petitions because I know Mr. Wimberly named several petitions that were available to us, but Mr. Thompson went and xeroxed these petitions and brought them here.

Now, Mr. Chairman we are suppose to address this issue at this point, the annexation issue at this point? Councilman Shyne: This is not the point that we will vote on this issue. Councilman Burrell: No. Councilman Shyne: This is a public hearing, and we will not, you all understand we will not vote on it at the public hearing, but it is on the agenda and we will eventually get to it.

Councilman Carmody: I think that, unless Mr. Weems was finished, you need to ask if there was anybody else here that was in opposition.

Mr. Weems: I do have one other question, if I may. Councilman Shyne: Mr. Carmody, you are exactly right and Ron I took for granted and maybe I shouldn’t have, that no one else wanted to come up. Sir, would you like to come up and speak? Dr. Harvey T. Huddleston, I would. Councilman Shyne: You are in opposition? Dr. Harvey T. Huddleston: Opposition. Councilman Shyne: Sir, the podium is your’s. I apologize. I just took for granted that Ron was. . . Dr. Harvey T. Huddleston: I was about to rise to a point of order, in opposition. Councilman Shyne: Would you give us your name and address, first.

Dr. Harvey T. Huddleston, 1804 Willow Point Drive, Shreveport, Louisiana, 71119: This is not a race issue, its what being put up and where it is being put up in relation to where we live and our expectation. I’m a retired surgeon from LSU Medical School and I chose to live at Willow Point because I love the place and the people who live there.

My next door neighbor is a wealthy black man who owns a national trucking system. He and his beautiful wife and two children are our next door neighbors. Secondly, this is not a race issue because the Queen of Scolytus is a Tex-Mex woman and she’s my wife and my five children run the gamut of perennial suntan from one hue to the next.

I love to live where I live and I would see that this property, if it is annexed is going to decrease the value of my property on Willow Point. If it does, then I may not chose to live at Willow Point and move to Texas where my wife has always wanted to live.

Councilman Shyne: Dr. again, just before you sit down, I want to make it plain again. The gentleman who got up and said that it was a racial issue, he could be extremely smart but he doesn’t have the ability to read my mind. Dr. Huddleston: I didn’t interpret it that way. Councilman Shyne: Okay, right. Dr. Huddleston: I wanted to make sure that everybody knows that I am not biased and bigot. Councilman Shyne: Well thank you Dr., thank you very much and this is not a racial issues for us.

Councilman Shyne: Is there anyone else? I see a good friend of mine who represents, what is it, the AGC. Is this is relation to the annexation? Ms. Gardener: No. Councilman Shyne: Councilman, I think is one of your constituents and you will be able to come up and speak in a few minutes, but this is about the annexation. Ms. Gardener: Okay, I’m getting nervous. Councilman Shyne: She is and I appreciate that because I invited her down. Councilman Burrell: Well, how did she become mine?

Councilman Serio: Mr. Thompson, I have a question as to why, if this is before the Caddo Parish Commission for a vote in the next several weeks, why are we even attempting to vote on it or even consider it here in our chamber if it has to be, if it is before the jurisdiction of the Caddo Parish Commission? Ms. Thompson: Ms. Glass has volunteered to answer that question for me and I appreciate that. Ms. Glass: The subject of the public hearing is annexing the land into the city limits of the City of Shreveport. It is not the zoning issue. The zoning issue is what is pending before the Caddo Parish Commission.

In the event the city were not annex the land and it became effective prior to the Caddo Parish Commission rezoning the property, at that point then, the City Council would be the proper authority to rezone the land but at this point, they are the proper authority to rezone the land because it has not yet been annexed.

Councilman Serio: If we were to accept the annexation and they were to vote in favor of it, then who would have jurisdiction? Mrs. Glass: What would happen is it would depend on the effective date of the annexation versus the effective date of the rezoning. If the annexation became effective first, then the Parish Commission would not have the authority to rezone but if they completed the rezoning and if they did vote prior to the effective date of the annexation, they would still have that authority.

Councilman Serio: If they don’t get the vote they want at the Caddo Parish Commission, if they don’t get the vote they want at the City Council, then what happens? It reverts back to the Parish? Ms. Glass: I’m sorry.

Councilman Serio: If they don’t get the vote that they, if the landowners don’t get the vote they want at the Caddo Parish Commission, then it is rejected at the City Council level as well, then does it stay in the Parish or does it stay in the City? Ms. Glass: The Caddo Parish Commission does not have a vote on the annexation issue.

Councilman Serio: But on the development of the property. Ms. Glass: The City Council has that authority and will not lose that authority, on the annexation. You will either annex it or you won’t.

Councilman Serio: Alright, access to the property, is that under the jurisdiction of the–I’m trying to figure out how you get to the property. Is the access route or the access road to the property under the jurisdiction of the City or the Parish? Mrs. Glass: I think the road is within the annexation?

Councilman Huckaby: Mr. Kirkland probably could answer that better than the City Attorney or at least someone from his office.

Mr. Kirkland: The proposed entrance to the proposed subdivision is through, as we understand it, parish property. I think you all have maps in front of you that show the Summers property. The road, the primary entry/exit for this subdivision would be through that property which is parish property. There is no rule or reason of why that can’t happen.

Councilman Huckaby: Is there anything unusual about that? Mr. Kirkland: You don’t have that road inside the city for the developer to have access to his development.

Councilman Huckaby: Is there anything unusual about that particular situation, having to go through parish property to get to city property? Mr. Kirkland: Councilman, I’m trying to remember another situation similar. None jumps to mind, but there is no reason in the world, whatsoever, that you could not have access through the parish to a development that’s in the city. Part of the, if you will, trade-off proposed by Mr. Wimberly at the Planning Commission was that he would not access his development off of South Lakeshore and that was an effort to appease some of the folks that were in opposition and that is why this, the proposal as it stands now, was made, was to come through the Summers property and come in off of what a lot of folks call the Lakeshore Extension where it would not impact anyone (inaudible) on traffic or at least in many (inaudible).

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Kirkland and maybe Ms. Glass can assist us on this, the subject of the public hearing, is only annexation? Mr. Kirkland: Yes.

Councilman Carmody: We are not approving the zoning for this property or the development that is proposed by Mr. Wimberly?. Mr. Kirkland: That’s exactly right.

Councilman Carmody: He’s already been through the process once, and asked a Planning Commission approval for his project. If we were to annex him his property, he must go back before that Planning Commission to ask for approval of the zoning, is that not correct? Mr. Kirkland: That’s Ms. Glass’ jurisdiction and the Parish Attorney’s jurisdiction. Ms. Glass: Terri Scott who advises the Planning Commission on behalf of the City and I discussed that today. We’ve looked at the statutes. We think the statutes says that the City Council, in order to rezone property, the property must have been submitted to and approved or considered by the Planning Commission. So in the event that the annexation becomes effective first and the Parish Commission has not acted yet, we do think that the proper procedure would be for the Parish Commission to transfer the zoning case to the City Council and at that time, it would have already been heard by the MPC and that would not be necessary again and it would be properly before the City Council at that time.

Councilman Carmody: And so it was denied at the MPC level. Mr. Kirkland: Six to two. Councilman Carmody: And today we are discussing the annexation only? Ms. Glass: That’s correct and then it would take a 2/3rds vote because it was denied by the MPC.

Councilman Burrell: I may want to ask a question. Councilman Shyne: Sure. Councilman Burrell: Thank you for your permission. Mr. Kirkland since I was not asked while you were there, I do want to ask you a question. And let me preface this by saying that I been dealing with this situation from Day One and I think you are aware of that.

And simple because I have been pushing for growth and for housing activities in West Shreveport as well as the rest of this City. And some of the people who live in this area, especially down to Willow Point area, I do know because I’ve been to a couple of functions, I think during the Christmas when a letter is sent and ask for public officials to come there and I’ve supported things that they’ve done. But I’m really kind of mythed by the fact that, this development and where it is located, I don’t k now how it will affect Willow Point, the Willow Point area. Because looking at I-220 being between the two which is a natural barrier, I think about a situation that we have down there at Pierremont and Eden Garden. The only thing that separate Pierremont from Eden Garden is a fence and I don’t know of any property value that has decreased at Pierremont because of Eden Garden. Now, there may be some concern about the people whose across the fence, but as far as property value, I have not seen where that has taken place or even have heard or either the people complaining that it is going to take place.

Now, some of us want to deal with issues fairly and some of us want to cover them up. I chose not to cover them up. Some of the things that took place at the MPC hearing, I have respect for those persons on the MPC. But when you have MPC members that tell you that a development like this, that is priced in a middle income level from $90,000 to $100,000 something dollars, which is more than my house and more than some of the houses that we are living in here, people who are in here, I resent the fact that somebody saying that I live in a low income neighborhood. I don’t live in a low income neighborhood and the price of my house is not low income. But at the same time, when you have MPC members that turn around and tell you that that type of housing should be in Ledbetter. Now, whether you call it racist or not, there is some indication that something is wrong with that picture.

And when you have other MPC members that tell you that they have a problem with the development because they have rent houses that they are trying to fill up that’s in Queensborough, that tells me that there is something wrong with that picture also. Then they turn around and vote against a development for middle income homes for people who are trying to, for first-time home buyers as well as home buyers for people who are trying to upgrade their standards, which include both black and white.

I agree with Mr. Weems that this is not or should not, I am not saying that it is not, but it should not be a race issue. It should be an economic issue and if you are dealing with middle class homes between $90,000 and $125,000, I can assure you that’s far away from low-income.

Now, my question to you is, we are talking about annexation, this annexation here is not precedent setting is it, in your opinion? Mr. Kirkland: Based on prior annexations by the City, I don’t see anything precedent setting about it.

Councilman Burrell: I know of one casein particular and the reason why I’m saying this because I am not going to get into the politically correct thing to do, I am for fairness for everybody here, whether he black, white, green or blue.

Southern Trace comes to mind. We annexed Southern Trace down a street that was some 4 or 5 miles long to get out to the end. It looked like a balloon out at the end of the city’s boundary. Now, that is one of the strangest looking animals you ever want to see in your life. If you want to talk about precedent setting, that’s precedent setting. But it was nothing wrong with that because of the politics that were involved. I remember that specifically and I think you remember it and others remember it.

There is a development, I think it is Glen, one of the elder apartment complexes. The strangest looking animal you every want to see when it comes down to annexation. But now here we have property sits in a cup where the City’s property surrounds it almost, almost enclose this property and we say something is strange about this. It abuts property that is already annexed, almost all around it except one subdivision called Briarcliff, and then we are saying that something is wrong with annexing property like this.

Now, I know that it won’t win votes, but one thing about it, I do have a conscious and I do have a conscious for all people, not just black, white, green or whether you make a million dollars or whether you make ten dollars, but at some point, if we are going to talk about Shreveport being an inclusive City. Shreveport is going to be an All American City. I may as well throw this crap away because it doesn’t mean nothing; that’ the problem that we are dealing with.

Now, we can cover this issue up the way we want to cover it up and we can paint it the way we want to paint it, but the fact still remain that we have some underlying reasons here why persons don’t want development in that area and we need development over there. I live closer to this development than any of these subdivisions. And people in my neighborhood and some of them are here and businesses along there, they signed a petition saying that it is nothing wrong with this. We need the development over in that area.

Now, Lakeshore has businesses on it, Jewella has businesses on it. The Queensborough area, we just received a $1 million dollar grant, EDI grant, economic development initiative grant. Mr. Ferdinand, didn’t we? That grant is suppose to be used, possible of matching funds for $3.5 million dollars totally a $5 million dollar loan program to help develop businesses in that area. Our businesses in the subdivision that Mr. Hussey, I think he is gone, he is owner of. In that subdivison, are dying because we do need more upscale residential housing with upscale incomes in order to support these areas. We are killing these neighborhoods because we want to isolate those neighborhoods and then go off somewhere and build a beautiful subdivison and a beautiful shopping center whenever we need jobs and businesses development in these areas that we want to neglect and then say, that it is not a race issue, that it is not an economic issue. Well, what is it? We have a problem here and I don’t think that we should be covering it.

Mr. Kirkland: Mr. Burrell, with all due respect, sir, is there a question I can answer? Councilman Burrell: I asked you the question first—we can make this as facious as we want to or as funny as we want to, but it is not a laughing matter. You were asked earlier, Mr. Chairman, you were asked early whether or not, he was asked earlier, whether or not this is a precedent-setting situation. Mr. Weems said it was. I say that it is not. You said, what? That it is not. Mr. Kirkland: I don’t see it as one.

Councilman Shyne: We agree Councilman Burrell. You’ve answered the question. And I think his statements was kind of directed to you and it shouldn’t have been directed to you, it should have been directed to us because you don’t have a vote up here, Charles. Mr. Kirkland: No, I’m glad I don’t. Councilman Shyne: You can give us all the advise that you want, but you don’t have no vote at all. If you are through with Mr. Kirkland, unless you got another question, please let him go and sit down.

Councilman Burrell: I don’t have a problem with that, Mr. Chairman, but I don’t—in one case you want me to direct things at you but whenever you think you can get a laugh, you tell me I should direct them at him. I don’t appreciate that. I don’t appreciate that. This is a very, very serious matter. We are affecting people who want to invest in this community. And really, you are the Chairman, I respect that but again, I’ll make this statement: I think you have to respect us. It may be a joking matter to you, but it is not a joking matter to me.

Councilman Shyne: Let me know when you are through and then I’ll make my statement. I don’t think I laughed. I don’t think, I made the statement that it was. If I did laugh, that’s my prerogative. You don’t have the right to tell me what I can and what I can not laugh about and you can’t control my behavior. Like I said a few minutes ago, I’m not responsible for you alls behavior. If I want to laugh, you don’t know what I’m laughing at. You might be a genius, but you can’t read my mind, so, you don’t know what I’m laughing at.

I only asked you to let Mr. Kirkland go and take his seat. I mean he doesn’t have any business standing there with you giving him a sermon. If you want to preach to somebody, you preach to the members on the Council who got a vote. Mr. Kirkland doesn’t have a vote on this. If there is a question that you want him to answer, ask him a question, give him an opportunity to answer the question. Don’t ask him a question and you have to lecture to him about what he is going to answer. Let him answer it. When he gets through, Mr. Kirkland you go and take your seat. If somebody else needs to come up and stand before the Council, let them do that, but don’t hold him up there while you are talking to him or preaching and these are the persons, Mr. Burrell that you need to be trying to convince, not Mr. Kirkland because he just told you that he was in favor of it, it was nothing wrong with it, it was not a precedent being set, and I think you gave him all of the answers that he needs. Now, unless you have another question or him, Mr. Kirkland, I am going to ask you to go and take your seat.

If there is somebody else that you want to come up, Councilman Burrell we will let them come up. I opened the floor up and I called on your first. I respect you, but I do want you to know now, you can’t tell me what I can laugh at and what I can not laugh at. Now, I want you to understand that. If you got some more remarks to make, you are welcome to make those remarks. If there is somebody else that you want to come up, let them come up. Now, are you through with Mr. Kirkland? Councilman Burrell: Yes, that’s fine.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Kirkland, go and take your seat. Now, if you have some more remarks to make, you are welcome.

Councilman Burrell: I’ll address them to you, Mr. Chairman. Councilman Shyne: Please do. Councilman Burrell: Because you are suppose to be the Chair of this Council. Councilman Shyne: Not suppose to, I am the Chairman of this Council.

Councilman Burrell: Well, I wish you would act like it. Councilman Shyne: I wish you would act like a member of the Council.

Councilman Burrell: Because basically what we have here, if you are going to treat one Council member different than the other, which you do and I think it is very obvious that you do, whatever your beef with me, I don’t think it needs to be here. We need to deal with it somewhere else because each time you give me the permission to speak I am. . .

Councilman Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, can we bring this discussion to a close? Councilman Shyne: Please. Councilman Burrell: Mr. Chairman, I will bring it to a close, but Mr. Huckaby. . .

Councilman Huckaby: I’m not interrupting you, I’m sorry. Councilman Burrell: Okay, but all I’m saying is, this should not be a disagreement between Councilman Shyne and myself.

Councilman Shyne: It is not a disagreement. You are marking it a disagreement between you and I. You have the right to speak.

Councilman Burrell: Well, give me the right to speak. Councilman Huckaby: We are losing control of the audience. There is too much talk from the audience---Councilman Shyne: We are.

Councilman Huckaby: . . . while you all are involved in discussion, probably on a more personal basis. Councilman Shyne: You are exactly right. Councilman Huckaby: You have to maintain control of the audience if it means delaying this conversation until after the meeting, Mr. Burrell, that is what I suggest we do.

Councilman Burrell: Well, I think under the circumstances, if we are going to do that, lets do that. We’ve had a number of Council members where we’ve gone through the same thing over and over again. I don’t think we need to. We have an issue on the table. I am bringing forth a position as a Council member and as the Council member who is next to this development. It means something to me because it is right next to my district, although it is not in my district, but at the same time it affects it.

Councilman Huckaby: Let me submit to you, I support your argument. But there are people watching this on television (Councilman Burrell: That’s exactly right.) I wish you’d stop that lady from talking out there. Councilman Burrell: Well, that’s his constituent.

Councilman Huckaby: Ask her out of the meeting because we don’t’ need that and we need to be able to conduct this meeting in a professional manner. Councilman Shyne: That’s exactly right. Councilman Huckaby: That’s to you Mr. Chairman and to you Mr. Burrell.

Councilman Burrell: If I’m allowed to do that, I don’t have a problem with that, but I am not going to accept insults. I’m not going to accept you treating me and my position here with this Council different from others. I won’t accept that because I don’t have to accept it.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Burrell, don’t accept it. Are you finished with your comments about the annexation?

Councilman Burrell: No, I’m not. Again as I tried to share with my fellow Council members, I been dealing with this situation from Day 1 and the things that I have seen, I’m trying to bring to you what I have seen as it relates to this issue and that being that this issue is more than a about these homes being, that this is an annexation issue that is different from any other (inaudible). I think the point was made that we are dealing with annexation. We are not dealing with zoning. I realize and have had others who have talked to us saying that yes, naturally people will be bombarded with calls concerning the zoning of this property. But submit to you, that we need this development. It is a middle income development. It is not a low-income development. And when you have people who vote against a project that says it should be in Queensborough or Ledbetter, it brings about implications that it is a low income project and this is why, they are suppose to be voting against it. And also, that to me, that is a conflict of interest when you have persons who sit there and they can tell you that I can not support it because I have rent houses in Queensborough to fill. And, I think these type of issues are real issues that deal with this particular situation here Mr. Chairman and those are not laughing matters.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Burrell, I appreciate it. I do want the members to understand that whatever the people on the MPC or ZBA said, that does not affect my decision at all. I am going to look at the facts, that does not affect my decision at all. I am going to look at the facts. I mean they could jump up and say the moon was out there, I want you all to understand, that does not affect me. I am not emotionally involved in this. This is strictly about taking care of business. I want to make mine clear.

We don’t generally do this, but I saw Mr. Wimberly and I am going to let one person. If you want to come back up or if you want somebody else to come back up we will give you 2 minutes, we are going to cut it off. Ron, if you want to come back up or if you want somebody else to come back up, we’ll give you 2 minutes, we are going to cut it off. Again, I want you all to understand, this is not an emotional meeting for me. This is not a racial issue, for me. It doesn’t matter to me what somebody said on some kind of committee. I’m going to make my own decision.

Mr. Wimberly: I think that procedural here, I think I wanted to rebut what the opposition. Councilman Shyne: Well, you have 2 minutes to do it, don’t waste up your 2 minutes. Mr. Wimberly: I wanted to speak last. Councilman Shyne: I saw your hand first that’s why. Because if I had called Ron first, then somebody would have said, hey look, your hand was up first, it’s a black white issue again. You called on the white man before you did the black man, so I saw your hand first.

Mr. Wimberly: I’m sure we won’t go there. I wanted to express outrage at Mr. Weems’ statement that I ever indicated that this was a racial issue, in which it is not a racial matter. I’ve always indicated as I’m indicating today that this project or this development or the annexation process that we are taking today or the measures are to serve with housing and the potential for ownership of private property in a very desirable neighborhood of people that serve our community the most and get rewarded the least, that is our professional law enforcement people, our professional health care people, our educators, our public administrators and other professionals in this community regardless of background and that was our intent.

I further wanted to say that this development has gotten off to a bad start with the residents in that area through the window, through small talk and we’ve tried at every juncture in order to correct that. But I guess through some means, I don’t know what it is, we are not being heard. We’ve tried and I have a list of compromises that we’ve made here with the residents in that area and the idea that our development affects property values, that it affects environmental issues, that it affects anything else as far as the residents on the other side of the street or the freeway is concerned, is not only not the truth, but it is a lie.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Wimberly you were extremely professional today, you were not emotional. You did not inject racism in it from my standpoint. There were other persons who did, but I appreciate your presentation. Ron, you have 2 minutes.

Mr. Weems: Dan I want to tell you, I’d never accused you of making those racial and I want to apology if you misunderstood that, personally. You have conducted yourself professionally throughout this entire process. I think I pride myself on be able to disagree without being disagreeable and I hope we can continue that. I was offended by one of the other persons who spoke on your behalf who tried to make it a race issue, that is what I was referring to. I personally, publicly apologize to you if you misunderstood my remarks to say you were making it a race issue, I’m not.

I did not realize this was going to turn into a public hearing on the project as opposed to annexation. I would like to set the record that I’d like to, if this is in fact, the public hearing we are going to get on that zoning issue, I’d like to incorporate the entire public record at the MPC into this hearing and I think you will see the debate, if you care to go back and get a transcript of that, the (inaudible) reasons stated publicly as to why they were opposed.

Secondly, this project has been defeated in 1985 before the MPC, it was approved in 1991, withdrawn before the Parish Commission now it is up a third time. Why and why does the neighborhood oppose it? Very simple. This project proposed to put over 420 single family homes on 55 acres over 27 bedrooms per acre with less than one parking space. Our neighborhood built 511 houses, that are single family homes in neighborhood, are on 155 acres, about 3 per acre and over one parking space, off street, for each of those bedrooms.

Our single family homes are valued over $232,000 not $98,000, the average here. It’s a economic issue for us, plain and simple. We welcome the $125,000 development that is right in our neighbor’s stone away and I’m out of time and I thank you for your consideration.

Councilman Shyne: Ron, thank you for coming down. He was exactly right, this was an annexation issue. It got into the project issue. Never should have gotten into a project issue, but it kind of lead off like that and we sometimes, we try to bend the rules a little bit and let a little emotions come in. You all have seen how democracy works. Democracy is not something that just goes right just down the line. We appreciate the remarks that were made.

The Chairman declared the hearing closed.

Councilman Shyne: I would like to impose on my colleagues, I believe we have a person who has a medical problem. She called me and she wanted to come down. If it is alright with my colleagues, before we get back into the main agenda, I would like for her to come down and to just give about 3 or 4 minutes. She has been down here about 4 or 5 times. Councilman Burrell, she lives in your district and I think she wanted to make these remarks to you, but if you have to leave, we can understand. Would you like for him to stay or would you. . .? Councilman Burrell: If you don’t mind Mr. Council member, I would like to use the bathroom. Councilman Shyne: Well, go ahead on and use the restroom, then.

Motion by Councilman Carmody to suspend the rules to allow public comments at this time, seconded by Councilman Spigener. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Shyne. 4. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Stewart, Serio and Burrell. 3.

Ms. Calvin Gardner (2607 West College): What I’m here for is, I signed up 6 years ago to get my house worked on. I only got a little patch over the back porch. Since this Mayor came in, I signed up again but he didn’t do this, the other ones did that. I want Roy Burrell to hear this, that is why he got up an walked out. He put me on blood pressure medicine. He almost gave me a stroke in my face, and called me and woke me up at 11 o’clock at night and told me, why don’t I take out a loan. Why do I have to take out a loan that I can’t pay?

The Mayor was on t.v. in November. They are getting ready, it stopped in the 2500 block of West College and mine was 26. Why would he skip 26 and go the 27. So I called Larry Ferdinand, I knew he wasn’t going to answer my call when I called, but I called so many times the secretary told me, Ms. Gardener, this is you, I know this is you. I know you when you call, but trust me, he know when you call him, we give it to him.

When I came down to this Mayor’s Office, he called the next day: Ms. Gardener you been to the Mayor Office? I sure, I been down there, sure there I been down there talking. Well, you don’t fixed your house up, you don’t put electricity, done put plumbing, we don’t put everything in your house. I said, can you pull a records and come over here and look. I let you look. Well, I’m going to get right back with you. Ain’t nobody been back with me.

Now, if you read those papers that you have on there, just read it and just tell me what you got on there, and ain’t none of it been fixed. I ain’t got nothing but that $445 little bit thing over the back porch and the rest of it is rotten on the inside. I done fell three times, that is what got me on disability. I fell three times back there, my house need floors and everything. You see that on the paper. It says it has been fixed, but ain’t none of it been fixed. Ain’t nobody been in my house with no hammer and nail.

I want to know why is I got to go through all of this? I wanted the Mayor to hear this too because the only way I got to meet that Mayor. I see that they were playing games with me, so I played games back with them. I said, listen I want to see the Mayor because I want to meet him, because I had never seen him before. The Mayor happen to ease on out. I said, why would you come on t.v. and say you are getting to start in the 2600 block and then you are going to put your sign up in the 2700 and start in 27 and miss the 26? Now, I been saying this for 6 long years. And then the Mayor came and defending me on the 12. He said, well Ms. Gardener, we are going to get to you this summer. Why, get to me this summer, when you are going to skip a whole block. You built that house in the 2500 block and I suppose to be in the 26 and you going to skip me and go to the 26 and I couldn’t understand that. You offended me by telling me that. I just want to hear it from you, why would you do that to me? Can you answer me Mr. Mayor? Mayor Hightower: I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I had done something to you. Ms. Gardener: Yes, sir you hurted me bad. Mayor Hightower: I hate for everybody to hear it again. Ms. Gardner: You already put me on blood pressure medicine. You call me crazy and everything, but I think I’m more wiser than anybody in here, but I can’t understand, why did you do me that way?

Councilman Shyne: Ms. Gardner, thank you very much. You’ve sit here very patiently. I wished Councilman Burrell could have heard the remarks that were directed to him.

Ms. Gardner: Burrell called me on the phone at 11 o’clock at night and told me to take out a loan on my house and almost gave me a stroke in my face. My face went numb. If you gonna get mad, get mad with me.

Councilman Shyne: I’m gonna give your papers to, I was going to give them to Mr. Antee. Ms. Gardener: He got a copy of them. He was suppose to been to the house the next door, after the 12 on the 13^th, he never got there. Councilman Shyne: Mr. Antee, would you please get somebody out to Ms. Gardener house tomorrow. Do you have Mr. Hall or either Mr. Ferdinand, who could talk with her right now and find out what time she’ll be at home so somebody can get out there. And if you want me to, you don’t live in my district, but if you tell me what time you was coming out there, I will meet you there myself. Ms. Gardener: That’s the only way you are going to get them.

Councilman Shyne: I will meet you there, myself. Mr. Hall: The problem is the number that she gave, was disconnected. Ms. Gardener: The number I give him is not disconnected.

Councilman Shyne: Could you tell him what time you are going to be at home? Ms. Gardener: I’m going to be home. I ain’t going nowhere. I’m going to be home waiting on you.

Councilman Shyne: Could you give her a time and I’ll make sure that I meet you all there tomorrow and we’ll see what we can do.. Mr. Antee: Sure, we can have somebody try and meet there. But it sounds as though we’ve already got a lot of information and this is the first I’ve heard about it. I’ll need to get the information to see where we are.

Ms. Gardener: All this stuff on this paper they say they done fixed, I ain’t got none. Nobody been to my house with a hammer and nail. Councilman Shyne: Ms. Gardener, thank you for coming down. Ms. Gardener: Thank you too. Councilman Shyne: And Councilman Burrell will get in touch with you too. Ms. Gardener: I doubt it. Councilman Shyne: And someone will be out there tomorrow.

Confirmations and Appointments: Executive Appointment - Terrell J. Myles, Assistant City Attorney. Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Spigener. Motion for confirmation approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Huckaby and Serio. 2.

Mr. Myles: I would first like to apologize to the Mayor and to the Council for not making myself available a little sooner, but from Day 1 or should I say Day 2, I was thrown into court and I’ve been there every since. I’m sure when you good people come down there, you will see the work that we are doing down there and I do apologize for that. And I would like to thank the Council for making me an official-like, at this particular time and that I will do the best that I can to uphold the laws and ordinances of this great City.

The Council considered the CONSENT AGENDA legislation.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Carmody for Introduction of the Ordinances to lay over until the March 13, 2001 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Huckaby and Serio. 2.

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES:

1. Ordinance No. 18 of 2001: An ordinance closing and abandoning an 10 foot-wide dedicated passageway located in Lot 181 of the South Broadmoor, Unit No.2-A Subdivision, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 19 of 2001: An ordinance closing and abandoning the 15 foot-wide alleyway running between Line and Thornhill Avenues and between East 66th and East 67th Streets in the Belmount Grove Addition Subdivision, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Carmody for Adoption of the Resolutions on the Consent Agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Huckaby and Serio. 2.

RESOLUTIONS:

RESOLUTION NO. 19 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR WATERS EDGE DRIVE, GLEANNLOCH, WATERS EDGE CIRCLE, AND AVELLINO LANE IN THE LAKESIDE ON LONG LAKE UNIT NO. 1, SUBDIVISION, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the dedication for Waters Edge Drive, Gleannloch, Waters Edge Circle, and Avellino Lane in the Lakeside on Long Lake Unit No. 1, Subdivision in Sections 22, 27 and 28 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and as shown on the plats attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and the same is hereby accepted as dedicated to the public for public use in the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the original plat reflecting the dedication for Water Edge Drive, Gleannloch, Waters Edge Circle, and Avellino Lane be and recorded in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution 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 RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

RESOLUTION NO. 20 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR DEMERY BOULEVARD TO THE CITY LIMITS IN THE BRUNSWICK PLACE SUBDIVISION , AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal,

and regular session convened, that the dedication for Demery Boulevard in the Brunswick Place Subdivision in Section 33 (T17N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and as shown on the plats attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and the same is hereby accepted as dedicated to the public for public use in the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the original plat reflecting the dedication for Demery Boulevard be and recorded in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution 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 RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCES: None.

RESOLUTIONS ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE OR WHICH REQUIRE ONLY ONE READING:

RESOLUTION NO. 16 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A THREE (3) YEAR AGREEMENT WITH THE ARK-LA-TEX AMBASSADORS, INC., AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport desires to support cultural, educational and leisure activity programs which serve the public and render a public service; and

WHEREAS, the Holiday In Dixie Festival is one of several festivals held annually in the City; and

WHEREAS, the Holiday In Dixie Festival provides a benefit to the general public and to visitors to the City by providing an opportunity to celebrate the history of this State.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that Keith Hightower, Mayor, is hereby authorized to execute a three (3) year agreement with the ARK-LA-TEX AMBASSADORS, Inc., to hold the Holiday In Dixie Festival in 2001, 2002 and 2003, substantially in accordance with the draft thereof which was filed with the original copy of this resolution for public inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Council on February 13, 2001.

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

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

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, and Burrell. 4. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Spigener and Serio. 2. Did not cast a vote: Councilman Shyne. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 17 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO DONATE SHREVEPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT K-9 (RAKKIE) TO VERNON TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the City desires to donate the Shreveport Police Department K-9 (Rakkie) to the Vernon, Texas Police Department which serves a public purpose and renders a public service: and

WHEREAS, Ordinance 315 or 1979, requires City Council approval of an agreement made and entered into by the City of Shreveport and any party, whereunder such person receives a donation in return for service which serves a public purpose; and

WHEREAS, the Vernon, Texas Police Department has agreed to accept all responsibility, financial obligations and liability associated with the acceptance of the donation of the retired Shreveport Police Department K-9 (Rakkie); and

WHEREAS, K-9 (Rakkie) was washed out of the program because of a lack of natural drive needed to fit the K-9 program of the Shreveport Police Department and deemed to be surplus of City of Shreveport ; and

WHEREAS, the donation under these circumstances provides for the most humane and dignified way to retire the animal.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the Mayor be and is authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Shreveport and the Shreveport Police Department for the donation of K-9 (Rakkie) to the Vernon, Texas Police Department effective February 20, 2001, substantially the same as the document filed in the Office of the Clerk of Council on February 6, 2001.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all Resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Stewart, seconded by Councilman Burrell.

Councilman Burrell: I think there was a question posed yesterday by Councilman Huckaby as to whether or not this was to be donated to the Chief or to the Police Department, was that clarified? Mr. Thompson: The answer was that in the body of the resolution, it said that it will go to the City for the Police Department.

Resolution passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Spigener and Serio. 2.

RESOLUTION NO. 21 OF 2001

RESOLUTION STATING CITY OF SHREVEPORT’S ENDORSEMENT OF KINZIE & PAYNE BIOCHEMICAL CORPORATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BENEFITS OF THE LOUISIANA ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Act of 901 of 1981, Act 337 of 1982, Act 433 of 1987, Act 1024 of 1992, Act 581 of 1995, Act 624 of 1997, and Act 997 of 1999;

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program offers significant incentives for economic development to some of the most distressed areas in parish, and

WHEREAS, KINZIE & PAYNE BIOCHEMICAL CORPORATION is located in Census Tract 218.00 Block Group 1 , which is a designated Enterprise Zone, and

WHEREAS, said business will employ a minimum of 35% of its employees from the distressed groups targeted by the Enterprise Zone, and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport states this endorsement is in agreement with the Overall Economic Development Plan for the City of Shreveport, and

WHEREAS, the attached Enterprise Zone map is marked showing the location of the business being endorsed, and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program requirements the City of Shreveport agrees:

1. To participate in the Enterprise Zone Program

2. To assist the Department in evaluating progress made in any Enterprise Zone within its

jurisdiction

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shreveport, in due, regular, and legal session convened that KINZIE & PAYNE BIOCHEMICAL CORPORATION and their project KINZIE & PAYNE RELOCATION, Enterprise Zone Application # 2000545, is endorsed to participate in the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the

application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

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

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Stewart seconded by Councilman Carmody passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Spigener and Serio. 2.

RESOLUTION NO. 22 OF 2001

RESOLUTION STATING CITY OF SHREVEPORT’S ENDORSEMENT OF THE TIRE RACK, INC. TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BENEFITS OF THE LOUISIANA ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Act of 901 of 1981, Act 337 of 1982, Act 433 of 1987, Act 1024 of 1992, Act 581 of 1995, Act 624 of 1997, and Act 997 of 1999;

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program offers significant incentives for economic development to some of the most distressed areas in parish, and

WHEREAS, THE TIRE RACK, INC. is located in Census Tract 233.00 Block Group 3 , which is a designated Enterprise Zone, and

WHEREAS, said business will employ a minimum of 35% of its employees from the distressed groups targeted by the Enterprise Zone, and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport states this endorsement is in agreement with the Overall Economic Development Plan for the City of Shreveport, and

WHEREAS, the attached Enterprise Zone map is marked showing the location of the business being endorsed, and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program requirements the City of Shreveport agrees:

1. To participate in the Enterprise Zone Program

2. To assist the Department in evaluating progress made in any Enterprise Zone within its

jurisdiction

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shreveport, in due, regular, and legal session convened that THE TIRE RACK, INC. and their project TIRE DISTRIBUTION FACILITY, Enterprise Zone Application # 20000593, is endorsed to participate in the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the

application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are

hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Stewart, seconded by Councilman Huckaby passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Spigener and Serio. 2.

RESOLUTION NO. 26 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS REGRET TO THE FAIR PARK AND BYRD HIGH SCHOOL BAND MEMBERS AND TO ALL CITIZENS AND VISITORS WHO WERE THE APPARENT VICTIMS OF ASSAULTS OR HARASSMENT BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE DURING THE 2001 KREWE OF CENTAUR AND KREWE OF GEMINI’S PARADES, TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO PREVENT SIMILAR OCCURRENCES AT FUTURE PARADES, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

By: Councilman Roy Burrell

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport is a racially diverse city that actively promotes the elimination of racial prejudice and discrimination, because prejudice and discrimination are wrong and because prejudice and discrimination impede social and economic progress; and

WHEREAS, the Council has received reports that in Shreveport during the Krewe of Centaur parade, African-American members of the Byrd High School Band and members of predominately African-American Fair Park High School Band were the victims of assaults, racial slurs and harassment because of their race; and

WHEREAS, in Bossier City during the Krewe of Gemini parade there is a report of riders on one unidentified float shouting racial epithets at several people viewing the parade; and

WHEREAS, while the City of Shreveport is not legally responsible for the aforementioned acts, the City has entered into contracts in prior years and has authorized contracts in future years with the Krewe of Centaur and the Krewe of Gemini to provide public streets and City resources to hold Mardi Gras parades, and therefore the City of Shreveport wishes to express its extreme disapproval of the acts of racial intolerance and harassment described herein; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport regrets that the aforementioned acts occurred; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport must take decisive steps to insure that similar incidents do not reoccur at Mardi Gras parades in the future.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the City of Shreveport conveys to the members of the Byrd and Fair Park High School Bands who were the apparent victims of assaults and harassment because of their race at the 2001 Krewe of Centaur parade its deepest regrets.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Shreveport conveys its deepest regrets to members of the public who were the apparent victims of assaults and harassment because of their race at the 2001 Krewe of Gemini parade.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Administrative Officer is directed to include in the agreements with the Krewes of Centaur and Gemini, language which requires these Krewes to insure that the sponsors of floats and participants in the parades treat all persons with respect and dignity and language which prohibits the use of racial epithets or harassment because of race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation or disability, and the Mayor is authorized to sign the agreements which includes this language.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Police Chief is directed to investigate reports of racial harassment that occurred in Shreveport; to arrest persons who are guilty of said acts, and to work with the Krewes and utilize additional manpower to insure that similar acts do not occur in the future.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution are to be sent Byrd High School, Fair Park High School, the Caddo Parish School Board and the Kwewe’s of Centaur and Gemini.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby declared severable and repealed.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Carmody passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS :

1. Resolution No. 23 of 2001: A resolution authorizing the Purchasing Agent to dispose by public auction of certain supplies, materials, equipment and vehicles and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 24 of 2001: A resolution authorizing the acceptance of a donation in the amount of Eight Thousand Dollars from the Kiwanis Club of Shreveport, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Resolution No. 27 of 2001: A resolution to amend Resolution No. 172 of 1999 relative to the submission of an application for a loan under Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart for Introduction of the Resolutions to lay over until the March 13, 2001 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Spigener and Serio. 2.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:

1. Ordinance No. 20 of 2001: An ordinance to amend the Code of ordinances, Section 78-4 for requests to control vehicular access on residential streets and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 21 of 2001: An ordinance to enlarge the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - A tract of land located south of Sophia Lane and west of Village Green Drive in Sections 4 and 5 (T16N-R13W), and in Sections 32 and 33 (T17N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and providing with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 22 of 2001: An Ordinance authorizing the Director of Finance to compromise and settle certain amounts due for paving assessments and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

4. Ordinance No. 23 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Purchasing Agent to dispose of surplus real property Lots 119 and 120, of Greenlawn Terrace Subdivision, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

5. Ordinance No. 24 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Purchasing Agent to dispose of surplus real property Lot 4, Unit 2, of South Forest Subdivision and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

6. Ordinance No. 25 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the use of City Equipment and services by the Ark-La-Tex Antique and Classic Vehicle Museum, Inc., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart for Introduction of the Ordinances to lay over until the March 13, 2001 and March 27, 2001 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Serio. 1.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE:

1. Ordinance No. 197 of 2000: An ordinance to repeal Section 2-1 of the Code of Ordinances relative to residency requirements for city officials and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on November 14, 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 to postpone the ordinance until the March 13, 2001 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Serio. 1.

2. Ordinance No. 5 of 2001: An ordinance amending the 2001 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2001 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Huckaby for adoption. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

Amendment No. 1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program A (Buildings and Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for City Hall Annex Renovations (00-A001) by $200,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenue.

In Program B (Recreation Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Valencia Park Basketball Facility (97-B002) by $130,000. Funding source is Community Development Block Grant.

Establish a new project entitled Betty Virginia Park Playground (01-B001) and fund it at $250,000. Funding source is 1997 GOB, Prop. 2 (Parks).

In Program E (Water Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Water Treatment Plant Renovations Phase IV (93-E003) by $448,000. Funding source is 1994 A URB.

Decrease the appropriation for Barksdale Water Main Relocation (99-E004) by $250,000. Funding source is 1994 A URB.

Decrease the appropriation for 60" Water Main Relocation - LA 1 - LA 169 (99-E005) by $200,000. Funding source is 1991 A Utility Revenue Bonds.

Increase the appropriation for City-Wide Water Improvements (00-E002) by $780,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenue.

Decrease the appropriation for 2001 Water Distribution System Improvements, Zone 5 - North Central Region (01-E001) by $780,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

In Program F (Sewer Improvements):

Decrease the appropriation for Cooper Road Treatment Plant Closure (92-F001) by $100,000. Funding source is 1994 A Utility Revenue Bonds.

Correct the funding sources for Improvements at Lucas WWTP (98-F001). Increase 1994 URB by $100,000 and decrease 1991 A URB by $100,000.

Correct the funding sources for 1998 Sewer Main Maintenance and Replacement in the North Central Shreveport Area (98-F012). Increase 1991 URB by $200,000.

Correct the funding source for Lucas and North Regional Expansion (00-F001). Increase Water and Sewer Revenues by $198,000 and decrease 1994 A URB by $198,000.

Decrease the appropriation for City-Wide Sewer Improvements (00-F002) by $200,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Decrease the appropriation for Zone 5 -2000 Project No. 1 - SSO Control Program Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements (01-F001) by $398,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Establish a new project entitled Wallace Lift Station Improvements (01-F003) and fund it at $100,000 from Water and Sewer Revenues.

Establish a new project entitled Stoner Lift Station Improvements (01-F004) and fund it at $100,000 from Water and Sewer Revenues.

Establish a new project entitled Woolworth Road Landfill Sewer Outfall (01-F005) and fund it at $750,000. Funding sources are $200,000 from 1991 A URB, $100,000 from 1994 A URB, $300,000 from 1999 GOB, Prop. 10 (Drainage) and $150,000 from the Caddo Parish School Board.

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

Mayor Hightower: We are unclear at this point, what you guys are fixing to vote on. Councilman Shyne: We are voting on the amendment, I believe, didn’t you say we had two amendments? Mr. Thompson: This is the amendment that was offerered by the Administration, the substitute amendment that was offered by the Administration. Mayor Hightower: Are there not three amendment? Do you not have three amendment. Mr. Thompson: There are three amendments, there is one by the Administration (the substitute amendment) that we are looking at now, one by Mr. Carmody, and then a third by the Administration. Councilman Carmody: Is the agenda incorrect? Mr. Thompson: Yes, it is incorrect. All of the amendments are not included, but all of the amendments have been passed out.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, is this the first amendment that you all want? Mayor Hightower: Yes, sir.

Amendment No. 1 passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Amendment No. 2 by Councilman Carmody:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Paragraph 2. Appropriations

Under Program C (Street Improvements):

Delete project entitled Fant Parkway North Extension, Phase II (01-C008) and funded at $1,700,000. Funding sources are $1,000,000 from 1998 GOB, Prop. 4 (Streets) and $700,000 from 1999 GOB, Prop. 4 (Streets).

Mr. Thompson: By way of explanation on Amendment No. 2, if that is adopted, it will remove from the amendment that you just voted, the Fant Parkway North Extension Phase II project which is funded at $1,700,000 dollars. Councilman Shyne: Correct. Do we all understand that? This amendment was submitted by Councilman Carmody and Councilman Carmody, I would not attempt to explain any of your legislation, would you please.

Councilman Carmody: Yesterday, we had discussed during our work session that the funding that the Administration proposes for extending Clyde Fant Parkway North to the new golf course is basically interest drawn on General Obligation Bonds which were sold concurrent with the approval of the citizens of the City of Shreveport for the 1996 referendum regarding street improvements.

What I had asked the Mayor to provide me with was, a copy of the contract with the golf course developer that required us to extend the Parkway North to the golf course. I had not yet seen that particular piece of information. I’d also asked the Administration to provide me with a map indicating where this Parkway was to commence which we all understand that this determinant where the Parkway where it ends now, but where it would tie back in, I’ve yet to see that either.

My question to the Mayor after the work session yesterday was, if we are not obligated to put a $1.7 million toward the extension of the Clyde Fant Parkway to a golf course, being built by a casino in cooperation of course with the City, but we are not contractual obligated to do so, that the City of Shreveport certainly has a lot of deferred maintenance especially in our streets that certainly could use the benefit of an additional $1.7 million that apparently we found now that we can just use at our discretion to build a road which I don’t see for anybody’s benefit, but golfers and people who are coming here to gain and they are staying in a hotel downtown and would drive north along the Parkway. You can reach the Airport now via the Parkway and following it to its S-turn onto Airport Drive. In that, the Fant Parkway North Extension was not discussed nor a part of the ‘96 bond referendum.

My recommendation to the Administration would be that they had approached this Council member and I’m sure that they approached the others about the necessity to do a bond referendum for street improvements in the City of Shreveport, that this project should be able to stand on its own merits and I would ask my Council members to ask for the Amendment No. 2 to remove the $1.7 million so that it could be utilized to improve the existing streets in the City of Shreveport. I want to commend that the Administration apparently did hear, maybe because I see that Amendment No. 3, is moving some money into concrete panel replacement which is what we discussed last night. I’m happy to see that the Mayor thinks that is a necessity now.

Again, if we were substituting the $1 million to move into concrete replacement, then I would be happy to support that, but I think the proposition is that we are extending the Parkway North. If we are not contractual obligation to do so, and that $1.7 million although it might sound like a small amount of money, can certainly go a long way toward public works that need to be performed on the maintenance of existing streets.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, do you have a rebuttal, we would appreciate it at this time. I am glad to see that you all are keeping on a professional level, no emotions are involved, and no one has accused the other one of being racist, I like that.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, I would ask for just the opposite that Mr. Carmody has asked for. I don’t think that we can afford to be shortsighted and we have got to look at what we are asking you to do is to approve a section, an extension of the Clyde Fant Parkway to tie-in to Airport Drive north which will eventually give us an entire loop around our City that consist of I-220, the Inner Loop, the Outer Loop, a connection to 70^th Street back to the Parkway which will run all the way from 70^th Street all the way up to North Market at I-220 that we don’t currently have, that eastern loop in the City; so, it will give us a full circle, if you will, around the City.

This piece of the Parkway Extension although it has been touted to be for the golf course, it is certainly will be used for the golf course, but we have to build it at some point. We don’t want a road to nowhere, so we got to build it at some point. We did make a verbal commitment to the Hollywood group when they approached us and the Airport Authority about a Jack Nicklaus Course at the downtown Airport. We told them that we would extend the Parkway up and connect into Airport Drive, that’s what we are asking you to do. It is part of a larger project though. So, to think that this is just for golfers or just for gamblers, is not the case. It will be part of the Parkway Extension which is essentially an eastern loop of the City. So, we would ask that you would leave the amendments the way that they were originally. What we have, as Councilman Carmody alluded to, placed in front of you is Amendment No. 3 which will move a million dollars into panel replacement city wide. Is that enough? Probably not. We are always gong to have potholes and panels crack and that type of thing, but I think we have to look broad and we have to maintain. I know that Councilmen Huckaby and Shyne, I believe, and I may be leaving someone out, were talking during the budget session about needing more dollars in the panel replacement program and there was a $200,000 amendment I think, put forth at that time that came amount. And now we are in a position to be able to put an additional million which will go a long way, city wide. But I don’t think that we can abandon the projects that are important to the overall growth of the entire city. And we can look back at what’s more important and where our priority, and that’s fine, and this panel voted a couple of meetings ago to spend $2 million dollars to extend Fern Avenue. I’m one hundred percent for the project, its going to bring about a connection of two streets. It is going to bring about new neighborhood development much as this project will. It is good for the entire City and I think, that’s what we have to look at and not get into any territorial battle.

I would ask that you would defeat moving the extension of the Parkway out of the amendment that you just passed, and then I would ask on Amendment No. 3, that you approve it which will put $1 million dollars into street panel replacement for concrete street.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate you for not chastising me for smiling or walking while you were speaking, and I know this is a serious issue.

Councilman Carmody: And I reiterate, I think the Mayor and I are both in agreement that you could not put enough money toward maintenance and repairs that are needed within the City of Shreveport. I again commend the Administration for the million dollars proposed in Amendment No. 3. I would say that if we could make it $2.7 million by not building what you have termed a, road to nowhere, I think that bodes well for the citizens of this community to see that our priorities are not just along the riverfront downtown, that we want to address deferred maintenance in the city limits to the citizens who live here.

And I would ask my fellow Council members to consider the fact that this sends a message. If our Mayor has verbally committed to Hollywood to work to extend the Parkway, he has done so, but he has not signed a contract. And that this development is not contingent upon the building of this road, which may benefit the master plan at some point in the future, but won’t see benefit to citizens of this community other than and unless they want to go play at this golf course. So, my request is that you consider when we vote on this amendment, that again, this would be a vote to put the money back into public works. We all know we can not put enough money into it, but lets not pass an opportunity where we have fond a birdnest on the ground that is $1.7 million and vote to extend the Parkway north for a golf course. And lets move the money or allow us the opportunity to look at where the money could be more wisely utilized to help the citizens in the residential areas of this community.

Councilman Serio: I have got over the past couple of months with the construction that we’ve had on I-20, I’ve had the opportunity to use North Market to 220 more than ever. And one of the issues with the traffic is that I find that when I do business in Bossier City that I could always get to North Bossier much easier through North Market than up some of the streets in Bossier, just quite frankly, because of the fear of getting caught by a train.

And one of the issues is that one nice thing about using the Expressway and one of the nice issues of using Fant Parkway, is that the traffic flows and that it flows very easily. And finally completing this and I know we spent a lot of money in the last Administration bringing the Parkway from the riverfront to where it is now, towards the proposed golf course, towards the Airport, I can see the need for completing this and getting it out to and connecting it to 220. I mean, if you are coming into the city of Shreveport, you can loop around 220, take the easy access which will bring down to our riverfront and it is not just the casinos, but it is also to our Expo Hall, to our Festival Plaza, as well as our Convention Center, the development that we are having in Convention Center.

I look forward to completing this project and I think it is a project for the completion of our riverfront is essentially. And we have the opportunity to move forward on it. I think this is an issue that while or riverfront is developing, while we are spending as much money on our riverfront, it makes no sense to stand back and stop and say, lets worry about this at a later time. Now is the time to complete the economic development on the riverfront. That is where our future for downtown Shreveport is and I mean with development, we wouldn’t be pumping as much money into the Convention Center if the City has (inaudible) and I hope that we will continue forward with this and complete this project and complete Fant Parkway up to 220, it only makes sense. It brings people to my district from the far end out to LSU with one stop, one red-light all the way from LSU all the way up to North Market. It works out very well. It even goes through Mr. Carmody’s district and Mr. Stewart’s district. It connects all of us together and it is a good project for us and I hope that we will pass this and move forward with it.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor before we come to you and I hope that you won’t say that I am mistreating you, because I’m not letting you speak right now. Let me come to Councilman Huckaby and I have to be careful about doing this because I don’t want to make you think that I’m playing favoritism.

Councilman Huckaby: This project is in my district, but it affects the overall growth of the entire City. And with all due respect to Mr. Carmody and his argument, I request that my colleagues here, defeat Mr. Carmody’s amendment and pass this legislation as proposed by the Administration. I believe that it is good for the entire city. The argument made by Mr. Serio is one that I support and I certainly want to see this legislation passed as proposed, therefore, I ask that you vote no on the amendment proposed by Mr. Carmody. Councilman Shyne: Councilman Huckaby, that was a pretty strong word, defeat, but. . . .Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Hightower: I just want to make clear, that this piece of the Parkway Extension in no way jeopardizes the golf venue at the Downtown Airport. We simply made a verbal commitment to the Hollywood folks that we would extend the Parkway because that’s part of our overall plan. We are going to extend the Parkway at some point anyway and the only thing we are asking to do today is to move this section up in that program, and hopefully when we go back in July, we’ll have the dollars it takes necessary to complete the loop around the city. I don’t want to make anybody think that this is, we are going to lose the golf course if we don’t do this. This is an overall good city wide circular, loopular, whatever you may want to call it, program and project for the City, that will benefit every single one of us and it will certainly be a big benefit once it is completed to get traffic in and out of downtown Shreveport. And, anybody that has been on the Parkway over the past several months, since Hollywood opened in particular, we need access out of downtown somewhere other than I-20 and when the Convention Center opens up, we are going to be, in the same type situation. And if we have a Parkway that gets people back to 220 to get them back out of town, we are all going to be better off for it and we should plan ahead and not react to the problem as we find ourselves doing in many cases.

But again, I would ask that you follow the lead of Councilman Serio and Councilman Huckaby, reject this amendment and then vote for Amendment No. 3 and I think it will do some of the panel replacement that Councilman Carmody had asked for.

Councilman Carmody: My last comment would be, again, the Administration has asked each of us to consider a bond referendum in which the community would have input on where these funds would be spent as opposed to them being placed, because of a verbal commitment. I think that as we all know in any part of this City there are many projects which need to be addressed that we deal with every day. Many have to do with streets. With $240,000 placed in the budget and I’ve only served now for 2 years on this Council, but we have had less than a quarter of a million dollars placed in concrete replacement for a city that has, I don’t know how many miles of concrete. It is not a drop in the bucket. If this project, as the Mayor told me last night, bodes for itself, can stand for itself, it is a good project then let the public have the opportunity to decide if they want to support it and that their money be placed there. The public already owns the streets that we have that need funds placed into them to maintain them. Granted, the million dollars that he has now added as Amendment No. 3, fantastic, I applaud it. I ask this Council to support me as well as Amendment No. 2 in trying to prioritize the fact that these funds are interest from ‘96 bond referendum for Streets. This particular extension was not a project that was even discussed during the bond referendum. This is the desire of the Administration to extend this street north to, in essence, the golf course. Maybe one day it will be circular. I don’t have anybody calling me saying, I can’t get up to North Market and I-220 fast enough. I have not had anybody call saying, Mr. Carmody it is very difficult for me to get to my home in Cherokee Park. So I see the beneficiaries of spending a $1.7 million being those who are not residents of this community, who are coming here to game which is fine, I encourage that, if that’s what their choice is for recreation, great. If they want to golf, great. All of these things are amenities which help our community, but for us to spend $1.7 million to provide a secondary road to come into a development that already has the road there, I think is not fair to the public. Put the issue before the public. Let them discuss the merits of extending the Parkway. If that is their desire, I’ll go to the polls with the rest of them, I’ll vote my conscious and I will vote my conscious now. And I ask you all to do the same. I expect you to do the same and I would ask your support on Amendment No. 2.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, I will vote in your direction. I want you to understand that this is not a vote against Councilman Carmody. I feel like that we do need the progress in that area. I was contacted by a citizen that live in that area, Mrs. Griffin, who says that she needs a faster and quicker way to get to Cherokee Park. And I don’t know whether you had called Councilman Carmody or not and that is why Cherokee Park came up, but this is not a vote in opposition of Councilman Carmody and I will vote for the extension of the Parkway.

Councilman Stewart: I’ve spent a fair amount of time talking with the Mayor and a greater amount of time talking with Mr. Carmody and one of the things that has developed from it is, a discussion that the three of us could go over some of the mutual benefits that we see, but see from different positions.

Early today I offered some legislation, having had a conversation with the developer who are associated with Hollywood, but not Hollywood proper. I do find without question and I had not thought about it that I made a commitment to those people, that had to do with the enhancement of the golf course. I did not create that for either one of you, but it became very clear because I did ask at the time, what is it that you need and that was part and parcel to it.

I give that an explanation saying how I will vote, but also, recognizing that I did not realize the source of these funds and I understand the legitimacy of what we had posed by Mr. Carmody and I would hope that based on my conversations with each of you, that when you reach these points in the future, that we will all be together but I do understand that they are different opinions. The time frame for the golf course and the commitment and also as the Mayor knows, my significant interest in the expansion of the Airport, we are calculated with it. I appreciate you allowing me to speak.

Councilman Spigener: I do want to clarify and I’m sure the Mayor has done this through his Legal Department, that the interest from these bonds are not legally tied to the projects that were approved through the bond issue? In other words, we can use these funds, legally, to do what we are doing or what you have asked us to do? Mayor Hightower: Yes, ma’am. As I explained to Councilman Carmody yesterday, as long as they are street GOBs, we have to use them for streets. We couldn’t use them for water and sewer, for instance, so, yes we are in good shape as far as that goes.

Councilman Shyne: Councilman Burrell, do you have anything that you would like to say? I want to make sure that we get comments from every Council member and then Councilman Carmody, I don’t mean any harm by stopping you.

Councilman Burrell: Mr. Chairman, that is nice of you at this point, but I think I addressed mine yesterday that this particular street, as I understand will open up an opportunity for other (inaudible).

Councilman Carmody: . . . made along the Youree Drive Corridor in conjunction with the state funded redevelopment of that street that there is a necessity for us to address the infrastructure of the water and sewer lines which are underneath that roadway which appear to be, not only dilapidated but breaking. My question then would have to be, there is not a possibility of using this $1.7 million dedicated to streets in conjunction with the state in the redevelopment of Youree Drive in order to cooperate with them to help accomplish the needed improvements along that corridor.

Mayor Hightower: Not for what you are asking, not for water and sewer improvements. We could decide to use those dollars to enhance or add to the state highway project. It has been the city’s policy for ever and I’ll contend that it should remain the city’s policy not to main the state’s highway. As you stated earlier, we have enough of our own to try to maintain. But I, for the past 10 years, as you have for the past 2 have been a proponent for Youree Drive and what needs to be done for it. One of the very first things I did when I became City Council was go to Baton Rouge and say, by God we gotta have this fixed. It was terrible back in 1990 and it is getting that way again. It has had one overlay since then. But the question that you asked me and the response, I think has been sent back to you is, that to put the utilities underground which again, I’m a proponent for and that was the original design of the re-do and tear up of Highway 1/Youree Drive from Kings Highway all the way down to Sand Beach and now the state is coming back and saying that it is an $11 million dollar project, roughly to put the utilities underground. We’ve got a decision to make at this point, to we hold on until they round up $10 or $11 million more dollars. I don’t think so. I think we’ve got to continue to push, but in the overall scope. . .

Councilman Carmody: That was your comment in the letter, continue to push and I guess as the Council member from that district, I’m continuing to push to ask the question again, we are not talking about placing utilities underground, could we possible seek an opinion as to whether or not these funds could be utilized to participate with the State in order to accomplish the needed repairs to the water and sewer and to the roadway? Mayor Hightower; We don’t need an opinion for that. I’m real clear and I think the Legal Department is real clear, history is real clear, you can not use GOB bonds for anything other than the category they are dedicated for, and in this case, it is streets. Nothing to do with water and sewer, that’s a whole different animal. So, these particular funds, the answer to your question is, no we can not do that.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, so in streets, we mean building of new streets as in the extension of the Parkway North? Mayor Hightower: Building or repair of street, brand new streets.

Councilman Carmody: Repair of streets. Mayor Hightower: Brand new streets.

Councilman Carmody: Brand new streets or repair of streets. Mayor Hightower: Absolutely.

Councilman Carmody: And I wanted to clarify that one more time, repair of streets because we are about to vote to basically take a $1.7 which as I said, is interest on bonds that this particular project was not even discussed in and then utilize that money to build a road that was verbally promised and not contractual committed to by the City of Shreveport. Mayor Hightower: I want to make one last comment and I’m sure Councilman Carmody will after that as well, but. . . .Councilman Carmody: We can stay here all night. Councilman Burrell: No, we won’t.

Mayor Hightower: We do not, the contract and I’ll say it again, the contract with the golf course is germane to the golf course. It is not germane to the Parkway. The Parkway has nothing to do with the golf course other than we are moving that segment of the project up in priority, part of a project we are going to complete down the road anyway. That is the only tie and it is a tie through a verbal commitment by myself, by the Airport Authority, apparently by Councilman Stewart in some fashion. So, there is no real debate here are we contractually obligated. We are not, not at all.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, that was my understand, yesterday from the work session but I apparently was misinformed. Mayor Hightower: Okay. Then I’m glad I brought that up, because I want to make that perfectly clear that we are not contractually obligated and the Parkway and golf course are not germane to each other than the fact that users of both may happen at the same time.

Councilman Carmody: Yesterday, we were advised that the contract included a provision to that affect. As I said, I have not seen that rendered to me, but today you clarified that no, indeed that it was not. Apparently we were just wrong, yesterday, correct? Mayor Hightower: Correct. The only thing that we have obligated from a road standpoint and I stand to be corrected here, but I believe it is a 50-50 match up to about $350,000 each to put the road into the golf course up to the clubhouse itself, but that includes roads, utilities.

Councilman Carmody: So this $1.7 million is not part of what you contractually agreed to spend already in the contract, so that is over and above the $1.7 million for extending the road? Mayor Hightower: That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: I hope you all understood that as well. Mr. Antee: If I may Councilman Shyne, I think the misunderstanding yesterday was partly my fault because of the misunderstanding in the road. We are contractually obligated for a road that is estimated to cost about $700,000 to which the developers of the golf course will pay half of to get it from Airport Drive to the clubhouse which is through the Airport property and that’s the reason for the confusion yesterday. We are contractually obligated for that, with a match.

Councilman Carmody: And that is just to build a road from the existing Airport Drive into the golf course, correct? Mr. Antee: Correct, around the runway and into the actual golf course where the clubhouse will be, and that was the source of confusion.

Councilman Carmody: It will tie into the existing road as we have it already out there, Airport Drive, is that correct? Mr. Antee: That is correct.

Councilman Spigener: Obviously, I missed part of this discussion yesterday. I’m a little confused about the roads, now. The one that is proposed at this point to go into the golf course, the clubhouse is it not along the same route as the Parkway; its different? In other words, if the Parkway is extended, will we need the road. . .Mayor Hightower: Yes. Councilman Spigener: . .the road that is leading to the clubhouse? Mayor Hightower: Yes. Councilman Spigener: So, these are two different issues? Mayor Hightower: Two different. The road that Councilman Carmody asked about last, the $350,000 match road, is actually on Airport property.

Councilman Spigener: And it will be constructed regardless of what we do about the Parkway? Mayor Hightower: It will, hopefully.

Councilman Spigener: And both are necessary if we extend the Parkway, the other street or the other road is necessary also? Mayor Hightower: Yes.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, I do appreciate the million dollars that you put in there. I hope next year we can get another million dollars because we do need and I agree with Councilman Carmody, that we do need monies in order to improve the streets that we have already.

Councilman Carmody: You could get us $1.7 million now, Joe; just so that you know.

Councilman Shyne: And Mrs. Griffin, I do agree with you on trying to hurry up on get you home.

Councilman Spigener: One more comment to the Mayor, I am assuming with this $1.7 million, that we are now proposing to put into street overlay or concrete or whatever, that it will be very fairly distributed among the districts and that we will look at this very carefully as to where we spend the money? Mayor Hightower: Absolutely.

Councilman Spigener: I have that commitment? Mayor Hightower: Yes, ma’am.

Councilman Shyne: And do I also have that commitment? Mayor Hightower: Everybody does, some of you have more panels than others.

(Discussion began before the motion was made). Amendment No. 2 denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Ayes: Councilman Carmody. 1.

Amendment No. 3:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program C (Street Improvements):

Establish a new project entitled Concrete Street Panel Replacement (01-C009) and fund it at $1,000,000. Funding sources are $500,000 from 1993 B GOB, Prop. 1 and $500,000 from 1999 GOB, Prop. 4.

Motion by Councilman Huckaby, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of Amendment No. 3. Motion approved by the following vote: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

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

3. Ordinance No. 8 of 2001: 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 N. Market and Hearne Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-2, Neighborhood Business District to I-2, Heavy Industry District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2001 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 to passage.

Councilman Huckaby: I am proposing this legislation. There were a number of persons in the audience, many of whom have left and cause a letter to be spent to each one of you giving my reason for our position to this legislation but I certainly would appreciate your vote in defeating this in overturning the ruling of the Metropolitan Planning Commission.

Councilman Shyne: If you have some people in the audience who are against it, I would ask them to please stand at this time. Councilman Huckaby: There are just a few remaining. . . Councilman Shyne: . and recognize you. (Ms. Griffith’s remarks from the audience were inaudible. ) God bless you all for coming down. This is what a democracy is all about. . (Ms. Griffith’s remarks from the audience were inaudible. ) Mr. Thompson: Mr. Shyne. Councilman Carmody: Subject of a public hearing. Councilman Shyne: I am sorry you are exactly right. I should have. . . Councilman Huckaby: I’m asking for a no vote.

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

Councilman Shyne: Ms. Griffith, that was sweet of you to slip that in. We were not suppose to hear that. Ms. Griffin: I apologize. Councilman Shyne: Thank you, it is not very many people who will apologize.

4. Ordinance No. 13 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the donation of certain city-owned property located at 6700 Southern Avenue to H.E.L.P.S. Outreach Ministries, Inc. and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2001 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 (I would expect a yes vote,) seconded by Councilman Serio approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Shyne: Reverend, I believe you have some people with you. We are looking for great works. We are indeed happy to be able to donate this property to such people who are about taking care of the business of helping those some times who are not able to help themselves. We would hope that from time to time that you would come back and bring your people with you and let us know the kind of progress that you are doing and we do hope that you would officially invite us out from time to time because some of us might have some special talents that we could volunteer to your program.

These are the kinds of programs that we need in our communities. You all are the kind of people that we need in our communities who are about the business of really believing that I am my brother’s keeper. May God bless you. I would ask you to say something, but I can’t do it at this particular time. When the meeting is over with, I would ask you to thank and congratulate every Council member and the Administration; thank you very much and I love working with you all.

5. Ordinance No. 14 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the east side of Woolworth, 2,800 ft. north of Buncombe Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-A, Residence Agriculture District to I-1, Light Industry District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Councilman Burrell: I talked with the owners on this and I know that there were some problems that they had before. Have those particular situations been cleared up to your satisfaction? Mr. Kirkland: Let me clarify, the Planning Commission was opposed to this and denied it, but I can respond on behalf of the Staff. From the staff’s position, we had several meetings with the applicant and the City Engineering Department related to drainage and other concerns and the engineering officials were satisfied that all of the requirements could be met by the developer.

This was one where clearly the owners of the property, got their cart way in front the horse, sort of doing improvements before getting any sort of zoning or permits or anything so they were coming in somewhat after the fact and the bottom line is we think all requirements can be met and we are not aware of any objection of any one in the area and I know that is not the only criteria and those are staff comments. A majority of the Board was opposed to it and did deny it.

Councilman Burrell: in your summation, the improvements prior to the time of them getting the zoning, there was no intent to circumvent the City? Mr. Kirkland: No. It was just a owner out in the country doing what they thought was right and frankly just proceeding which I think we all know that the further you get out in the country, the more folks are prone to do their thing and they found out a little bit late in the game, that there were requirements that they had to meet and then they presented all of the documents necessary to begin to come into compliance.

Councilman Spigener: What was the vote of the MPC? Mr. Kirkland: I believe it was 5 to 3 against to deny it. I’d have to look back at my record, it is in my brief case, but it was a majority of the board members against it primarily because two of the board members typically will vote against any sort of development in the parish or the rural type area, even though this is in the city, they typically will vote against them and that was just the way the votes fell on this one even though the Chair had been in one the meetings withe the applicant and had indicated they would support them. But this one kind of went all over the map as far as around the mulberry bush. All I can do is give you my opinion, the Board voted no. My opinion was that there was a way to work this out and I doubt Councilman, you would have probably heard from some of the constituents as you well know, if there is any opposition. The applicant agreed to a number of limitations after they had filed to not develop the industrial property abutting the mobile home park and a number of other things.

Councilman Spigener: I’m sure we must have a map. Are there residential properties other than a mobile home park that abut this. Mr. Kirkland: No, that’s a very sparsely developed area and I think your vicinity shows it fairly clearly, but there was not one person including the owner of that mobile home park that was opposed to this. It was just one of those days, I guess you might say.

Councilman Burrell: So that’s another case where there is certain ideologies, that certain of the MPC members may have as it relates to development in the rural area? Mr. Kirkland: I have to be careful, I work for them, they can fire me.

Councilman Burrell: We’ll leave it at that, I don’t want you to get fired. Mr. Kirkland: All I’ll say is, they have their reasons and we try to support whatever their decision was, but there are clearly some differences of opinion.

Councilman Burrell: Mr. Thompson, what will we have to do in order to, I guess we need a no vote to uphold the zoning appeal? Ms. Glass: In this case, what you have pending before you is an ordinance to do the rezoning, so if you are opposed to the rezoning, you would vote no. If you are in favor of it, you would vote yes.

Councilman Burrell: Under the circumstances, I have not gotten any rebuttals against this particular situation; so, I uphold the rezoning of this piece of property. I am asking for a vote of yes. Ms. Glass: If you wanted to rezone it, it would be a vote yes.

Having passed first reading on February 13, 2001 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 Serio adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

6. Ordinance No. 15 of 2001: An ordinance to amend certain provisions of Section 10-192 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to alcoholic beverages and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on February 13, 2001 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 Stewart for adoption.

Councilman Spigener: This is an ordinance that will keep SPAR from coming back to us each year as we discussed yesterday, to have tennis tournaments that are sponsored by beverage companies. This, I have been asked by SPAR to sponsor this. We vote for each year, so this would just make it permanent and we won’t have to address it every year.

Councilman Burrell: This only applies to tennis tournaments, Councilwoman Spigener and that is that only a particular park or is it for the other tennis parks? Councilman Spigener: I would think that it would be any park where there are tennis courts.

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

7. Ordinance No. 16 of 2001: An ordinance to enlarge the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - A tract of land located along the South Lakeshore Drive in Fractional Section 5 (T17N-R14W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on February 13, 2001 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 Burrell for adoption.

Councilman Shyne: I believe this is the piece of legislation that we had the public hearing on.

Councilman Burrell: I just wanted to direct this at the Mayor and in this case, give his position as the Mayor of this City on this annexation over in west Shreveport that is on the Lakeshore property. Mayor Hightower: In general, that is part of what I went to Washington to talk about was smart growth and how we should look to grow the City. When I first came into office, we did want to be pretty aggressive at annexation for the Census purpose, that is. Obviously, I’d not heard the case as most of you have not heard the case that was before the MPC and either coming here was before the Commission., but in general, we want to annex pieces of property that are in the city limits so that we don’t have to go out 5 miles out the road and extend water and sewer and police and fire. In general, I think we do want to annex inside the city and whether you chose to annex this piece or not, I guess you have to make that decision for yourselves, but that’ll be it for the Council.

Councilman Burrell: We’ve talked about urban sprawl, that is going way out from our main facility and extending our city’s boundaries far out because it increases the expense as it relates to our budget in terms of fire protection, water, sewer and things of that nature. This is a piece of property that is within 5 minutes or 10 minutes of downtown, our central downtown area and it sits in almost like a cul-de-sac, a pocket. And of all annexations we’ve done, I’ve never seen more of a clear cut case in this situation. Now, whatever we decide to do with this, then fine, but it can’t be because, one thing it is precedent setting and it is not. It is a smart move because we are able to utilize existing infrastructure that we already have placed that actually runs past this property; so, we are not incurring any additional expense associated with it.

We need the development in west Shreveport. I applaud the development in southeast Shreveport. Pat, we don’t have very much development in southwest Shreveport, we are losing business at this time. We show here people in this area and also around Pines Road and I-20 that support development in west Shreveport because we need more. It also supports the commercial areas that we are trying to develop around the Queensborough area; this is not 10 blocks from there. So, we talk about revitalizing our area and I think this is a good way of starting it. And since we are only talking about annexation and not rezoning, you still have an opportunity to kill it, but at the same time, I don’t think this annexation issue. I think we will be setting a new precedent if we don’t consider the annexation of this property. I know that it will support businesses and residents, I mean, businesses in my district which is adjoining it.

Councilman Huckaby: With all due respect to my friend Mr. Ron Weems and to my constituents in District A who are in opposition to this legislation, I support this annexation. I support it because I believe that we need grow in that area of the city. Persons who purchase $100,000 homes will be just of proud of their homes as those of you who live in $2000,000+ homes and I believe that they will take good care of their property. I believe that they will be good neighbors if you want to consider them neighbors even though there is a buffer between this project and the area in which most of you live. So, I ask that we vote to annex this area into the City. I believe that it is good for the growth of the City. It is a good project and I ask for your support.

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

8. Ordinance No. 17 of 2001: An ordinance amending the 2001 Community Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto

Having passed first reading on February 13, 2001 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 for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Under Prior-Year Funds, increase Transfer to Capital Projects by $130,000. Decrease Lot Purchases by $130,000.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart 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 Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart 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.

The adopted Ordinances as amended, follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 5 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET 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 2001 Capital Improvements Budget to add a recreation project , to move funds within drainage and water and sewer projects 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. 175 of 2000, the 2001 Capital Improvements Budget, be further amended and re-enacted as follows:

In Program A (Buildings and Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for City Hall Annex Renovations (00-A001) by $200,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenue.

In Program B (Recreation Improvements):

Establish a new project entitled Riverfront Marina Barge (01-B001) and fund it at $300,000 from Riverfront Development.

In Program B (Recreation Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Valencia Park Basketball Facility (97-B002) by $130,000. Funding source is Community Development Block Grant.

Establish a new project entitled Betty Virginia Park Playground (01-B001) and fund it at $250,000. Funding source is 1997 GOB, Prop. 2 (Parks).

In Program C (Street Improvements):

Establish a new project entitled Fant Parkway North Extension, Phase II (01-C008) and fund it at $1,700,000. Funding sources are $1,000,000 from 1998 GOB, Prop. 4 (Streets ) and $700,000 from 1999 GOB, Prop. 4 (Streets).

Establish a new project entitled Concrete Street Panel Replacement (01-C009) and fund it at $1,000,000. Funding sources are $500,000 from 1993 B GOB, Prop. 1 and $500,000 from 1999 GOB, Prop. 4.

In Program D (Drainage Improvements):

Decrease the appropriation for Idema Drainage (97-D004) by $60,000. Funding source is 1999 GOB, Prop. 4 (Drainage).

Increase the appropriation for Pinecroft Subdivision Drainage (99-D004) by $60,000. Funding source is 1999 GOB, Prop. 4 (Drainage).

In Program E (Water Improvements):

Decrease the appropriation for Water Treatment Plant Renovations, Phase IV (93-E003) by $948,000. Funding source is 1994 A URB.

In Program E (Water Improvements):

Decrease the appropriation for 60" Water Main Relocation - LA 1 - LA 169 (99-E005) by $200,000. Funding source is 1991 A Utility Revenue Bonds.

Increase the appropriation for City-Wide Water Improvements (00-E002) by $780,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenue.

Decrease the appropriation for 2001 Water Distribution System Improvements, Zone 5 - North Central Region (01-E001) by $780,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

In Program F (Sewer Improvements):

Decrease the appropriation for Sewer Main Improvements Blanchard Road/Havanna (91-F002) by $51,900. Funding source is 1989 A URB.

Decrease the appropriation for Grit Removal Facilities at Lucas and North Regional (94-F003) by $514,000. Funding source is 1994 A URB.

Increase the appropriation for SSO Abatement Program (98-F004) by $371,900. Funding sources are $262,000 from Water & Sewer Revenues, $51,900 from 1989 A URB and $58,000 from 1990 A URB.

Decrease the appropriation for North regional WWTP Roadway Improvements (98-F007) by $1,458,000. Funding sources are $1,400,000 from Water and Sewer Revenues and $58,000 from 1990 A URB.

Increase the appropriation for Lucas and North Regional WWTP Expansion (00-F001) by $2,600,000. Funding sources are $1,138,000 from Water and Sewer Revenues and $1,462,000 from 1994 A URB.

Decrease the appropriation for Cooper Road Treatment Plant Closure (92-F001) by $100,000. Funding source is 1994 A Utility Revenue Bonds.

Correct the funding sources for Improvements at Lucas WWTP (98-F001). Increase 1994 URB by $100,000 and decrease 1991 A URB by $100,000.

Correct the funding sources for 1998 Sewer Main Maintenance and Replacement in the North Central Shreveport Area (98-F012). Increase 1991 URB by $200,000.

Decrease the appropriation for City-Wide Sewer Improvements (00-F002) by $200,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Decrease the appropriation for Zone 5 -2000 Project No. 1 - SSO Control Program Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements (01-F001) by $200,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Establish a new project entitled Wallace Lift Station Improvements (01-F003) and fund it at $100,000 from Water and Sewer Revenues.

Establish a new project entitled Stoner Lift Station Improvements (01-F004) and fund it at $100,000 from Water and Sewer Revenues.

Establish a new project entitled Woolworth Road Landfill Sewer Outfall (01-F005) and fund it at $750,000. Funding sources are $200,000 from 1991 A URB, $100,000

from 1994 A URB, $300,000 from 1999 GOB, Prop. 10 (Drainage) and $150,000 from the Caddo Parish School Board.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance 175 of 2000, as amended, shall remain 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 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.

ORDINANCE NO. 13 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE DONATION OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6700 SOUTHERN AVENUE TO H.E.L.P.S. OUTREACH MINISTRIES, INC., AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport ("City") is the owner of property located at 6700 Southern Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana ("the property"); and

WHEREAS, the property was acquired from the Town of Cedar Grove July 24, 1944 as a result of the consolidation of the Town of Cedar Grove and the Village of South Highlands with the City of Shreveport, Louisiana; and

WHEREAS, the property is not needed by the City for a public purpose; and

WHEREAS, the City has received a request from H.E.L.P.S. Outreach Ministries, Inc., a duly organized non-profit corporation of the State of Louisiana, to donate the property to the organization for use in its tutoring and mentoring programs; and

WHEREAS, Article 7 §§ 14 of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana of 1974, as amended, prohibits the loan, pledge or donation of public funds, credits, property or things of value unless used for programs of social welfare for the aid and support of the needy; and

WHEREAS, the donation of the property to the ministry will provide a benefit to the citizens of the City of Shreveport by providing tutoring and mentoring services to area youth which is a permissible exception to Article 7 §§ 14 of the state Constitution; and

WHEREAS, LSA-R.S. 33:4712 authorizes the City to donate property not needed for a public purpose after publication of a notice in the official journal of the City at least three (3) times within fifteen (15) days, one week apart; and

WHEREAS, LSA-R.S. 41: 1338 provides that prior to disposition of public property to a third party, the City shall offer to sell the property, ast fair market value, to the original vendor or their heirs or successors; and

WHEREAS, the consolidation of the Town of Cedar Grove resulted in the dissolution and abolishment of the governing authority of the Town of Cedar Grove, therefore, no heirs or successors of the previous vendor exist; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to donate and H.E.L.P.S Outreach Ministries, Inc., desires to accept the donation of the property; and

WHEREAS, the donation shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) The property shall be available for use by all citizens and neighborhood groupslocated within the City of Shreveport, if requested, and subject to availability;

(2) The donation is made without warranty of title by the City of Shreveport; and

(3) Title to the property shall at all times remain in the name of H.E.L.P.S OutreachMinistries, Inc., or its successor organizations unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City of Shreveport.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened that the City of Shreveport is hereby authorized to donate the property located at 6700 Southern Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, to H.E.L.P.S. Outreach Ministries, Inc., subject to the following conditions:

(1) The property shall be available for use by all citizens and neighborhood groupslocated within the City of Shreveport, if requested, and subject to availability;

(2) The donation is made without warranty of title by the City of Shreveport; and

(3) Title to the property shall at all times remain in the name of H.E.L.P.S Outreach Ministries, Inc., or its successor organizations unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all documents relative to the donation of the property to H.E.L.P.S. Outreach Ministries, Inc.

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 repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 14 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WOOLWORTH, 2,800 FT. NORTH OF BUNCOMBE ROAD, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-A, RESIDENCE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT TO I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRY 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 after having earlier been considered and denied at a public hearing by the Shreveport Metropolitan Planning Commission of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, that the zoning classification of property located on the East side of Woolworth, 2,800 ft. north of Buncombe Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from R-A, Residence Agriculture District to I-1, Light Industry District:

In Section 3, T16N-R15W, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, said tract being more fully described as follows:

From the NW corner of Section 3, T16N-R15W, run East a distance of 40.05 feet to a ½ " iron pipe, said point being on the East R-O-W of Woolworth Road;

Thence run along the easterly R-O-W of Woolworth Road S0º39'15"E a distance of 884.51 feet to the P-O-B;

Thence run S88º49'36"E a distance of 1277.76 feet;

Thence run S0º47'31"W a distance of 208.71 feet;

Thence run N88º49'36"W a distance of 208.71 feet;

Thence run S0º47'31"W a distance of 208.28 feet;

Thence run N88º49'36"W a distance of 1068.24 feet to a point on the easterly R-O-W of Woolworth Road;

Thence run along the easterly R-O-W of Woolworth Road NOº39'15"W a distance of 417.72 feet to the P-O-B;

Said tract containing 11.24 acres more or less.

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

1. The eastern 208.51 feet of the property shall be excluded.

2. Overall development of the property shall be in substantial accord with the plan submitted with any significant changes, including site plans for the other lots, requiring further review and approval by the 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.

ORDINANCE NO. 15 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10-192 OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened that Section 10-192 (b) of the Code of Ordinance of the City of Shreveport is hereby amended now read as follows:

Sec. 10-192. Sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in city parks prohibited - Exceptions.

***

(b) The sale of alcoholic beverages by city-approved concessionaires, the consumption

of such alcoholic beverages by individuals who have purchase the alcoholic beverages from such concessionaires, or the consumption of alcoholic beverages provided by sponsors or co-sponsors of athletic events in city-owned parks or park facilities, shall be permitted at the following city-owned parks and park facilities, subject to the following limitations and zoning approval:

(3) Fairgrounds Field: Sale and consumption of beverages of low and high alcoholic content shall be permitted.

(4) Independence Stadium: Sale and consumption of beverages of low alcoholic content shall be permitted, with the exception that beverages of high alcoholic content may be sold and consumed in the skybox section.

(5) Querbes Golf Course: The sale and consumption of beverages of low alcoholic content and wine only shall be permitted.

(6) Huntington Park Golf Course: The sale and consumption of beverages of low and high alcoholic content shall be permitted.

(7) Lakeside Golf Course: The sale and consumption of beverages of low alcoholic content and wine only shall be permitted.

(8) Hirsch Coliseum: The sale and consumption of beverages of low and high alcoholic content shall be permitted.

(9) Southern Hills Tennis Center: The consumption of beverages of low alcoholic content shall be permitted only during tournaments in which the sponsor of the tournament has executed a contract with or paid a rental fee to the City or the City’s contractor for use of the facility, and the alcoholic beverages are manufactured by the sponsor or co-sponsor of the tournament.

(10) Querbes Tennis Center: The consumption of beverages of low alcoholic content shall be permitted only during tournaments in which the sponsor of the tournament has executed a contract with or paid a rental fee to the City or the City’s contractor for use of the facility, and the alcoholic beverages are manufactured by the sponsor or co-sponsor of the tournament.

(11) Cockrell Tennis Center: The consumption of beverages of low alcoholic content shall be permitted only during tournaments in which the sponsor of the tournament has executed a contract with or paid a rental fee to the City or the City’s contractor for use of the facility, and the alcoholic beverages are manufactured by the sponsor or co-sponsor of the tournament.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Section 10-192 (c) of the Code of Ordinance of the City

of Shreveport is hereby amended now read as follows:

Sec. 10-192. Sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in city parks prohibited - Exceptions.

***

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or consume any alcoholic beverages

at any of the city parks or park facilities enumerated in this section unless such alcoholic beverages have been purchased from a city-approved concessionaire or, the alcoholic beverages are provided by the sponsor or co-sponsor of a tennis tournament in a tennis center listed above; the sponsor or co-sponsor of the tournament has executed a contract with or paid a rental fee to the City or the City’s contractor for the use of the tennis center; and, the alcoholic beverages are manufactured by the sponsor or co-sponsor of the tournament.

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 application 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.

ORDINANCE NO. 17 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 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 2001 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund to appropriate unspent prior-year funds 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. 183 of 2000, the 2001 Budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund, be further amended and re-enacted as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

In 2000 and Prior-Year Funds, increase appropriation for Prior-Year HOME Entitlement by $800,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

In Prior-Year Funds, under HOME, appropriate $800,000 for Rental Housing Development.

Under Prior-Year Funds, increase Transfer to Capital Projects by $130,000. Decrease Lot Purchases by $130,000.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance 183 of 2000, as amended, shall remain 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 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.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS (legislation remained tabled):

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

2. Ordinance No. 125 of 2000 by Councilman Huckaby: Amending Chapter 10 of the Code of Ordinances by deleting Section 10-144, or its successor provision, relative to physical separation of sales of beverages of high alcoholic content for consumption off the premises. (Tabled on August 22, 2000)

3. Complaint against Express Medical Service: A Class B Ambulance Provider (set time and place of hearing in accordance with Sec. 46-60 of the Code).

NEW BUSINESS: None.

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 Spigener, seconded by Councilman Carmody. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Spigener that the Committee Rises and Report and reconvene itself as the Council. Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Spigener, and Shyne. 4. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Stewart, Serio and Burrell. 3.

There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned 6:37 p.m.

/s/Joe Shyne, Chairman

/sArthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council