COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

MARCH 13, 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, March 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. Stewart, Carmody, Serio (arrived at 3:30), Shyne and Burrell. 6. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart for approval of the Summary Minutes of the Administrative Conference of February 26, 2001 and Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 27, 2001. Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Serio and Spigener. 2.

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

Mayor Hightower: We have one today, we have in our midst a future superstar, maybe he is already a superstar. He was certainly good enough to be the leading scorer this past basketball season. I would like to ask Coach Kevin Johnson, of the Centenary Gents, along with Ronnie McCollum, please stand (read a proclamation). Ronnie, we certainly wish you the best of luck. We know you have been under good mentorship from Coach Johnson over the past couple of seasons. We wish you continued success and we always want to remind you, remember from where you came from, not Fayette, Alabama, Shreveport, Louisiana.

Councilman Shyne: I would just like to make one request I would just like to make one request, Ronnie, when you sign that big contract with Nike to endorse some of their shoes, remember, I got two boys and I might need two pair, hear. And your Coach look so young, if I didn’t know any better, I would say he was one of those playing coach, looks like a college Senior.

Mr. McCollum: Thank you to the Mayor first and to the City Council for presenting me with this, and I really enjoyed my four years in Shreveport. It feels like home and now I consider this my home and I really appreciate it all; thank you.

Councilman Shyne: I have a distinguished guest here and he is going to say something a little bit later on, but I’ve gotten a lot of compliments on how well my hair be looking from time-to-time and I just want to recognize my barber out there, Mr. Sam Graham. He is going to say something—that’s why my hair looks so nice.

Public Hearing: Ordinance No. 21 of 2001: An ordinance to enlarge the city limits with a tract of land located south of Sophia Lane and west of Village Green Dr., Sections 4 and 5 (T16N-R13W) and in Sections 32 and 33 (T17N-R13W), Caddo Parish, LA. The Chairman declared the hearing open and the Administration made the following presentation.

Mr. Jim Holt: Tag No: 00-06 concerns adding 159.42 acres of land into our city limits in the area of town located south of Sophia Lane and west of Village Green Drive in southeast Shreveport. This will become the site of various Brunswick Place Subdivision units for single family, detached residential homes in the near future.

The Chairman called for persons to speak in favor of the proposed annexation and no one came forward to be heard.

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

Councilman Burrell: Not necessarily in opposition, just getting a clarification. Since we were out of town starting on Friday until Monday, in Washington, D. C., I didn’t have an opportunity to look at this annexation.

I know that we just finished one at last Council meeting. I was a little concerned on the number of lots. I understand that there is going to be a subdivision or subdivisions associated with this annexation. How many units are we talking about and how many units per acre? Mr. Holt: Mr. Burrell, the information I have tells me that this is a total of 125 acres of land. I do not appear to have information that tells me exactly how many lots are planned for the subdivision.

Councilman Burrell: Well, we are just asking to annex just acreage and although I heard that there was a subdivision associated with it, and if that be the case, wouldn’t there be some subdivision on this property? Mr. Holt: There may be more information, that I’m not aware of, Mr. Burrell. I do not have that with me. Ione, do you know anymore details about this? (Ms. Ione Dean’s response was inaudible).

Mr. Antee: Councilman Burrell, currently that’s pasture land and there is no subdivision currently existing there.

Councilman Burrell: Well, I understand that, but in the reading it also said that it was the New Brunswick Subdivision that is planned for it? Mr. Holt: Brunswick Place Subdivision, yes, sir.

Councilman Burrell: So, the subdivision then, I doubt if they normally call pasture land a subdivision. A subdivision meaning that land is subdivided, so there should be lots associated with it, I mean, that’s my logic? Mr. Holt: I understand your question, I don’t have that information right now.

Councilman Burrell: Well, one of the reasons I’m asking too, in the last annexation that we were dealing with on last time, one of the issues that we dealt with had to do with subdivision of property and here we have another that is a larger number of acreage, yet we don’t have a number associated with the amount of property that is there. The last annexation was R-A, I believe, it was rural also and I assume this is the same thing, am I correct? The zoning is R-A originally, meaning that is rural, is that correct? Mayor Hightower: What we will be glad to do is get that information. I know that this was heard before, apparently the MPC, and we will be able to get that information for you. I don’t know that we can get that today, Ione.

Councilman Shyne: I was about to say, if you all get that information before we get over to Ordinances on Second Reading and Final Passage , No. 21, if you could get that information to the Council members before we make any kind of action on that. How does that sound Councilman Burrell?

Councilman Huckaby: What is the rush on voting on this today? Councilman Shyne: I don’t know.

Councilman Huckaby: I’m not in a position to vote on it today. I haven’t had time to read the information that’s available and I am not sure Mr. Burrell has all the information that needs. I’m not favorable to voting on it today; so, it wouldn’t matter if you got back in the next hour or not.

Councilman Burrell: Well that’s the problem, I don’t have the information and we are talking about another annexation situation here and I am not sure if we use the same criteria on the support of each issue, but one thing that I would like to be if I am to vote on it, is to be consistent and that is the issue here, that we are using the same criteria.

Councilman Shyne: What I am understanding then that, when we get to this that you all are going to ask for a postponement? We have Councilman Serio, who just came in, who it is in his district. I think they have a few questions that you might be able to shed a little light on.

Councilman Serio: What are we asking about? Councilman Shyne: Councilman Burrell, shot it at him.

Councilman Burrell: In your Council District, I was just making the issue that are embarking upon another annexation is and we have 100 and how many acres? Mr. Holt: One hundred and twenty-five acres (125). Councilman Burrell: One of the things that we dealt with on last Council meeting had to do with a section of land that was almost totally engulfed by the city limits, but we did not annex it and one of the reason that was given, I understand was the number of lots that we were dealing with. So, I asked the question, how many lots are we dealing with here? How many properties per acre and they weren’t able to give me that information. And unfortunately, we were not here on yesterday, maybe that information was given or any information associated with the MPC, maybe that information was given to them.

Councilman Serio: If I recall, we do have a map here as well, Mr. Burrell. Councilman Burrell: Yeah, I have the map. Councilman Serio: We do have a map. And I think, Mr. Holt if you will help me with this a little bit, in the property, the two neighborhoods that adjoin the particular development, my understanding is that we are not exceeding by any means the number of houses. We do not have a much higher density of housing in this particular neighborhood, it is the two neighborhoods that abut to it. Are they similar or how much difference is there? I think they are pretty similar myself. Mr. Holt: And that’ s exactly what she has gone upstairs to retrieve is, the information concerning exactly how many lots there are, what is the objections it to.

Councilman Serio: Because if I remember correctly from the previous vote that we had last week, we were almost at a–we had something like 130 properties surrounding the property that was in question for the annexation. We also had, I think, 300 lots inside the tract of land. But I also realized that the main issue---Mr. Holt: Four hundred and twenty-four. Councilman Serio: Four hundred and twenty, and the density was so much higher than the other property, but the other issue was is that the property owner had come to us and couldn’t decide if he was in the City or the Parish and I for one would rather let him make his peace with the Parish, and then if he decides to come in with the City, come into the City.

I don’t think that has anything to do with this particular property. This is a good development that abuts two other neighborhoods. We have had questions and we’ve had a lot of discussions over the last several weeks about this particular development of this property with the homeowners, and of course the question is, as always is density, but the particular development and the way this development is laid out does not overtax the system. It is not denser than the two abutting properties. Any other questions, Mr. Burrell?

Councilman Burrell: Well, I’m not sure even if the question was actually answered, but at the same time it is my understanding that they will bring some information forward. I think that the property that was in question on last time that we were dealing with the annexation, there were properties that abutted it, that had apartments on it which were multi-family so if we want to talk about density, that’s density and these are existing properties. They were closer to that set of apartments than they were any of the other properties, the property owners who came and addressed the issue. Matter of fact, if I remember correctly, it was Willow Point who addressed the issues and they were not even near the property, they were across I-220 which had a barrier between them. So, we are talking about a situation here where we may be using double standards on how we look at annexation. Because annexation and zoning are two different issues. I think Mr. Kirkland made that very, very clear to us, but under the circumstances, we used different sets of criteria to measure different situations as we have it. I just wanted to make sure that we have something, clarity as well as some consistency that we are dealing with whenever we are talking about these annexations situation.

And then not only that, when you are dealing with annexation you also are embarking upon another issue, that deals with fairness. And because I know I’ve gotten calls on annexation from the Justice Department dealing with those fairness issues so we want to make sure that we are fair in situations like this. I know our new Attorney General Ashcroft, we were able to hear him speak on the issue up in Washington, D. C. I don’t think that it is anything we have to vote on it today, I think we need to get some more information on it since we were not here and privy to the information.

Mr. Holt: For your information, it is 286 lots, single family houses.

Councilman Serio: And the two adjoining properties, have how many lots each? Mr. Holt: It doesn’t tell me. What it does tell me is the land next to it, across Sand Beach is zoned B-3 and R-A, I believe that was the question that was asked. The surrounding subdivisions on the north, south, and east, is zoned R-1D.

Councilman Serio: I think the, I’m not sure, I think the question is it more density to it or whatever and I think that was—we got the lay out of it now. Here is the layout of Village Green, one of the adjoining neighborhoods. Then we have, lets see what else we have here. Mr. Thompson, this is the only map we’ve got is just this one that shows Village Green, but does it show the other two neighborhoods at all? ? I thought we had that in the computer and I was trying to pull it up and it would not pop up for me. It is giving me a blank page when we go to the map. If you scroll down to Annexation No. 21, and you go to the map it says, can not find the page for the map. And I believe, if I remember looking at the map that it has, that it breaks it down so that you can see the development and the other two developments close by, that abut right next to it.

Councilman Burrell: I just want to make one other point. Like I said, we are dealing with annexation issues, in which we are claiming here at the City that we are very very aggressive on in order to try to bring tax money into our City. I’m beginning to get uncomfortable with some of the situations, I may as well be very open and candid because that is just my nature, is that when we are dealing with annexation issues, it borders on Voting Rights Act and things that the U. S. Attorney General looks into because each time an annexation is made, if there are persons who either vote against it or talk against it, you normally get a call from the Justice Department to look at these issues.

I have not seen anything in writing or have been told of anything where there is an optimize sized lot that you are dealing with placed on certain acreage. And, there are other issues that I think that comes into play into these annexation issues that are not brought forth to the public and made open so that these things will not be looked at or investigated.

I did take the opportunity while I was in Washington, D. C., because we were there at a conference for the National League of Cities where the people on Capital Hill come down and address the cities and towns on changes that will be made in their city or town. One of the things I had an opportunity to address while I was there, was the annexation issue and how does it relate to fairness in cities and town and there is grave concern there that these type of annexation issues will be looked on the basis of fairness. Why would we annex one area that is maybe next to or in a particular community, and then we will not annex another area that may be next to a community. So, I guess I just recently had that experience as it relates to annexation and what seems to be double standards so I offer them that as an example. One of the staff members associated with our new Attorney General Ashcroft will be looking at that situation and see whether or not, well what was told to me is that, you have to look beyond just the fact that we are talking about sizes of lots. There are other implications that are there sometime are not brought out. So, that was my concern because I am going to vote on something, I would like to be fair to all citizens not just a group of citizens; so that was the whole point, Mr. Holt, in this situation.

Councilman Serio: Mr. Holt, if this is not approved for the annexation, will this development take place, regardless? Mr. Holt: If it is postponed today?

Councilman Serio: No, if it is not annexed. Will the development take place, regardless? Mr. Holt: I do not know.

Councilman Serio: I guess my concern is, will the development take place and then we will have a development very much similar to like what we had at Jennifer Place, when Jennifer Place was developed outside the City and it was then brought into the City and whenever we had an erosion problem in that major drainage ditch, the City had to come in and fund the erosion control. And one of the ways that we can prevent that type of unnecessary funding is to develop properties within the City limits not outside the City limits and then bring them in at a later date when the property is developed at standards that aren’t quite to City Code. And I think that is one of the problems we you run into with public works, is that too many times we have property that is developed outside the City not to our standards and when we have problems, the City is at fault and the City is liable and we end up making a lot of unnecessary corrections that we don’t need to, basically we don’t need to undertake. I am not sure if this is about the issue from a couple of weeks ago.

I think each one of these need to stand up on their own. I know that this particular development has been before us previously. And, as far as for the two neighborhoods that it adjoins, it is not contrary to the two neighborhoods that it adjoins in the number of houses, in the development. We’ve had a lot of concern about traffic flow and I think we’ve resolved the traffic flow issues in this area. I hope that we will take a look at this and of course, it is one of these that it will help us in this section of town and it will create more development.

Councilman Burrell: Councilman Serio, I agree with you, wholeheartedly. I didn’t even take into consideration the traffic flow because we are talking about the property, being look like from the maps that I have, is on the back side of an existing piece of property, so that means that all the traffic is going to pass back through and probably be a hindrance or an incumbrance on those individuals or those subdivisions that are already there and I’m not sure if those streets are sized such that, it will handle the amount of traffic that you are placing on it.

Councilman Serio: I can answer, it has a separate entrance.

Councilman Burrell: Okay, because it is not clear here. Now in terms of development and growth, I don’t think that anyone needs anymore growth than west Shreveport because southeast Shreveport is the only area that is growing and it appears that that is where most of the emphasis are these days is in southeast Shreveport. But, I tell you from the standpoint of being a Council person out in west Shreveport, we would like to have some of the same type of growth. And, if we are going to have that growth, then I think we need to look at providing annexation also that is equal to that which is, the interest is equal to, that which is for southeast Shreveport or any other part of Shreveport.

And you made another point and I am not going to argue the point because you and I have been, as I thought, were two of the Council members on here who talked about urban sprawl and how we need to fill up our area near our interior or central city, and we had a case last Council meeting where, I can assure you, where that property is located is a lot closer than where this property is to downtown. And so if we are going to to talk about developing property outside the City and then bringing it in, I think that was one of the reasons why the attempt was made to go ahead and annex the property that we had at last Council meeting so that if the development is done, then that development would be done to the specifications of the City not specifications of the Parish. That goes back to my position that we are using double standards on different properties in different parts of town which is not fair to the citizens of Shreveport, as a whole. Under those circumstances, I am seeing apples and oranges here, which brings up a red flag that bothers me.

The Chairman called for any other persons to speak in opposition. No one came forward to be heard and the hearing was declared closed.

Councilman Shyne: At this particular juncture, we have a few people down from Councilman Carmody’s district, it use to be mine, good friends of mine. They have been good supporters, sometimes we disagree and sometimes we agree. We don’t ever fall out. That’s a good thing about a democracy, you can afford to disagree. I would move to suspend the rules at this particular juncture because they have to go back to work and there is a pressing problem that has begin to take place over in their area, and Gary I want you to hear this and who do we have here from the Police Department. I’d like for you all to hear this.

Motion by Councilman Shyne to suspend the Rules to allow Mr. Graham to address the Council, seconded by Councilman Carmody. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

Mr. Graham: We live in Hollywood and on Sunday afternoon, Sunday before last, you had about 400 cars out there. You couldn’t get in and couldn’t get out. We called, I called my Councilman and he sent some police out there and it wasn’t as bad. The people came out, but they left because the police was there.

Now what we want? We don’t mind people coming out there, that is what the park is for, but we just want them to use it right. Don’t block the streets and block the driveways where we can’t get out and in, going to church and that’s all we want. We want some support from the Police Department, from our Mayor, and from our Council that we can keep our community. We have a nice community out there and we want to keep it nice. We need ya’ll help to help us do that because we can’t handle those youngsters ourselves, we are going to have to have some help and that is what we are here for.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Graham, yesterday during our work session, I had asked the police to address this particular matter because of the numbers of complaints that I had received, especially in regarding to people parking on State Street and Ledbetter. And the police officer made a note of it and said that he would certainly bring that back to the attention of the Chief so that we could have some units out there to keep people off the streets.

Mr. Graham: Will you all be out there, every Sunday afternoon? Councilman Carmody: I would have to ask the Police Department to verify that.

Mr. Graham: There are really no—, and we do mean business. Councilman Carmody: I do think the presence of the police officer appears to be a deterrent to people parking on those streets and blocking people’s driveway.

Unidentified Police officer: Pursuant to your question today, I had notified the Chief and also the Area II Commander that works that area. They are aware of the problem, they are working on the problem here in the last couple of weeks. It is probably going to take us some time as the weather becomes nicer and more people go outside, but they are working on it. And also, this weekend they have a community meeting out there from 1 to 3 with regard to the problem.

Councilman Carmody: I think we see this every year, especially when the warmer months come along and everybody wants to get out and get in the park. It is just a matter of being courteous to the neighbors that live there in that neighborhood, so that is what we are trying to work toward.

Councilman Shyne: Gary and Mr. Mayor, what we have every year, the youngsters want something to do. You know, last year we were able to get them down in Airport Park after a while, but we are going to have to—this year, I’d like for us to start, Mr. Antee, maybe next week of looking at what we can come up with on Sunday afternoons and it seem like Airport Park is going to be too small because what happened, it is the same thing in Hollywood. That’s kind of a neighborhood park, but you have people that come there from Mansfield, from Minden, from Marshall, I mean from everywhere, just to—I’ve been out there and you have, 7- to 800 cars out there and that park and that neighborhood will not—they just can not handle the amount of traffic that comes in there.

We need to identify some area that can handle that kind of traffic. Do like we did last summer, make a contract with Jabber Jaws or somebody where they can provide some activities. Now, I would like to say that last year after we provided the activities, I think we had one fight during the whole summer. And it was a good opportunity for the Police Department to interact with these, I almost said, young people, but you have young people, old people and in-between, as a matter of fact you have some that’s about between 35 and 40, like myself, who enjoy going out there. But we do need to identify some place where we can have this kind of activity and it will keep them out of the neighborhood.

Mr. Norman: I agree, totally. I am not real sure that any of our parks are really large enough to facilitate the number of cars and people that we are getting, especially, any of our neighborhood parks. You know, certainly we’ll work with you and the Police Department to see if we can identify a location that would be suitable for this type of meeting.

Councilman Shyne: We need to do that. Last year we were successful because it started out at Hollywood and then they started over at Doug Williams Park, and eventually when we got them down to Airport Park and most of the people enjoyed it. We had about maybe 5 or 6 people that lived there on Kennedy Street and I understand how they feel because they could not get into their houses and their driveways, but we need to identify some place where we can provide some activities for these youngsters, because if not, Roy understands how they are up the Greenwood Road and Jewella.

Councilman Burrell: We still got a problem, we got to deal with. Councilman Shyne: I’d like for us to start now. I had talked to Mr. Graham before I went off. He told me: Joe, I don’t want you to go off with your hair looking all shaggy and everything, come on by and let me fix you up, and you all can tell, he did a nice job. But I’d like for us to get started on this before it gets out of hand. And if you would get with the Police Department and try to set up some meetings like we did last year, I know Tom would be glad to be involved, and Roy will be more than glad to be involved and I will too, and we can look at how we solve this problem. Mr. Norman: We’ll get something scheduled.

Mr. Graham: I’d like to know whether our Councilman, you’ll be out there Saturday? Councilman Carmody: Yes sir.

Councilman Shyne: What time is the meeting Saturday? Mr. Graham: From 3 to . . what time it is Saturday?

Councilman Carmody: Didn’t he say from 1 to 3?

Councilman Shyne: And it is going to be at the Hollywood? Mr. Graham: Hattie Perry Park.

Councilman Shyne: We’ll be there. I hate to speak for Mr. Antee, but we’ll be there. Mr. Graham: We’ll look for you all Saturday.

Councilman Shyne: And Mr. Archie Hall, is Mr. Hall here? Mayor Hightower: He’s taking off today, so he can be there Saturday. Councilman Shyne: Good.

Mr. Graham: I know our Mayor won’t be here Saturday. Councilman Shyne: He might. I know Mr. Antee will be there.

Mr. Felix DeLoach (1847 Hickory Street): Concerning the same problem. It appears to me that there is a group of cars that circulates through that neighborhood and blocks the streets. I can’t get out of my driveway from time-to-time there. All of us, not just people coming in there, some of it is just a whole group of people circulating through there, and it appears to me that maybe it is a 50 or 60 cars just making a couple of blocks and just coming around and around through there.

Councilman Shyne: Well, do you think they live in that neighborhood or are they coming from somewhere else like I was talking about or do you think it is just people that just live right in Hollywood or do you think they are coming from other areas? Mr. DeLoach: I don’t think that they are just people who live in Hollywood, I don’t have much way of knowing that though.

Councilman Shyne: That was why I made the statement that if they do come in there from other places and they block the traffic so that is why we want to take a look at it. Mr. DeLoach: Well, a lot of the problem is not just their coming in, it is their circulating through the neighborhood from various times of day. They circulate through the neighborhood so that it blocks us in and takes up our time.

Councilman Shyne: And that’s on Sunday, right? Mr. DeLoach: That’s on Sunday. I think it is probably around 4 to 6 o’clock, something like that.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. DeLoach, we appreciate you coming down and anytime you want to come down, please feel free to come down. You all are the backbone of our City. Mr. DeLoach: There is another problem and of course, I’m sure we will address that at another time. There is a dead tree right there on the edge of the park that needs to be taken down too. Councilman Shyne: Mr. Norman will take care of that, just like that. He’s a fine gentleman. Mr. DeLoach: Thank you.

Stephanie Owens (I’m also a citizen and I live on State Street): Also, it is not only finding something and somewhere for them to go, because my mother lives off of Lakeshore Drive and if I go to her house on Sunday afternoon, I can’t get back up Jewella. If you find somewhere for them to go, they still have the streets blocked, we can’t get back and forth. One Sunday last year, I was coming down Jewella headed back home to Hollywood, the police had Jewella blocked off. I had to get on I-20 and that put me way out from home and I had to circle all the way back around the City just to get to Hollywood. I don’t know what we can find for them to do, but where we are going to put them, they still block the street? On Sunday afternoon, they have Jewella so tied up, you can’t even travel up and down Jewella, they are just congregating. They leave the park, they ran them off from the park Sunday before last and then they went to Jewella and they congregate up there; they ride on top of the cars, they leave all of their beer bottles, they shooting. They were shooting that Sunday. Some of us have small children in the area and it is just not safe. I don’t even let my kids go to the park because I don’t know what’s going to happen to them. They can’t go because they are speeding and they are driving fast.

It is just not only the police being present, but it has got to be something done for the safety of the people that live in the area and small kids because the small kids can’t even go. The City put up some new playground equipment, but the kids can’t enjoy it on Sunday afternoons because the parents are concerned for their safety, something has to be done about the safety of the kids.

Councilman Shyne: You are exactly right Ms. Owens, you’ll be at the meeting Saturday.

Councilman Shyne: Councilman Burrell, you want to say anything about the Jewella and. . . .

Councilman Burrell: Well, I guess first of all I need to find out about the meeting on Saturday. Now, are you saying that that is Hattie Perry Park because we do have that problem over in my district because right after they leave, I can blame you, I said you’ve gotten where they are partying and having a good time over there, and then you let–like open a lock gate, they all flood down Jewella and matter of fact, I even saw some emergency vehicles trying to get out into Jewella and couldn’t and it is a heck of problem. I think that we are going to have to do something more strategic than just shuffling them around the City.

The meeting that you are having on Saturday, is that some sort of strategic meeting to try to deal with this problem or just dealing with the problem over in the Mooretown area because it is a problem to us? Councilman Shyne: We will be dealing with the problem, period. The one on Saturday will be to bring it to the attention of the Police Department and the Council and the Administration, but, it is a problem that we will be dealing with city wide. It just so happened that these people are here from the Hollywood area and I would invite you to bring some of your people down. Tom and I have done our homework, and we are so glad that you all came down and I see Hilry looking at me kind of funny, so I’m looking at you and Hilry to do you alls homework so you all can bring some people down.

Councilman Burrell: I don’t have a problem, I can bring half of Queensborough down as far as that goes but I don’t think that we are going to get anything resolved. I think we need to have a strategic meeting with the City and the Police Department in order to try to come up with how we can deal with that situation, something that is going to be strategic that will do some good. Councilman Shyne: Gary will be putting that meeting together and that meeting will be held here at City Hall. Now, the one, the community meeting, that is not even, that is not what that is for.

Councilman Burrell: Well, that is what I was asking. Councilman Shyne: That is for them to raise their concerns, Gary will be doing that.

Councilman Huckaby: I don’t want to prolong this discussion, but I want to suggest to the residents and to the committee that is meeting out there, that we make the Fairground facility available to this large number of persons. That is City property and it is the closest facility in that area that can accommodate the number of persons that we are talking about. We ought to try to do something to give those kids out to that venue. Councilman Shyne: That will be something that Gary and them and the Police Department and the Administration will entertain, but this Saturday will be totally, a community meeting that will voice they opinions.

I just had a good friend to come in, I think he’s been up in St. Louis a few days there, Attorney Larry English. Larry, welcome back home.

Confirmations and Appointments: Councilman Carmody: Mr. Mayor, didn’t we say we had an appointment that we were going to add today? Mayor Hightower: I was going to put it on today, but we’ll just wait and put it on tomorrow and let ya’ll vote on it next time, but we would ask you to approve it fairly quickly on the Airport Authority.

The Council considered the CONSENT AGENDA legislation.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

Motion by Councilman Serio, seconded by Councilman Carmody for Adoption of the Resolution on the Consent Agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

RESOLUTION:

RESOLUTION NO. 26 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WAYNE T. & CHARLENE OLYMPE CHAMPAGNE VALIQUETTE STEWART, LOCATED AT 171 FLOURNOY LUCAS RD., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Wayne T. & Charlene Olympe Champagne Valiquette Stewart have agreed to secure all permits and inspections required by the Shreveport Comprehensive Building Code. Said party having submitted a petition for annexation to the City of Shreveport, and having agreed to fully comply with the regulations of the City of Shreveport in connection with said property, all as set forth in Section 94-1, et. Seq., of the Shreveport City Code. Said request and petition are attached hereto.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that Wayne T. & Charlene Olympe Champagne Valiquette Stewart, be authorized to connect the building located at 171 Flournoy Lucas Rd., to the water & sewer system of the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provisions or items of this resolution or the application thereof are 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 resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCES:

Motion by Councilman Serio, seconded by Councilman Carmody for Adoption of the Ordinance on the Consent Agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

ORDINANCE NO. 18 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE CLOSING AND ABANDONING A 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.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the 10 foot-wide dedicated passageway located in Lot 181 of the South Broadmoor, Unit No. 2-A, Subdivision in the NW/4 of Section 33 (T17N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and as shown and as indicated on the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby closed and abandoned, and be it ordained that an existing 10 foot-wide utility servitude be retained at the north end of the closed and abandoned passageway.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that a certified copy of this ordinance be filed and recorded in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish.

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

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

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart for Adoption of the Ordinance on the Consent Agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

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.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the 15 foot-wide alleyway running between Line and Thornhill Avenues and between East 66^th. and 67^th. Streets located in the Belmount Gove Addition Subdivision in the SE 1/4 of SECTION 24 (T17N-R14W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and as shown an as indicated on the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby closed and abandoned, and be it ordained that utility and drainage servitude’s be retained in the west 120 feet of the closed and abandoned alleyway be retained for a utility servitude and a drainage servitude be retained throughout the closed and abandoned alleyway.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that a certified copy of this ordinance be filed and recorded in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

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

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

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

The Deputy Clerk read the resolution by title: 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 passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendments:

Amendment Number 1:

Amend the first "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" paragraph to now read as follows:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is authorized to sign all documents necessary to complete the application for the Section 108 loan, and, if the loan is approved by HUD, the Mayor or his designee shall be authorized to negotiate the terms and conditions of a loan with Red River which shall include, but are not limited to, a requirement that:

a) at least 40,000 square feet of the new construction and/or the renovated space for the development shall be located in the "Shreve Square" area;

b) Red River Real Estate Venture, L.L.C. and Red River Entertainment Company, L.L.C., d/b/a "Red River Entertainment District" (Red River) shall provide City with copies of all construction documents and plans (including change orders) and documentation for all construction and renovation costs (including change orders) associated with the development prior to commencement of any construction or renovation of any portion of the project.

Motion by Councilman Huckaby, seconded by Councilman Serio for adoption of Amendment 1.

Councilman Huckaby: Is this amendment submitted by the Administration or by whom is it submitted? Mr. Antee: It was by the Administration. Just to clarify the language that was in the application.

Amendment No. 1 passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

Amendment Numbered 1A by Councilman Roy A. Burrell:

Amend the first "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" paragraph to add a requirement that the loan agreement between the City and Red River contain a requirement that Red River shall comply with all provisions of the City of Shreveport Fair Share Program.

Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Stewart for adoption of Amendment 1A.

Councilman Huckaby: I want to be corrected if I’m wrong, but I thought that Fair Share was already a part of this, is it not? I just want to know if Fair Share is already a part of the contract? Councilman Shyne: You asking the Administration? Councilman Huckaby: Yeah.

Councilman Shyne: It is a part of it already? Mayor Hightower: Ken is going to look it up, I’m pretty sure that it is, but we don’t mind passing that amendment for clarity sake.

Councilman Burrell: I took the opportunity, because as I can remember in our earlier discussions on this that because these were HUD monies, which were federal money, and not necessarily city moneys then that Fair Share did not necessarily apply to that. I asked Mr. Thompson to get with our City Attorney Department to get a clarification on that and it is my understanding from them in written back to me that, it was not part of the original agreement, Fair Share is not. Now, this is from our City Attorney Department. If I’m mistaken, then I need another clarification on that.

Mr. Thompson: That is correct, we asked for an opinion as to whether Fair Share would automatically be included in this provision. The answer was that loans are not generally regarded as contracts, and therefore it would not be, but that it was appropriate to amend this resolution to put in a Fair Share.

Councilman Burrell: But another point of clarification, I guess just going through logically thinking with law and not always logical and that is if the City makes application for the applicant for a loan from HUD and HUD holds us responsible for the re-payment of that loan if it is not paid back, then it is only logical to me that we hold the responsibility for those monies which brings it under our jurisdiction and once it is under our jurisdiction then our law should apply, but what I am hearing is, that is not the case here?

Councilman Shyne: I think Councilman Huckaby probably took about two hours, what was that about maybe 6 or 8 months ago, it might have been longer, ‘cause I think he voted against the initial resolution to kind of make sure that the Fair Share program goals were even higher, that their Fair Share goals or the goals that would be reached, would even be higher than the ones that we were setting in place at that particular time. Do you recall any of that?

Councilman Huckaby: I recalled I asked for 50%, that amendment was defeated. But I support Mr. Burrell’s amendment for the Fair Share provision.

Amendment No. 1A passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

Amendment Number 2:

Amend the second "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" paragraph to now read as follows:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the loan agreement between the City and Red River shall contain provisions which provide that:

a) all security devices securing the loan from the City to the developer will be subordinate to the security devices securing the loan from the primary lender; and

b) the City will execute an agreement with the primary lender granting the primary lender a reasonable opportunity to cure any default by the developer and to permit the primary lender to assume the position of the developer in case of a default by the developer.

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

Councilman Huckaby: I would like to get an explanation. Mayor Hightower: What our intention there is, is that if for some reason, the development goes bankrupt, the first mortgage holder, be it Hibernia Bank or whoever it may be, in this case, Flintco, that we would give them the opportunity to fill the project back up. If Sam Bookgo goes out to fill it up with a Macaroni Grill if that is what the case is, before we would foreclose. I think the last thing that any of us want is to be into the Shreve Square development business, so that is what that amendment is about to give them time before we act to foreclose.

Councilman Burrell: I have two questions. Is this amendment necessarily forego the City’s security as it relates to the letter of credit or is that a separate situation?

Councilman Shyne: Are you asking that to the Clerk or to the Administration? Councilman Burrell: As part of the clarification, first of all. Mayor Hightower: Right now what you are voting on is, Amendment No. 2, what you are asking for.

Councilman Burrell: The problem that I have with this, we have not gotten to relieving the applicant of a letter of security or letter of credit that will hopefully guarantee the City back, the repayment of the loan, back to the City. If that be the case, then I’ll address this on the security.

Now, I know the Mayor just said whoever the primary lender is, in this case, it is not a bank, which I have a problem with first of all. What is that, is that a Savings and Loan or is that a business—what is the name of it? Mayor Hightower: A construction company.

Councilman Burrell: A construction company, so they are doing the $10 million dollar guarantee funding as the primary lender? Mayor Hightower: That is correct. And we might ask Mr. Russo to come clarify, he is the attorney for the partnership.

Councilman Burrell: This is not Larry Flint Company is it, it is Flint what? Mayor Hightower: Flintco. Larry Russo. Mr. Larry Russo: I am acting as Counsel for the developers in their efforts to close the loan. Flint Industries, as I understand it is a multi-million dollar construction, that’s the parent company and it has a net worth, I’m told, in the hundreds of millions and one of its subsidiaries is a construction company. I feel confident in telling you that it is not related to Larry Flint.

Councilman Burrell: Okay, I don’t have a problem with Larry, myself. He got money.

Mayor, the other situation, Mr. Chairman, as it related to this issue, I know we made the statement that the City is not in the development company in case the Red River Real Estate Entertainment Venture company, in case they default on the loan, if it goes back to the Flint Company and the Flint decides that they are not in the development business, they are in the construction business for whatever reason, and they chose to sell this property or their interest, if it is sold for $10 million dollars or less, them being the primary lender, that means that the $5 million dollars that we sunk into this thing, is gone. And we are holding, the citizens of Shreveport, has a liability of $5 million dollars to pay back. Now, I think I’m understanding that correctly, is that correct Julie? I guess I can get that from you or Mr. Thompson. Did you understand? Ms. Glass: I’m sorry Mr. Burrell, I was trying to figure out what this amendment does that is not already in the resolution; I am sorry. What’s your question?

Councilman Burrell: The question is, the statement was made that if the Red River Company venture or whatever the name is, if they default on the loan, then the Flint Company would become the primary, being the primary lender at that point, will pick up the property at that juncture. And, if the Flint Company is putting $10 million dollars into this and we are putting $5 million dollars unsecured into this venture, then if the Flint Company decides to sell its interest in this property for whatever reason for $10 million dollars or less, then that means that the City gets nothing out of it. We’ve put $5 million in it, we get nothing out of it and we are still going to have to pay the bill, is that correct? Ms. Glass: I really am not familiar with this. Mr. Lafitte and Ms. Scott are not here today, I just don’t really know if I can answer that for you.

Mr. Antee: I can answer that. Councilman Shyne: Is that alright, Mr. Burrell? Councilman Burrell: Well, that’ll be fine, but I’m comfortable with our Clerk of Council too, because I know he has dealt with it and I asked them questions and if he is not comfortable with talking about it, then I’ll excuse it too. Mr. Thompson: I did hear all of the question, maybe you might want to let Mr. Antee answer it. I was talking with him about another problem, at the time.

Councilman Shyne: Is that fine, Mr. Burrell? Councilman Burrell: I’ll hear it. Mr. Antee: Basically what this amendment does, is clarify some of the language at the request of the primary lender.

First of all, it is not an unsecured loan. The loan will be secured by the same property and the same items that is securing the first loan, the City will just be in a second position, which is common practice with Section 108 loans. What the Flintco or their affiliate that is actually loaning the money wanted, was the option to come in, in the event that Red River defaulted on the 108 loan, rather than the City go in and foreclose and pay Flintco off and take the property, they wanted to have the opportunity to come in and make the payments instead of Red River, so that they wouldn’t be taken out of the loan and that’s all this does is clarify and they could do that anyway in the ordinary legal process, they could come in and bid on it in Sheriff sale or whatever. This just clarifies that they can do that prior to it going to court our going to Sheriff sale, that there wouldn’t be any problem with them saying that they are not making the payments, therefore we’ll make the payment.

Councilman Burrell: Well, lets extend it a little bit further than that. I think the question still is, is that if Flintco comes in regardless whether they can do it on the original agreement, in which they can, if they have the wherewithal to pick the property up, then the question still is, our $5 million dollars is still out there. Now, if they are going to pick up the property that would include our $5 million dollars and they decide to pay us our $5 million dollars first, then I have no problem with it. But if they are going to pick up the property and say they decide to sell their interest, if they sell their interest for $2 million dollars or less in which what they have into this property, then we have $5 million dollars of the City’s money hanging out there that they really don’t have to pay back, is that correct? Mr. Antee: The City will be in a second position behind the primary lender, which is Flintco’s company. So if they defaulted on the Flintco loan and Flintco foreclosed on it, then the City, if the monies that were brought during the Sheriff sale were not enough to satisfy both loans, then the City would be at risk at that, that’s under the ordinary first, second, third mortgage principals of law.

Councilman Burrell: A letter of credit would not do that, would it? It would (inaudible) security for the $5 million dollars. Mr. Antee: The only thing that this amendment does is state that Flintco, if they were current on the Flintco loan and defaulted on the 108 loan, then Flintco could step in their shoes and take it over, but it doesn’t change the fact that if Flintco forecloses it only reiterates that Flintco could come in and pick up the payments. It doesn’t require them to, it says that, they can.

Councilman Burrell: I understand what Ken is saying, but I don’t want us to get to the point where we are still sitting with a unsecured loan that the City is going to have to pay back. Now, if that comes with the next amendment, then fine but this is bringing us up to a certain point and then we go to the next step. So, we have got to discuss the unsecured portion of this loan where we have monies that are dangling out there that we are going to have to pay back, just like we are paying back monies now on that hotel operation downtown that is $200 - $300,000 a year that we are paying back of money that we need here to redevelop our community and that is where I’m coming from with that.

After leaving Washington D. C. and seeing that they are going to reducing our CDBG money and we need it for infrastructure improvement and housing redevelopment and we are going to lay a $5 million dollar pie out there, and say well, you don’t have to pay it back if you don’t—I mean, you have an option of not paying it back then I just have a little problem to that.

Councilman Shyne: Would you like for Mr. Russo to respond to that or would you like for the Administration? Councilman Burrell: I’m not sure, whoever has the answers, I couldn’t care less. Mr. Russo: I was certainly going to add there was one other feature of a second mortgage that would be held by the City, is that the City could come in and take over the ownership of the entire project away from the developers; that’s one of the options. And, then the City would then own the entire project or be it subject to whatever monies had been advanced on the first. But the loan does call, the appraisal on the property is in excess of $18 million. The total loans would be, the first for $10 and the second for $5 and that would be a customary type arrangement. I just wanted you to be aware that the City has another avenue. It could actually take and that, as I understand it, it would be cross-collateralized on both sides of the project, that’s the side on the Hollywood side, the east side of Commerce as well as on the west side of Commerce. If the project went into default, the City could come in and take away ownership of that entire project away from these developers. So, I think there is a tremendous amount of force and influence on these developers to maintain the viability of these projects.

Councilman Burrell: I just need a clarification on that statement that he just made, because I know we are adding additional information here. But, not being a finance person myself, but only being able to try to logically think through the things that you are telling me, that if the City takes it back then we are in for another $10 million dollars on top of the $5 million that we’ve already put in there, is that correct? Mr. Russo: You could take the loan back and own, what you would owe, the way it theoretically works is, you have a project worth $18 million. You would take over the project and the only indebtedness on the project would be the $10 million. So, you have an $18 million dollar project that you would own subject to a $10 million dollar debt. Now, if the project is constructed, meets the appraisal and so forth, I mean that, and that’s typically of the way most loans are handled by any bank. It is typically 80% type loan-to-value and that is a fairly typical arrangement.

Councilman Burrell: But, if we took it over, the $5 million dollars we have is still in there and you say an $18 million facility then. I’m sure the Flint Company is not going to forfeit their $10 million dollars. Are we saying that we can. . .? Mr. Russo: The $10 million would be there, and the City would then own the facility. The revenues related to the facility would come to the City. Out of the revenues related to the facility, the City would have to apply some of the revenues towards payment of the debt service on the $10 million. Whatever was left over, the City would be able to keep to satisfy its $5 million.

Councilman Burrell: Well, that’s my whole point, we are putting up an extra $10 million dollar indebtedness because that is part of the whole loan package, is that correct? Mr. Russo: Well, when you say, I wouldn’t say. . . Councilman Burrell: Well, we have an investment of $18 million. Mr. Russo: Well, actually it is already there.

Councilman Burrell: We have a structure for $18 million, but. . . Mr. Russo: You wouldn’t be responsible for that. In other words, you wouldn’t assume the liability for the $10 million, if you want to keep the project, you’d have to service the debt on the $10 million. But just by taking over the project, would not mean that the City has personally guaranteed the $10 million. I just don’t want you to think that if you take over the project, all of a sudden the City has assumed a note of $10 dollar million obligation, that is not the case. It would just be that the City decides they want to keep the project and not lose it to the first, then they would have to maintain the debt service on the first. But that is a far cry from the City actually guaranteeing that $10 million. The difference there is that the City would be forced to pay off the entire $10 million whether they wanted to or not. The worse case here, is if that the City elected not to service the debt. Councilman Burrell: Then what? Mr. Russo: Then the first mortgage would be a position to foreclose.

Councilman Carmody: I think to get back to answering your question, Councilman Burrell and to comment on what the Mayor had said. We would end up in the enviable position of being retail developers in Shreve Square if the whole thing were to go bust.

The bottom line of what our discussion is here today is, is this Council comfortable enough with how this financing for his proposed development has been put together to risk $5 million dollar at least of federal fund, HUD fund, Section 108 money to put toward this retail development.

One of the questions that we discussed yesterday at the work session, I’m sorry you three gentlemen were not here yesterday, was basically this letter of credit and the requirement that these developers stand good for that $5 million dollars as opposed to if they decide that it is not economically feasible to go ahead and continue with the business venture to allow the city of Shreveport to repay that $5 million dollar debt. And the comment was made by Mr. Russo yesterday, well this is not something that is ordinarily asked. You don’t normally ask a letter of credit of these gentleman. But again, I make the same statement I made yesterday, it appears that the marketplace has evaluated this development and has not found it to be economically feasible to the point, that we don’t have a conventional type mortgage company or bank involved with it. We are not being asked to not require these gentlemen to stand good for the $5 million dollars that the citizens of the City of Shreveport are due through the federal government and the question falls and how the vote will be as to whether or not we feel comfortable enough in not allowing them to have some type of requirement that they stand good for that money and that if the goes bust, that the City of Shreveport and the citizens, suffer the consequences.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, would you like to respond to that or are we ready for the vote? Councilman Huckaby: I call for the previous question.

Mr. Thompson: I have a technical question I’d like to ask Mr. Russo about Amendment No. 2, if that is okay. It may be helpful for you to explain for the record, why Amendment No. 2 is necessary. The reason I raise that question is, it seems like the language that is already in, that’s in Amendment No. 2 is essentially the same language that is already in the body of the resolution but it is in a different section. So, we could end up with very similar language in two different sections of the resolution which could be confusing. So, if we are going to adopt it, you may want to explain, for the record, why that’s necessary so that when somebody gets ready to interpret that, they’ll have a better understanding.

Mr. Russo: The request for Amendment No. 2 is a fairly customary circumstance in a commercial lending transaction where if a party, Flint Industries, is making the loan and they want to be sure that they, they also want to be sure that their borrower complies with the City’s loan; that’s the last thing they want is to get this project back. They want the borrower to comply with the City’s loan and Flint just wants to be sure that if the borrower for any reason fails to comply with the City’s loan, that this gives them the opportunity to step in, in the shoes of the borrower and pick up the payments and the obligations of the borrower so that they can keep in compliance with the City’s loan, so that they can bring this project to completion as everyone expected it to be completed. It is an advantage what you have, is another party involved that wants to stand behind the developer and if the developer falls for any reason, the lender can step in, pick up the project and carry it on and comply with the terms of the loan; that’s my understanding, Mr. Thompson of what this amendment seeks to accomplish.

Councilman Burrell: In saying that, Mr. Russo, what I’m still hearing say basically is that Flint just want a guarantee that they don’t have to go out and do a Sheriff sale, that they can automatically step into the shoes of the applicant in this case and pick up the responsibility to pay the City back if they chose to pay the City back. This does not guarantee that they will pay our $5 million dollars back, the second. Mr. Russo: Not, but it is the sort of thing that lenders typically agree to readily and the City, in this case being a lender, because they welcome another party coming forward to comply with the terms of the transaction, so it is not a negative, it is a positive in that it is simply saying if you, Flint is saying: City, if the developer hick up or stutters in any respect, I’d like you to tell me and what I am going to do, is I’m going to step in and I want the opportunity to cure their default. I want to make sure they are in compliance with their loan.

Councilman Burrell: I understand that. Yeah, I understood that from the beginning. Mr. Russo: I want to make one clarification, Flint Industries, Texas Capital Bank was going to make this loan. Texas Capital Bank would still like to make this loan. Flint Industries stepped in because of time pressures. Flint Industries, they are ready with $10 million dollars to invest to close the deal and it was not a situation, I just want everybody to understand that, Texas Capital did not back out of this transaction. Flint Industries, to the chagrin of Texas Capital stepped in and said look, we are prepared to make this loan, the City was very anxious to get, and this is what has been holding up the deal with getting the money prepared, the $10 million prepared to go into this project. Flint Industries said: I’m prepared, I’m ready to move, step aside Texas Capital, we are going to take over from here.

Councilman Burrell: A point of clarification. Well, you might want to tell Texas Capital, we got $5 million dollars hanging out there. They can right a letter of security or credit and we’ll be glad to move forward with it, if they want a part of this investment. Mr. Russo: In regard to the letter of credit, the only thing that I will say is a letter of credit, is a wonderful thing. It is just like when I was searching for a wife, I would have wanted to marry Miss America, but it is not a realistic requirement in a connection with a loan like this, it is not been in the case in any of these loans in the past and it is totally. . . .

Councilman Burrell: Why do you all feel that Section 108, although they are guaranteed by the CDBG, that the City is going to be required to pay back, why do you all feel that it is expendable money? Those monies are used for a very viable purpose, as a matter of fact, the worse of cases, is to try to help to redevelop cities. I am not sure, I just don’t get the connection there that these moneys are any different than general tax dollars money or money from Texas Bank or anything like that, do you understand the question?

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Russo, before you answer that question, that question could have been, the answer to that question could have been satisfied, what was it 8 or 9 months ago, when Councilman Huckaby and I was opposed to the project in the beginning. I believe that if the Clerk of Council will look back through the record, I believe that might have come out as a 5-2 vote. Huckaby and Shyne voted against it because we basically had some of those same questions at that particular time.

The Council, at that particular time, it seems like that might not have been a concerned and we went on it. I hate to put you in this situation, because you can’t answer that; if I am coming to you correctly. I don’t mean any harm, but this discussion can carry on for another hour because you got to different philosophies, right here. The only thing that is going to settle this, basically as Councilman Huckaby called for a vote, but now if it is the pleasure of the Council to keep on discussing this, we can. Because, you can’t answer this. You are not one of the owners. You are only representing the company and you are coming forward to answer some of the questions that you can, but some of these questions, you can’t answer.

We have had you up here for the last, this has been going for what, the last 20 or 30 minutes and it is coming in a circle. What I’ll do, I’ll give each Council member one more shot and then Councilman Huckaby, I am sorry, I know you asked for the question and I’m not overlooking you. Would you agree if I would extend an invitation for maybe one more question from each Council member and then we’ll come back to the question, because you are not going to be able to answer this. Mr. Russo: No, I’ll sit down whenever you want me to.

Councilman Shyne: Well, if you stand one more minute and let Councilman Burrell get another question. If you can answer it, tell him. Now, if you can’t answer it, be truthful with him and say: Councilman Burrell, I’m sorry but I can’t answer it. Because if you come up with a 3 minute dialogue, then a lightbulb is going to come on in his head, and then he is going to come back with another question, that is going to be 3 minutes and then you are going to have to come back again. I mean, it is a tit-for-tat type of type of thing and I know Councilman Huckaby, asked for the question, so Councilman Burrell give him your best shot. Now, if you can answer it, do it if you can’t, fess up to it and say, I can’t answer it.

Councilman Burrell: If I ever had an opportunity to have that question answered and I am sure he gets paid well to answer a lot of these questions, I think I missed my opportunity because he was just given an out, that he can’t answer the question. He may could have answered the question for me. Councilman Shyne: I don’t want to give him an out, I just want to. . .

Councilman Burrell: Well, you just gave him one, that is what I’m saying. But anyway Mr. Russo, do you have the. . . . Councilman Shyne: Well, I am guilty of giving you an out then, blame it on me; I gave you an out.

Councilman Burrell: No reflection on that. I was just saying, I was waiting for that answer and I thought maybe you were able to give it to me, but if you can’t then, I accept that.

Councilman Shyne: You haven’t given complete answers because questions keep on coming, questions keep on coming, and it is the same question over and over.

Councilman Huckaby: I call for the previous question.

Amendment No. 2 passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Serio, and Shyne. 3. Nays: Councilmen Carmody and Burrell. 2. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Burrell for adoption of the resolution as amended.

Councilman Burrell: First of all, on this revolution as amended, is this were we come in with the letter of credit being eliminated? Mr. Thompson: The elimination of the letter of credit is in the body of the resolution, itself.

Councilman Burrell: Since we are going to be voting on it, are we at a point where we can comment.

Again, I have no problem with any development although we’ve had situations where we’ve taken different positions on what we consider as a good development or not a good development.

I did get on the Internet and I tried for the education of my fellow colleagues, pull up some information on the Beale Street project which is the project that has been touted as being the, I guess, the wonder project that has really changed the face of Memphis. And only to find in the news associated with the Beale Street project, that it started off as a world wind with people being excited about it, but the reality came when the Tunica, Mississippi boat development down there, started taking a lot of the people away from the Beale Street project and they started losing some of the businesses that were in that project. We have not, it has not been made clear to me that even our boating situation here or our casino situation where you know that much of the entertainment, if you want any type of entertainment, you can go to the boats and find anything that you want. I’m not so sure that this same situation will not dampen this project or cause it to be unfeasible for us to enter into, especially with an unguaranteed loan. Now, if it was guaranteed, I couldn’t care less because I know I’m getting my $5 million dollars back. I can take it to any of the CDBG eligible areas and work with. I know that we are talking about, after we got back from D. C., I read some of the newspaper and we were talking about infrastructure improvements in a lot of these neighborhoods that we are crying about now. And if this money is not paid back, we can kiss the $5 million dollars good bye and I just have a little problem with that because we are suppose to be pushing for development in these areas, especially many of our inner city core neighborhoods.

I would hate to not hate that money available when we get a developer to come in and say well look, I’ll help redevelop these areas but then when we ask Mr. Ferdinand, he says we don’t have any money left. We have maxed out our loan capacity in Section 108; that’s the problem, the real problem I have. I don’t have a problem with the development itself. That’s where I am on this, is the unsecured portion of this money and if it was such a good loan, then I’m sure that the banks would have picked it up, even the Texas Capital Bank would have picked it up and it is still on the table.

Councilman Shyne: What I’m getting from you that you’d like to have a no vote? Councilman Burrell: I don’t support the elimination of the letter of credit.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Russo had said that this is a traditional type mechanism by which the loaning entity is asking for the possibility of coming in and that they are standing behind these two gentlemen that are asking us to put up the $5 million dollars. Again, my concern is that, if they want to stand behind the straw man, that’s fine because if these two gentlemen default only the City of Shreveport is on the hook for the $5 million dollars. So, again, it is not that that would be they reasons for working so diligently to try to put this together.

The other issue, I think that we need to consider is that the letter of credit, this is in regard to a retail establishment. The other Section 108 money have gone toward housing; so, there is a greater risk to this community to be loaning money for a retail development in downtown Shreveport than it would be to say that we are trying to provide low income housing for people in this community that are going to derive some benefit from it.

Again, I felt that from the beginning this was a very shaky proposition, that if it could stand on its own merit, they would not be approaching the City about utilizing federal dollars that are intended for redevelopment of blighted areas. Granted, I certainly want to see our downtown development, I know that is what Mr. Taft’s job is, to promote downtown development, but in the same way it appears that the market does not see this as economically viable. I take that as a gauge as to whether or not I should support it and I don’t think that it is the intent of anybody that the thing does not succeed, but I think that we are being asked to roll the dice, if I can use that metaphor with these gentlemen and our share of the bet is $5 million dollars and I am not comfortable putting that large a stake up for two gentlemen that won’t bother to sign to say, that they will stand good for it if it goes under. So, I will also vote no and I would again ask my colleagues to consider, very seriously what they are about to do. I know that this City in the past has made some poor mistakes---the one that comes to mind would certainly be the $1 million dollars to Mr. Glieberman and his son, and I think that prudence would say this is, five times that important and I certainly don’t want to error on the side of making a bad mistake that is five times as detrimental to this community, as that one was; so, I appreciate your time.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Serio, and Shyne. 4. Nays: Councilmen Carmody and Burrell. 2. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

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.

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 172 of 1999 was adopted by the City Council on August 24, 1999 and authorized the submission of a Section 108 loan application to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in an amount not to exceed Five Million Dollars; and

WHEREAS, the resolution provided that if the loan application was approved by HUD, the Mayor was authorized the Mayor to negotiate the terms and conditions of a loan with the developer Red River Real Estate Venture, L.L.C. and Red River Entertainment Company, L.L.C., d/b/a Red River Entertainment District (the developer); and

WHEREAS, the resolution also required the developer to apply for a Stand By Letter of Credit in favor of the City of Shreveport in an amount sufficient to guarantee full re-payment of the City’s loan; and

WHEREAS, the developer has requested that the City amend Resolution No. 172 of 1999 to:

1) delete the requirement for the Stand By Letter of Credit;

2) add a provision which clarifies that all security devices securing the loan from the City to the developer will be subordinate to the security devices securing the loan from the primary lender; and

3) add a provision which clarifies that the City will execute an agreement with the primary lender granting the primary lender a reasonable opportunity to cure any defaults by the developer and to permit the primary lender to assume the position of the developer in case of a default by the developer.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that Resolution No. 172 of 1999 is hereby amended as follows:

1) delete the requirement for the Stand By Letter of Credit;

2) add a provision which clarifies that all security devices securing the loan from the City to the developer will be subordinate to the security devices securing the loan from the primary lender; and

3) add a provision which clarifies that the City will execute an agreement with the primary lender granting the primary lender a reasonable opportunity to cure any defaults by the developer and to permit the primary lender to assume the position of the developer in case of a default by the developer.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is authorized to sign all documents necessary to complete the application for the Section 108 loan, and, if the loan is approved by HUD, the Mayor or his designee shall be authorized to negotiate the terms and conditions of a loan with Red River which shall include, but are not limited to, a requirement that:

a) at least 40,000 square feet of the new construction and/or the renovated space for the development shall be located in the "Shreve Square" area;

b) Red River Real Estate Venture, L.L.C. and Red River Entertainment Company, L.L.C., d/b/a "Red River Entertainment District" (Red River) shall provide City with copies of all construction documents and plans (including change orders) and documentation for all construction and renovation costs (including change orders) associated with the development prior to commencement of any construction or renovation of any portion of the project.

c) The loan agreement between the City and Red River contain a requirement that Red River shall comply with all provisions of the City of Shreveport Fair Share Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the loan agreement between the City and Red River shall contain provisions which provide that:

a) all security devices securing the loan from the City to the developer will be subordinate to the security devices securing the loan from the primary lender; and

b) the City will execute an agreement with the primary lender granting the primary lender a reasonable opportunity to cure any default by the developer and to permit the primary lender to assume the position of the developer in case of a default by the developer.

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.

RESOLUTION NO. 28 OF 2001

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION AMENDING A PRIOR RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED NINETEEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($19,540,000) AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, 2001 IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, STATE OF LOUISIANA; REPLACING BOND COUNSEL; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana (the "Issuer") on March 28, 2000, adopted a resolution (the "Prior Resolution") with respect to the issuance of not to exceed Nineteen Million Five Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($19,540,000) aggregate principal amount of its Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2001, in one or more series (the "Bonds") in the manner authorized and provided by Chapter 32 of Title 40 (the "Act"), and other constitutional and statutory authority, for the purpose of constructing and acquiring improvements and extensions to the

Issuer's combined waterworks plant and system and sewer plant and system (the "System") and paying the costs of issuance thereof, said Bonds to mature over a period not exceeding thirty (25) years, and to bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed seven per centum (7%) per annum; and

WHEREAS, the State Bond Commission has the approved issuance of the Bonds; and

WHEREAS, the Issuer now desires to replace its Bond Counsel employed in the Prior Resolution and employ new counsel;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, acting as the governing authority of said City, that:

SECTION 1. Employment of Bond Counsel. This City Council finds and determines that a real necessity exists for the employment of special Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, and accordingly Casten & Pearce and Crawford & Lewis, P.L.L.C. are hereby employed as Co-Bond Counsel to the Issuer, and requested to do and perform comprehensive legal and coordinate professional work as Co-Bond Counsel with respect to the issuance and sale of the Bonds. The City Council of the Issuer hereby terminates the employment of Foley & Judell.

Said Co-Bond Counsel shall prepare and submit to this City Council for adoption all of the proceedings incidental to the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of such Bonds, shall counsel and advise this City Council as to the issuance and sale thereof and shall furnish its opinion covering the legality of the issuance of the Bonds. The fee of said Co-Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the bonds of the Issuer is hereby fixed at a sum not exceeding forty-six and one half percent (46.5%) of the maximum fee allowed by the Attorney General's fee schedule for comprehensive, legal and coordinate professional work in connection with the issuance of revenue bonds, and based on the amount of said Bonds actually issued, sold, delivered and paid for, plus "out-of-pocket" expenses, said fees to be contingent upon the issuance, sale and delivery of said Bonds. A certified copy of this resolution shall be submitted to the Attorney General of the

State of Louisiana for his written approval of said employment and of the fees herein designated, and the Director of Finance is hereby empowered and directed to issue vouchers to said Co-Bond Counsel in payment for the work herein provided for upon completion of the work herein specified and under the conditions herein enumerated.

SECTION 2. Ratification. Except as amended hereby, all provisions of the Prior Resolution remain in full force and affect.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 30 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF URBAN AFFAIRS AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, through the initiative of the Department of Community Development, has applied for a $5,000.00 grant from the Governor’s Office of Urban Affairs and Development (OUAD); and

WHEREAS, if awarded, the grant funds will be used to sponsor three (3) business development workshops for business owners in the Greenwood Road and Jewella Avenue corridor; and

WHEREAS, the workshops will provide current business owners located within the Queensborough business corridor with knowledge to support successful applications for business loans from the Shreveport Inner City Economic Development Initiative (SICEDI).

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the submission of the grant application to the Governor’s Office of Urban Affairs and Development is ratified.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is authorized to sign all other documents required to complete the application.

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, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Burrell to postpone Resolution Nos. 23 and 24 until the March 27, 2001 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1.

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.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS :

1. Resolution No. 31 of 2001: A resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement with Shreveport Redevelopment Agency and Shreveport Urban Renaissance Corp., Inc. and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 32 of 2001: A resolution authorizing the employment of special legal counsel to represent the City (Abrams & Lafargue LLC) and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Carmody for Introduction of the Resolutions to lay over until the March 27, 2001 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:

1. Ordinance No. 27 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by approving the continuation of B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District zoning limited to an air conditioning, heating, and sheet metal shop" only, on property located on the NW corner of St. Vincent Avenue and Natalie Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 28 of 2001: An ordinance to amend and reenact Article VII of Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances relative to stopping, standing, and parking and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 29 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the west side of Line Avenue, 115 feet north of Prospect, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from SPI-1, Highland, Urban Conservation District to SPI-1-E, Highland Urban Conversation/Extended Use District limited to a "beauty salon with 3 employees only" and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Serio, seconded by Councilman Burrell for Introduction of the Ordinances to lay over until the March 27, 2001 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 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 27, 2001 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1.

2. 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.

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 Carmody for adoption. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

Amendment No. 1:

In the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED paragraph delete the phrase "Section 78-4" and substitute the phrase "Section 78-4(b)."

Motion by Councilman Serio, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of the amendment. Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1.

Motion by Councilman Serio, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of the ordinance as amended. Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1.

3. 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.

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 Serio denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Huckaby, Shyne and Burrell. 3. Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, and Serio. 2. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1.

4. 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.

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 Carmody adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1.

5. Ordinance No. 26 of 2001: An ordinance declaring a public emergency in connection with the T.L. Amiss Water Treatment Plant use of an alternative chemical to treat the City’s drinking water and ratifying the expenditure of approximately $33,500 and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on March 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 Carmody, seconded by Councilman Huckaby adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1.

Councilman Shyne: I would like to recognize that, I think on January 15 there was an accident where we had quite a few of our ambulances I believe that were tied up for an accident and I’d just like to commend Balentine Ambulance for being there, being ready to do what needed to be done.

I think we are very fortunate to have such a fine organization as Balentine Ambulance here in our City. Ralph Balentine has done an excellent job and has been super citizen for this area over the last 30 or 40 years. Councilman Burrell: Where is Ralph? Councilman Shyne: I don’t’ think he is here, but he has been a super citizen and we appreciate what Balentine Ambulance has done and the services that they offer to this City. Councilman Burrell: I agree Mr. Chairman. Councilman Shyne: Ralph if you hear me, thank you.

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 Burrell to postpone Ordinance Nos. 23, 24 and 25 of 2001 until the March 27, 2001 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, Serio, Shyne and Burrell. 4. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Huckaby and Stewart. 2.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

The adopted Ordinances as amended, follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 20 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 78-4 FOR REQUESTS TO CONTROL VEHICULAR ACCESS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

By: Councilman Serio

WHEREAS, Code of Ordinances Section 78-4 for requests to control vehicular access on residential streets must be accompanied by a petition signed by 100 percent of the property owners of the area to be affected by the request indicating their desire; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to change the percent of the property owners required for the petition to 90 percent.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that Code of Ordinances Section 78-4(b) is amended and reenacted as follows:

Sec. 78-4. Requests to control vehicular access on residential streets.

(b) Petition to accompany application. The application shall be accompanied by a petition signed by 90 percent of the property owners of the area to be affected by the request indicating their desire that the city undertake the action requested in the application, three copies of a scale plat or sketch showing the space or other public property or street intended to be used for the encroachment, the proposed design of the improvement, detailed description of the type of material to be used in the construction of the improvement, and the payment of an application fee in the amount of $50.00. If the application is approved, failure to so construct or install the improvements in the manner specified in the plat or sketch shall be grounds for the revocation of the permit and demolition or removal of the structure at the expense of the applicant.

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. 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.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that:

WHEREAS, Section 78-98(6) of the Code of Ordinance of the City of Shreveport provides the policy of the City with respect to paving assessments. The policy is the City shall levy and collect special assessments in the manner provided for in State law; and

WHEREAS, State law and the City Code provide the assessment and payment process. There is no provision to waive interest.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular, and legal session convened that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to compromise or settle any outstanding paving assessment amount owed by a property owner, if it is in the best interest of the City. Said compromise or settlement shall not reduce the amount owed by the property owner(s) to less than the principal amount owed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this ordinance and 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 servable.

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

ORDINANCE NO. 26 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH THE T.L. AMISS WATER TREATMENT PLANT USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE CHEMICAL TO TREAT THE CITY’S DRINKING WATER AND RATIFYING THE EXPENDITURE OF APPROXIMATELY $33,500 AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the chemical, Aluminum Sulfate (Alum) was not producing the quality of drinking water that would meet EPA and state regulatory agency’s specification at T.L. Amiss Water Treatment Plant; and

WHEREAS, the abnormality of this chemical was due to the extreme weather conditions; and

WHEREAS, the alternative chemical (Aquapac) was used to assist in the treatment process to obtain desired results; and,

WHEREAS, failure to promptly use this alternative chemical (Aquapac) would have severely limited the city’s ability to produce a sufficient supply of potable (drinking) water for the citizen’s of Shreveport.

WHEREAS, it was essential to correct this problem as quickly as possible.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the emergency action of the Department of Operational Services to use the alternative chemical (Aquapac) to assist in the treatment of the drinking water at the T.L. Amiss Water Treatment Plant is hereby authorized and ratified and that the expenditure of approximately $33,500.00 for this purpose is hereby authorized.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that monies for this emergency water treatment shall come from the operating budget of the Department of Operational Services.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that a public emergency is hereby declared and notice of such public emergency shall, within ten days thereof, be published in the official journal of the City of Shreveport proposing or declaring such public emergency in accordance with Section 38:2212(D) of the Louisiana Revised Statutes.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or 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.

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 by Councilman Shyne: 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.

Councilman Shyne: At the next Council meeting, I will ask Mr. Thompson to prepare the legislation dealing with the naming and re-naming of public property. If you have any questions, get them together so we will be in a position to discuss them at our next Council meeting. They would have been before you for a total of 4 weeks.

CLERK’S REPORT:   None.

COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.

The Council resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on motion by Councilman Huckaby, seconded by Councilman Carmody. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Shyne and Burrell. 4. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Spigener. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Stewart and Serio. 2.

There being no report from the Committee, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

/s/Joe Shyne, Chairman

/sArthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council