COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

APRIL 10, 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 3:10 p.m., Tuesday, April 10, 2001, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilman Carmody.

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

Motion by Councilman Serio, seconded by Councilman Spigener for approval of the Summary Minutes of the Administrative Conference of March 27, 2001 and Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 28, 2001. Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Shyne. 5. Nays: None. Did not cast a vote: Councilman Burrell. 1. Absent: Councilman Huckaby. 1.

Awards and Recognitions of Distinguished Guests of the Mayor and the Council Which Are Required By Law. None.

Public Hearing. Annexation Tag. No. 00-06: 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.

Chairman Shyne declared the public hearing open and called for a Presentation. Mr. Mike Strong, Director of Department of Operational Services: This is for 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 southwest Shreveport. Mr. John Sey, of Brunswick Place, LLC recently acquired 125 acres of land in this area from Mr. Carol Fist. This will become the site of various Brunswick Place Subdivision units for single family, detached residential homes in the near future and it is located up there on the map.

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

Councilman Serio: Where it says "public hearing" you can pull up the map by putting your icon on the first Map 1 or Map or the icon that show"Map", and you will see that this property abuts two neighborhoods on the south side and on the west side of two individual neighborhoods that are currently in the City of Shreveport and the development is virtually identical to these two neighborhoods.

It is not a development that is counter that is already there. You have two neighborhoods that have been established probably 20 to 30 years, maybe Town South might be as much as 25 to 30 years, the University South probably the same age, 20 to 25 years and so you have an enhancement of the neighborhoods in this area. And so we have had a lot of growth in southeast Shreveport and information that came through the other day from the Census Bureau, it is obvious that we are growing in the southern part of the City. And I think you can see from the map that we are adding properties that are going to be abutting other neighborhoods. We’ve had no conflict, we have had no discussion or no problems from the other neighborhoods for this development. And quite frankly, I know that the project is in construction, we are putting utilities at this point and I have no reason to believe that this will not be a good development in the middle of the City, regardless if it is annexed or not. It is going to be in the middle of our City regardless.

The Chairman called for persons, including Council members, to speak in opposition to the proposed annexation.

Councilman Burrell: It is not a matter of opposition, per se, but it is a matter of a question that I have here, and I might be able to ask Mr. Serio this. The ingress and egress into this property, will it be from an existing neighborhood or I’m seeing that Texas and Pacific Railroad is to the, I assume, to the south or the southwest. Will there be any ingress/egress from that direction. Councilman Serio: The principle entrance and exit is going to be in the northeast corner. You’ve already got a y-configuration. We are going to have a driveway that comes out of the neighborhood on the northeast corner, but it joins the street on the southern side and it will open out to Youree Drive. And at that point, there is a red light as well.

My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong Mr. Strong, at Brunswick, there will also be exits from Brunswick not entrance, but exits from Brunswick; so, there will not be any additional traffic going through University South. There will not be any additional traffic coming out of Town South. All the entrance will primarily be in the area of the "y" that you see on the right hand side of the screen.

Councilman Burrell: Are we to understand too that the existing thoroughfares that come into this will handle the traffic from this, how many lots will there be in the development, or has it got to that point?

Councilman Serio: I am going to yield to Mr. Strong on that one or Mr. Kirkland, either one or the developer.

Mr. Strong: Councilman Burrell, these are a total of 286 lots and the way this is configured, if you will look on the map behind you, there will be the entrance/exit will be up here in this area. There will also be a exit only right here and then there will be an exit only up here on Brunswick and this is the exact development area.

Councilman Burrell: So, we are looking at 200 and some odd lots and you can approximately estimate that it is going to be a 2-car families at least, so we are talking about approximately 500 or so cars, maybe? Mr. Kirkland: It is hard to say that up front, depending on the market that the developers cater to, price range, style of home. If it is a senior citizen group, 2 maximum. If it is a younger professional group, 30s and 40s there will be possibly, 3 or 4, so, it is hard to know.

Mr. Strong: And one thing too, is when this addition was built initially, there were cut-ins for roads coming into here for future development anyway. This was looked at as being a future development coming in off of Brunswick and I’ll put this one back up here. Coming off of Brunswick, there was already a cut in coming in between two houses there. There was also down on Village Green, there was a cut in there, and then also back here on the one side of South (inaudible), there were two down there. So that was already planned when these additions were built in there, that there would be future development.

Councilman Carmody: Back on this particular map, if you see Sand Beach Bayou kind of transverses across the annexation, but they don’t show on the development plan what they are going to do on the west side. Do they have any type of. . . . Mr. Strong: That is not in this development. What we did was, this was the additional, I think 32 acres, that we went to that property owner to try to tie it in because it would have left this one little space that would have been outside of the City, so we wanted to bring it all in at one time.

Councilman Serio: You said that there was 286 houses in this development? Mr. Kirkland: There are proposed 286 lots, that’s correct.

Councilman Serio: Two hundred and eighty six lots, and what’s the acreage on it? Mr. Kirkland: About 140 acres.

Councilman Burrell: I remember this particular area where there was some, the residents out there at one time was complaining about traffic. Did you say that they was going to put in a traffic light? Councilman Serio: We got the traffic signal in there to eliminate that. It took us five years to work with the state to get a traffic signal.

Councilman Burrell: Again, we are talking about an issue of annexation and there is a difference between that and zoning, but at this time, I have no other questions.

There were no further comments, and the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Confirmations and Appointments: None.

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:

RESOLUTIONS:

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, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 36 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JAMES C. CAUDILL & CHARLA J. CAUDILL, LOCATED AT 1542 MALLARD CIR., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, James C. Caudill & Charla J. Caudill 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 James C. Caudill & Charla J. Caudill , be authorized to connect the building located at 1542 Mallard Cir., to the water 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: None.

ADDING LEGISLATION TO THE AGENDA

Motion by Councilman Huckaby, seconded by Councilman Stewart to suspend the Rules to add a resolution to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, and Shyne. 5. Nays: None. Did not cast a vote: Councilmen Serio and Burrell. 2.

Motion by Councilman Huckaby, seconded by Councilman Stewart to add Resolution 41of 2001 entitled: A resolution temporarily suspending certain provisions of Chapter 10 and Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances relative to the sale of alcoholic beverages at certain special events and otherwise providing with respect thereto. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None. (Clerk’s Note: Council added the resolution to the agenda, however no action was taken on the resolution at the meeting.)

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

RESOLUTION NO. 33 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR MUNICIPAL FIRE CIVIL PERSONNEL, AND OTHERWISE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Mayor that the current pay schedule for Municipal Fire Civil Service personnel be adjusted to reflect a pay increase on April 1, 2001 provided funding is made available and appropriated for such purpose.

WHEREAS, the proposed pay schedule attached hereto as Appendix "A" be and is hereby approved, effective April 1, 2001.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the pay schedule attached thereto as Appendix "A" be and is hereby approved, effective upon passage.

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 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 Serio, seconded by Councilman Spigener for passage.

Councilman Carmody: I did receive a call this morning from a constituent who asked me to clarify with the Administration that a vote to amend the pay schedule for municipal fire civil service personnel would not result in an increase in their tax, on their property. I told them, that as I understood it yesterday, it said that with the increase in the sale tax revenue, that ya’ll anticipate being able to cover this expense, that he wanted that clarified. Mayor Hightower: That’s correct. The only way we can increase property taxes is to go to a vote of the people, so, no it will not increase anyone’s tax within the existing operating budget.

Mr. Antee: One clarification there, Councilman Carmody, the increase in sales taxes where we are dealing with the $2.5 to $3 million dollar shortfall that was referred to, this raise we are looking at the vacancy and overtime rate within the Fire budget not the increased sales tax.

Councilman Huckaby: I am going to vote in favor of this legislation, but I want the record to show that that I would favor granting the same increase to communication personnel with the Shreveport Police Department. I think they do the same work, they are under the same kind of stress. They receive numerous telephone calls and I believe that they should be entitled to receive the same kind of pay increase as fire personnel.

Councilman Shyne: Councilman, thank you; that’s a courageous stand.

Councilman Spigener: I guess this is not an amendment to this proposal, is that just your request or I guess we need some clarification there. It is not a stipulation; okay.

Councilman Burrell: One clarification because I was under the impression yesterday when this was explained to us that the Fire Department had special circumstances due to something that took place in1986, unless I understood it. And if I’m mistaken, then maybe I didn’t understand the whole process which was different than what took place with the Police Department, am I not understanding that correctly? Mayor Hightower: Councilman Burrell, you are exactly right and I think what Councilman Huckaby was doing, was simply making a statement essentially echoing what we said yesterday. We do want to take a look at Police PCOs in the same type position as the FCOs, but they are two separate issues and you are correct, the gap between FCOs currently and what FCOs will go to and the gap that PCOs are at and what we hope that they will go to will be smaller.

Councilman Burrell: I want to make sure that everybody’s is done fairly, but that is what I understood on yesterday that there was a special situation that took place in ‘86. Mayor Hightower: That’s true. Councilman Burrell: Associated with Fire, wasn’t associated with Police. Mayor Hightower: And that’s what has presented the predicament that we are in now and that huge gap between what the State and now Bossier City offers versus what the City of Shreveport offers due to the 1986 legislation.

Councilman Carmody: I know that yesterday during the work session we had asked the question and I was going to ask if we had a further up date on the number of Police Communications Officers and Fire Communications Officers that have tendered their letters of resignations to the City as far as taking employment with the City of Bossier? Chief Cochran: Two Fire Communications personnel has resigned effective as of yesterday.

Councilman Carmody: Two Fire Communications personnel and I believe that yesterday that the Chief had said that there were two Police Communications Officers as well, so that is four, total. Mayor Hightower: I think all of those in the audience that want to stay here, will stand up for you, though.

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

Councilman Shyne: Chief, Margene, appreciate having ya’ll down and I hope ya’ll enjoyed the lesson in city government.

The Deputy Clerk read the resolution by title: Resolution No. 35 of 2001 by Councilman Huckaby: A resolution authorizing the waiver of the entire building rental fee for the Convention Hall to allow the NAACP to hold its Freedom Fund Banquet and otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Huckaby, seconded by Councilman Shyne for passage.

Councilman Stewart: I will vote against this, as I said before and I am certain that some may attempt to make an issue of it. I do not think that we should have allowed this to reach the agenda. I am certainly happy to help this particular non-profit as well as others raise money, but we are now moving to contradict the legislation that we passed to avoid the difficulties of no revenue in the past. I do extend my sincere appreciation to the NAACP and my commitment to assist them in anyway if they can not raise the funds.

Councilman Spigener: I was on the committee with two other Council members who worked very hard with SPAR to try to come up with a fair and equitable fee arrangement and I think we worked very hard to make it very feasible for the non-profits to be able to use our facilities and I too believe that if we pass legislation, we need to support that legislation and that’s going to be my stand.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 37 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE CITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO WATER TREATMENT FILTRATION IMPROVEMENTS AT THE T. L. AMISS WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

regular session convened, that the City permit fees in the amount of forty eight thousand one hundred seventy dollars and no cents ($48,170.00) be waived. These fees pertain to the construction involving improvements to the filter process units at the T. L. Amiss Water Treatment Facility.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that to comply with LSARS. 18:201, a certified copy of

this resolution to be furnished to the Registrar of Voters for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, or applications of the 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 ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in

conflict herewith are hereby declared severable and repealed.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 40 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE OPPOSITION OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT TO HOUSE BILL 177, URGING THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE TO DEFEAT SAID BILL AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, House Bill 177 has been introduced in the 2001 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature; and

WHEREAS, House Bill 177 would repeal the legal requirement that the Shreveport-Bossier Convention and Tourist Commission submit its annual operating budget to the governing authorities of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Bossier City and Bossier Parish for review and approval; and

WHEREAS, House Bill 177 would further eliminate the requirements that the Commission’s books and records be made available to the City’s Internal Auditor or other representatives of the governing authorities for such audits as the governing authorities deem necessary and appropriate and that the governing authorities have access to the records of the Commission’s independent public accountant; and

WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it is both necessary and proper for the governing authorities to retain their current oversight roles with respect to the budget and records of the Shreveport-Bossier Convention and Tourist Bureau, since said oversight has led in the past year to the discovery by the Legislative Auditor of apparent wrongdoing by a former staff member and lax accounting controls which had not been found in the annual audits performed by the public accountant employed by the Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that it hereby expresses its opposition to the passage by the Louisiana Legislature of House Bill 177 and urges the defeat of said legislation in the 2001 Regular Session.

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 which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared to be severable.

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

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

Councilman Burrell: I think this piece of legislation is important to send a message that under the circumstances of what took place previously with the Tourist Bureau that if for no other reason it was basically our City Audit Department that went in and took a look at what was taking place in that situation and brought it to the forefront. They were never given any credit for the work that they did to uncover such a (inaudible) that took place.

Personally, I was very much offended that the situation was turned toward to me personally, as it relates to this matter. But if the truth be told, it was the diligence of our Audit Department that went in and uncovered the improprieties that took place and it became public and really saved, hopefully this, not only our City but Caddo and Bossier Parish as well as the State face for future problems of this sort.

I think that until such time that we are comfortable that the Board, the existing Board that is there that is suppose to provide oversight is operating properly and they are being responsible for the revenue that is coming in for tourist projects then I think we should remain, we should as a city maintain some oversight in this situation. It is not a reflection on the Board or anybody personally, it is just that, it is something that I think that we should strongly consider and send a message to the state that we still are not comfortable with what has taken place.

Councilman Carmody: I’d also like to commend the Audit and Finance Division of the City of Shreveport. Chairman Roy Burrell, at the time, hit the nail on the head, through their diligence in following up with the audit which was a prerequisite for the city of Shreveport providing funds to help operate the Shreveport Bossier Convention and Tourism Commission. Obviously, it uncovered some situations required the state legislative auditor to step in.

I do feel that we ought to work and send a message to Baton Rouge that as long as the City of Shreveport is providing funds out of our General Fund to fund any organization, that we should maintain that ability to audit that organization and that they should have no fear of that audit. We are all together in this, we are all trying to work together but in the same way, we have to answer for those dollars that we allocate from the citizens of this community as to how they are used. And therefore, without the ability to go in and verify what the organizations are saying that they are using the money for, it is hard to be able to come back and to justify the votes to allocate the expenditure of funds.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to commend you for initiating this piece of legislation.

Councilman Burrell: I wanted to make sure that I clarify something that Councilman Carmody said just then. The Tourist Bureau does not get general tax dollars or General Funds from us; I want to make sure that that’s clear. Councilman Carmody: That is true. Councilman Burrell: Through legislation that was passed by the state, the funds actually from the hotel-motel tax flows to the Treasury Department in the state, and the state cut them a check. But based on the previous legislation, that was left in place after the state took the jurisdiction from the City and the Parish to fund these organizations. They still left in place, some oversight associated with the City and the Parish so that we could do this check and balance. And I think it is because of that legislation, that we were able to go in and find the problem, I just wanted a little clarification. Councilman Carmody: Right.

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

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS:

1. Resolution No. 38 of 2001: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute grant documents with the U. S. department of Justice for the acceptance of grant funds and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 39 of 2001: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to make application with the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Serio for Introduction of the Resolutions to lay over until the April 24, 2001 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:

1. Ordinance No. 68 of 2001: An ordinance amending the 2001 budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 69 of 2001: An ordinance amending Section 90-396 of the Code of Ordinances relative to weight limitations of motor vehicles and otherwise providing 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 April 24, 2001 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

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 Carmody, seconded by Councilman Stewart for adoption.

Councilman Burrell: Just to make a statement on this residency requirement. I just wanted to inform our Council on this particular piece of legislation, it is important to consider the fact that we just gone through the 2000 Census, and we barely, barely made it over the 200,000 resident mark which is a sort of threshold from the federal government that says that if you fall below that mark, then you are subject to lose millions and millions of dollars to this community and I think this piece of legislation lends itself to that very thing. We are going to have to do everything in our power, regardless of what position we are in, if we love Shreveport and we want Shreveport to continue to grow and not fall below that mark and hopefully go beyond that mark, I think for those persons who at least make their living out of Shreveport there should be some allegiance to Shreveport. I know every employee, it would be too much to require of them, but at least our leaders in our departments should consider living within our city boundaries so that they will have a good feel for what we all deal with here within our City. If we hear sirens and from police vehicles as well as ambulance, then sometimes that gives you a feel that you need to do something to try to help our City to eliminate crime and other social economic ills that are there; so, I think again, this piece of legislation lends itself to those type of things. Secondly, in terms of jobs, people who live within our City that pays our taxes, should get first preference. I think this would eliminate that for top jobs and I think it will eliminate that if we wind up repealing it. Mr. Chairman, that is pretty much all I need to say about that issue.

Councilman Carmody: I did want to ask for a clarification on this. We are asking for an affirmative vote to repeal the Code relative to residency requirements for City officials. I would ask that the Clerk to please reset the voting, prior to the vote.

Councilman Serio: I think most of us have been on this Council for the last six years, we had a very long argument about this six years ago. What brought to this, was the fact that we folks that were in high positions in the City of Shreveport and didn’t live in the City of Shreveport. And I go along with Mr. Burrell that I think that it is important that if you are in a management position, I mean a department head position, that you need to live in the City. I think that it is important to know that your neighbors or your department heads and that the heads of the organization that are in basically, in charge of what goes on in the City of Shreveport just like the elected officials have to live in their respective districts. I feel like also for the people who actually run the key departments in the City of Shreveport that they also should be in and from the City of Shreveport. And I know in the past we have given department heads the time period to move into the City and it is my understanding that we have one that has gone on for a couple of years. I think that it is important that if you are going to take a management position with the City of Shreveport, that you actually live in the city of Shreveport.

And I am glad that Mr. Carmody re-stated that issue so that we understand that a vote yes is to repeal that legislation and that a vote no is to maintain the legislation that we currently have on the books and I suggest that you vote against this piece of legislation.

Councilman Spigener: I’ve always felt that we are a region, that we are not just isolated to the City. If this is repeal, I think that we need to come back with some requirement that at least the departments live within Caddo Parish (inaudible) this is not, of course, the place to do that, I think, but whatever the outcome of the vote is, if it is to repeal it, I do think we need to look at other issues.

Councilman Stewart: I am trying to make certain that I have clarity on this. 1) We have the legislation in place that says, you have to be a resident. 2) Since we’ve had it, its been broken, it was broken when I came here in ‘91. I believe the question that the Council, I’m comfortable with the legislation, but I think the question that needs to be left on the table for the future is, are we are going to enforce it or not. Having legislation that says that you operate a certain way and it is being ignored by the Council which any department head can do what they chose and in certain manners obviously in the best interest, pose the question to you. I think it is reasonable but are we prepared to enforce it, I think that is something we all have to think through.

Councilman Carmody: On the heels of Councilman Stewart’s comment, I think that, as I appreciate it, we operate under a strong mayor-council form of government. The laws that this Council enacts, the Administration works with us to carry out. Therefore, I will vote to keep this particular law on the book in that I do feel like that it is shows a vested interested in the community by a payment of tax. I guess I would disagree with Councilwoman Spigener on this, I feel like that if you live within Caddo Parish, that the opportunity would be there to derive the benefits of this particular city without having the tax burden that the rest of us share by being citizens inside the City limits. And again, I would ask and encourage everyone to keep the law on the books and to ask our Administration to enforce that law.

Ordinance denied by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, and Shyne. 3.

Nays: Councilmen Stewart, Serio, Spigener, and Burrell. 4.

Councilman Carmody: My vote should have been a "no." Councilman Spigener: I got a little confused on it. Councilman Stewart: Don’t worry about it, it went your way, Thomas. Councilman Carmody: It went my way, but I just wanted to clarify. I know it look confusing to people at home, how could he vote that way, when he just said that.

Councilman Serio: A "no" vote was a vote to maintain. . . . Councilman Shyne: Just a minute. Councilman Spigener: A "yes" vote should have been to repeal? Councilman Shyne: A "yes" vote was to repeal. Councilman Serio: A "no" vote was to maintain what we currently have.

Councilman Shyne: I think we have two people who want to change. Councilman Spigener: My vote was to repeal and I thought I voted "yes", I am sure I did. Councilman Carmody: And my was not repeal and it should have been "no."

Mr. Thompson: Council, do you want us to must make a note and change these two in the legislation would not be repealed or do you want to vote over? Councilman Shyne: Let’s vote over.

Ordinance denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Burrell. 5. Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby and Shyne. 2.

Councilman Burrell: I really think too , the reason why I asked to put it on here so that we could really give it some strong consideration because it was not being followed.

And as I said, given the fact that we just went through the Census, I think it sends a message to our employees as well as our citizens, that we do feel strongly about Shreveport and especially our top management that it is going to have to enforce the laws and rules of this City. And not only that, they are the one that expend our funds in our City and I think it is so important that we keep this on the book, not only keep it on the book, but enforce it.

Councilman Shyne: Councilman, I agree with you, but I would like to make this clear too and I’m not speaking for anybody else, but I know I voted to repeal this, but it does not mean that I am not concerned about what department heads do, I want to make that clear. I don’t want you to read into that, that if you didn’t vote to repeal this then that means that you don’t or that you are not really concerned about what department heads do. I agree with Councilwoman Spigener. I believe that we are looking at a region and as long as you live in Caddo Parish, I have no problems and I don’t really look at the taxes being a burden although some times I don’t like to pay them, but I realize that you have to have taxes in order to enjoy some of the fruits of this great nation that we have so I don’t really look at paying taxes as a burden. I will agree that a lot of times, I do hate to pay them, but I don’t consider it a burden. . . as a pleasure. I’d rather pay taxes and live in America than not to pay taxes and live in Mexico or Peru or Russia or somewhere else; but I am concerned. Sam, so I am concerned about what you all do, hear.

Mayor Hightower: Councilman Carmody made a statement a while ago about the strong mayor form of government and the City Council passing the legislation and we enact that, and that certainly the way this government works. So, I need to see if I can get a little clarity from the Council on, in particular, we are talking about the Chief of Police at this point. Do we need to go back and order the Chief to move into the City or are there any grandfather provisions that we are looking at here or. . . ?

Councilman Carmody: This goes back to the, I guess the question that I had, and that would be that, when we interviewed to fill a department head’s position, specifically the Internal City Auditor’s position, that was one of the first questions that we asked in our interview process was, did the applicants understand that the requirement of the job would be that they live within the City limits. Was that question posed to your department heads when you were seeking to fill those positions?

Mayor Hightower: No, it was not. When I interviewed. . . Councilman Carmody: Do you feel it’s a priority then? Mayor Hightower: I think it is important and I am going to take direction from the City Council, but when I interviewed for Police Chief, I was a lot more concerned about the quality of the applicant than I was about where they lived. I am fully aware of what the Council have just enacted or just upheld and just give me some clarity and we’ll move in that direction.

Councilman Burrell: I think the clarity is quite obvious here. Mr. Mayor, under the circumstances, we have laws on the books. Now, when we employ someone, we don’t go through every law on the books and tell them, this is what is in there. When they are hired, they become a part of or should I say, they have to live under those particular laws. Now, I know in particular and this is not, if it was a department head or whether it was the chief or whomever, it is not directed to any one of them. During the time we were doing this hiring, even of the Chief, we had this residency requirement was an issue at that time because we had other people who we were hiring as part of being a department head. So, it is not something that was not, actually in the public or in the public eye. Now, whether you specifically stated that you had to move into the City, I don’t think that was necessary, but if you feel that it was necessary then that is something different. But I remember this issue being out there in the public, in the papers. We were discussing this issue because there were others that we were hiring and that was part of the requirement during that time, so it is not like we are ignorant of the law, because it was a hot issue during that period of time, that’s as clear as I needed to have made it.

Councilman Serio: I think Councilman Burrell pretty much reiterated what I was going to say. I think that we were all concerned four years ago or six years ago when we passed this. Keith, you were on the Council at that time, as well and I think we all. . . the department heads live within the city limits. And, I don’t think that it sends a good message to the rest of the folks in the City that if we let someone do something and you uphold it with other organizations or other departments, I think that it makes sense that we run a straight line across the board, all the time.

Councilman Stewart: Mayor, I think that any discussion about a mandate on the Chief at this time is a mute point. I think we approved it in the past and we tolerated it and that’s the reason I asked, are we willing to deal with this in the future and I think that is where we have to deal with, personally.

Mr. Antee: One area of confusion is the grandfather clause and I think what we’ll need to do is get a report from the City Attorney’s Office to determine because the ordinance actually says, initially appointed, and it depends on what position; so, we’ll get that answer and get it back to you.

Councilman Spigener: I don’t believe this was something that department heads did not understand. It was a law that was on the book. I believe they understood it. We have one department head who did sell his house, I don’t think that there was any particular pressure put on him except for the fact that he knew that that was one of the requirements of holding that position and that was Gary Norman, head of SPAR. He did sell his house, he moved into the City so I don’t see that there, and of course I am certainly not the City Attorney and have not read the ordinance, word for word, but I just don’t see that there was a grandfather clause in there and so I don’t know that that is even a point, but we’ll leave that to the attorneys to handle that.

Mayor Hightower: I guess, Ms. Spigener, the only—when I was on the Council I voted as the majority of the Council did today. However, when we made that vote several years ago, we did grandfather several and we have at least one department head now, that lives in the city of Bossier City that was grandfathered in. But those people all, at that time, currently worked for the City as did the Chief, at this particular time. And I guess that’s really may be the more gray area, is would a city employee back at the time that the legislation was initiated had grandfather rights on through, and that is really the clarification I need from the Council. There is no doubt, as several of you have stated that, the Chief knew that there was a residency requirement. I don’t think that had to be mentioned in the meeting, although should have, but there is no question that that is there. Again, I think the gray area is well, I have been an employee of the City for the past 15 or 20 years, does that mean I have to move or not.

Councilman Spigener Well, I guess one other question or statement, then you feel that perhaps the grandfather clause could include employees who were not at that particular time in their life, department head, but just strictly employee? Mayor Hightower: I think that if you just get right down to it, Liz Washington was grandfathered in when I was on the City Council. Technically, I had to re-appoint Liz as the Finance Director when this Administration came into office and we didn’t go in and say, Liz, new day. Now you gotta move, the grandfather clause is over with. The only difference is, she is currently a department head and Jim was not.

Councilman Spigener: She was a department head at that time? Mayor Hightower: Correct; that’s the difference and that’s why I am asking for the clarity. I am certainly going to move in the direction that the Council wants us to move in and I am not an adversary to the position the Council took, I voted the same way 5 or 6 years ago. But again, when I was interviewing to replace the Police Chief, I looked for the best person that we could find from within the department and that’s the reason, Chief Roberts is the Chief. So, again, clarity. . . .

Councilman Spigener: And Mr. Mayor, I think you made a—I’m very supportive of the decision you made and don’t want anybody to construe my comments as otherwise.

Councilman Carmody: I did want to let the Mayor know that I feel like I voted to confirm Chief Roberts and I felt like that the Mayor did a good job in finding the best person for the job.

What I would ask is if our Clerk of the Council or possible our attorney, can clarify for us, the exact wording of that ordinance because I can not find my copy of it, but I do recall that it did say that it was effective for all department heads after a particular date unless they were previously employed as a department head, is that not correct? The only ones that were grandfathered were the ones that were prior department heads prior to the enactment of that law? Ms. Glass: The language says: The following officers and employees of the City who are initially appointed after February 1, 1995 shall, as a condition of their employment and a condition of their continued employment, reside within the corporate boundaries of the City within three months after appointment and then it goes on to list the officials.

Councilman Carmody: That seems pretty clear to me, Council members, Mr. Mayor as far as how it reads. And again the Chief of Police, of course is responsible for upholding the ordinances that is this City’s laws. And I had understood when we asked the Chief to come forward, that he been in the employ of the City since, I believe 1982 but not in the capacity as a Chief, which is a department head and therefore having just heard it read again, confirms it, when I read it I took it to be if we confirmed a new department head, that that department head understood the law that said that you had to come within and reside within the City limits within three months of taking that office. So, again, I hope that is clear enough because I think the rest of us understand it. Mayor Hightower: Thank you.

2. Ordinance No. 21 of 2001 by Councilman Serio: 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 March 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 Serio, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption.

Councilman Burrell: I am not here to debate the issue on this. I think that I’ve gotten a clarification from those in the Administration and we’ve also talked with persons who are here on the Council. I did not ask for an explanation of their vote.

I did have a problem with our City hasn’t turned down annexation into the City for such a long period of time, matter of fact, longer than even Clerk of Council Art Thompson said that he can remember and that’s a long time. (Councilman Shyne: Yeah, ‘cause he’s an old man.) I didn’t say that, but at the same time we had a glitch in the radar where we had a situation where we turned it down and my problem was, what was the big difference between the two. And so that was my problem with these two different annexations at this point and time; so I just wanted to make that as a clarification.

I think in the future, there needs to be even more of a clarification. Are we in the annexation mode or are we not in the annexation mode? Are we going to annex because it is in one part of the City and not in the other part, if so, then I think we are going to find ourselves in a situation where the Justice Department is going to start looking at these matters, matter of fact, I know it is going to start looking at this matter because I am going to offer it up as an example. It may not pan out, but I think we need to be sure that we are doing the right thing.

Councilman Serio: If I may, a little of rebuttal on that issue. The previous issue that Mr. Burrell is referring to, we did have opposition by Shreveport citizens. Their opposition was that it was not consistent with the surrounding developments and the presentation to us was such that we didn’t have the development plot or plan that was with City code, it was development that was in the Parish.

The current developments that we’ve got that is under construction right now. As you saw from the map a few minutes ago, it matches the current residential neighborhood. There has been no opposition, that was the key right there, there has been no opposition from any Shreveport citizen. We’ve had no opposition from the neighborhoods that abut it. It does add to the tax base, that is correct. It is in the middle of a neighborhood. It is directly abutting other neighborhoods that were designed for this type of expansion to take place and right now, it is under construction and it is under construction following Shreveport City Code. So, it is a development that is planned to be in the City, part of the City, developed under City Code, it matches the neighborhoods that are there. And the key to it is, there is nobody here that is in opposition to it, there are no residents here in opposition to it.

And so, from that and I know that we did have opposition with the other one that you are reference to and fortunately, I do disagree with you, Mr. Burrell, on that point that they are not exactly alike and if they were, we would have turned them—we would have looked at them from that the standpoint that they were, these two are not. You can go back and look at the map and the map shows you’ve got neighborhoods that are zoned exactly to be developments right where this one will be and it should be a nice enhancement. It is going to be a nice enhancement to have new development and to abut two older neighborhoods which enhances everything around it at the same time. I think it will be great property increase, a great property value increase for everybody in that part of the City.

Councilman Burrell: I am going to make one other point and that is, the development that was going to take place in this other property out on Lakeshore which would have helped our area tremendously out in West Shreveport, it would have happened to be in Mr. Huckaby’s district. We are suffering over in West Shreveport for the lack of development in that area and we prayed for development to come into that area. And we had someone who took the initiative to go into the area and was going to spend some $20 million dollars or more to develop a development in that area.

The statement was made that it was inconsistent with the surrounding development; that is not true. I think it was pointed out during the deliberations that it was and as a matter of fact it actually enhanced the areas based upon the zoning, but the zoning and annexation are two different issues in which we don’t, at some point we want to separate them and at points, we want to put them together. We have apartment complexes out there adjacent to this property. That is probably the most, the lowest, as I understand, type of zoning that you could get because you are talking about multi-family residents. These were detached homes; so you are actually getting an upgrade in property. So, I don’t think the statement that it is not consistent or will not enhance the area that it was being proposed in, is exactly true.

I live nearer that development that was going to be annexed, than the people who came and opposed it. The people who opposed it, lived across I-220. That is a big barrier, so they came across I-220 and said we don’t want you over on the other side of I-220. I think that is a little bit unfair but those issues have gone pass.

I think the annexation issue is something that we should look at from the standpoint of whether or not, we are going to continue an aggressive annexation policy or are we going to annex based upon where the property is located and I think that is the issue that we have, in my opinion, that we have here.

Councilman Serio: At this point, the issue is, is what is going on in District D and this particular issue is ready for a vote and it is under development and ready to go.

Ordinance adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Shyne. 5. Nays: Councilmen Huckaby and Burrell. 2.

3. 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.

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, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

4. 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.

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

5. Ordinance No. 30 of 2001: An ordinance to enact Article IX of Chapter 78 of the Code of Ordinances relative to naming and renaming public property and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on March 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 Shyne, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption.

Councilman Burrell: Mr. Chair, I commend you and also this Council for putting forth the effort to try to come up with some sort of requirements. I know that that is something that I strongly supported early on to come up with some sort of requirement so that we can be somewhat consistent in how we do these things because we have been naming and re-naming streets based upon, I guess, just how many votes that we could get to go either way, at least we have something now to follow.

The concern that I have within that document, and I don’t have it in front of me, I had heard the Mayor mention one time about naming a thoroughfare after someone who is actually living for economic purposes, I think he used the term, Terry Bradshaw on maybe part of I-220 or some other streets. And I noticed that within the confines of the legislation that was not considered. Are we going to cover that or is that something that is going to be exception to the rule?

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Burrell: As much I love the Mayor, but he is going to be out of luck if we pass this piece of legislation. Now, unless he can get a majority of the Council to overrule it, if not, he is out of luck. He is just like any other citizen, at this particular time.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Burrell, I think if I recall correctly, at least in reference to Terry Bradshaw’s name, what was being considered was the extension of the inner loop, Bert Kouns, ‘cause it would travel south, that corridor which would be a brand new street. It would not be a re-naming; so, I think maybe that would address that too.

Councilman Burrell: Just needed clarification. Councilman Serio said you can name it after him, since he been fighting for it.

Councilman Shyne: I did want to make it clear now. I love the Mayor and I think he is a fine fellow but he is out of luck when we pass this piece of legislation. If it was my daddy, and I love my daddy.

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

Councilman Shyne: And these rules and regulations were, these policies were put together by a good committee of people who really have Shreveport at heart and people who have been around Shreveport for a long time. I appreciate them putting it together. We had two former mayors on there, Jim Gardner and former Mayor John Hussey. We had John Mims, who I call the Mayor of Mooretown all the time on there and we had Reverend Williams on there and then we had other persons who sit in, Eric Brock, local historian who is very knowledgeable.

6. Ordinance No. 31 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by approving the continuation of I-1-E, Light Industry/Extended Use District limited to "a Type III landfill limited to construction debris and wood waste products" only, on property located on the north side of Mt. Zion Road, 1330 feet west of Linwood, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on March 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 Serio, seconded by Councilman Stewart adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Shyne. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Burrell. 1.

7. Ordinance No. 32 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the NE corner of Martin Luther King Drive and David Raines, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-2, Neighborhood Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on March 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 Stewart adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Shyne. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Burrell. 1.

8. Ordinance No. 33 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the NE corner of Greenwood Road and Marston, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-1, Buffer Business District and B-3, Community Business District to I-1, Light Industry District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on March 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 Stewart to postpone ordinance until the April 24, 2001. Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Shyne. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Burrell. 1.

9. Ordinance No. 34 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the NE corner of Fuller and Bernstein, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1H-E, Urban, One-Family Residence/Extended Use District (grocery store) to R-1H-E, Urban, One-Family Residence/Extended Use District limited to "a day care center only" and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on March 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 Stewart adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Shyne. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Burrell. 1.

10. Ordinance No. 35 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the east side of Line Avenue, 275 feet North of Young Place, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District and B-1-E, Buffer Business/Extended Use District limited to "the storage of materials needed for the real estate office" only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on March 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 Serio, seconded by Councilman Carmody adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Shyne. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Burrell. 1.

11. Ordinance No. 36 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the south side of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, 750 feet east of Kingston Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-2, Neighborhood Business District to B-3, Community Business District and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on March 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 Serio, seconded by Councilman Spigener adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, and Shyne. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Burrell. 1.

Councilman Serio: On No. 35, I hope you recognize mine was "yes" vote on that. That gives us three more developments out in District D, again, we are growing even more. We got a lot going forward.

Councilman Shyne: Are you sure you all are not getting to dense out there? Councilman Serio: No way.

Councilman Spigener: Which end of Bert Kouns is the 700 block? Councilman Serio: Which development are you talking about?

Councilman Carmody: The auto parts store.

Councilman Serio: The auto parts. Actually it is on my side of the street. Councilman Shyne: Well, both of ya’ll can claim that.

Councilman Spigener: Is it close to Kingston?

Councilman Serio: It is, but it is on the right side of the street.

Councilman Spigener: Technically, it should be in District E. I claim everything to Linwood.

Councilman Serio: You have the north side.

Councilman Shyne: Pat worked hard to get that, so, Phil if you all could share that.

12. Ordinance No. 37 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the SW corner of Savanna and Industrial Loop, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1D, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

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

13. Ordinance No. 67 of 2001: An ordinance declaring a public emergency in connection with the replacement of a generator at Fire Station #7 and ratifying the expenditure of approximately $17,000.00 and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on April 10, 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 Serio, seconded by Councilman Spigener adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

Having passed first reading on March 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 Spigener to postpone the Ordinances Nos. 38 through 66 and to place them on the Consent Agenda for the April 24, 2001 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

14. Ordinance No. 38 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3060 Meriwether, Tract in Sec 33 as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

15. Ordinance No. 39 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 8439 Birchwood, Lot 3, Block E as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

16. Ordinance No. 40 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 8449 Birchwood, Lot 1, Block E as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

17. Ordinance No. 41 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3122 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 27 Block D as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

18. Ordinance No. 42 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3123 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 4 Block E as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

19. Ordinance No. 43 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3130 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 29 as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

20. Ordinance No. 44 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3139 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 6, Block F as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

21. Ordinance No. 45 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3142 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 32 Block D as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

22. Ordinance No. 46 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3143 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 5, Block D as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

23. Ordinance No. 47 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3147 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 4, Block F as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

24. Ordinance No. 48 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3153 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 2, Block F as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

25. Ordinance No. 49 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3154 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 35, Block D as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

26. Ordinance No. 50 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3155 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 2, Block F as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

27. Ordinance No. 51 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 8432 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 36, Block D as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

28. Ordinance No. 52 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 8468 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 26, Block H as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

29. Ordinance No. 53 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 8470 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 25, Block H as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

30. Ordinance No. 54 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 8471 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 13, Block I as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

31. Ordinance No. 55 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 8479 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 12, Block I as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

32. Ordinance No. 56 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 8483 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 10, Block I as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

33. Ordinance No. 57 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 8487 Meadow Pkwy, Lot 9, Block I as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

34. Ordinance No. 58 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3136 Castlewood, Lot 10, Block F as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

35. Ordinance No. 59 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3140 Castlewood, Lot 11, Block F as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

36. Ordinance No. 60 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3144 Castlewood, Lot 12, Block F as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

37. Ordinance No. 61 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3148 Castlewood, Lot 13, Block F as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

38. Ordinance No. 62 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3152 Castlewood, Lot 14, Block F as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

39. Ordinance No. 63 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3156 Castlewood, Lot 1, Block F as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

40. Ordinance No. 64 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3200 Castlewood, Lot 40, Block D as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

41. Ordinance No. 65 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3201 Castlewood, Lot 27, Block H as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

42. Ordinance No. 66 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to dispose of the improvements located on 3204 Castlewood, Lot 41, Block D as described herein as surplus property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

The adopted Ordinances, as amended, follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 21OF 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.

TAG NO. 00-06

WHEREAS, Section 172 of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statues of 1950 provides for annexation by petition; and

WHEREAS, a petition signed by more than the required percentage in value of the area described below has been filed with the City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, the following described property, to-wit:

Begin at the point of intersection of the northeasterly right-of-way line of the 100 foot-wide Texas and Pacific Railroad with the common section line between Sections 4 and 5 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana; run thence, from said point of beginning, north 00°13' west along the common line between Sections 4 and 5 a distance of 200.00 feet, more or less, to the common corner between Sections 4 and 5 (T16N-R13W) and Sections 32 and 33 (T17N-R13W); run thence north 89°58'40" east along the common Township Line between Section 4 (T16N-R13W) and Section 33 (T17N-R13W) to the intersection with the centerline of the Sand Beach Bayou; run thence in a southeasterly direction along the centerline of the Sand Beach Bayou in the NW/4 of Section 4 to the intersection with a southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lots 12 and 13 of the Town South Estates, Unit 12, Twelfth Filing, Subdivision as per plat filed and recorded in Map Book 1500, Page 115 , of the Conveyance Records, and being a point on the present City limits line as established by Annexation Ordinance No. 56 of 1975; run thence north 32° 34' east along the said extension of the westerly line of Lots 12 and 13 to the southwesternmost corner of Lot 13; continue thence north 32°34' east a distance of 215.93 feet along the westerly line of Lots 13 and 12; run thence north 00°01'20' west a distance of 103.39 feet along the west line of Lots 12 and 11 of said subdivision to the intersection with the said common Township line between Section 4(T16N-R13W) and Section 33(T17N-R13W) (Note: The previous 3 directions were also along the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 56 of 1975); continue thence running along the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 56 of 1975 and along the north boundary of the Town South Estates, Unit 12, Twelfth Filing, Subdivision the following three (3) directions: North 89°58'40" east a distance of 849.00 feet along the common Township Line; north a distance of 14.04 feet; and north 89°58'40" east a distance of 170.00 feet to the intersection with the southwest corner of Lot 148 of the Town South Estates, Unit No. 4, Fourth Filing, Subdivision as per Book 1200, Pages 109-115, and being a point on the present City limits line as established by Annexation Ordinance No. 95 of 1960; run thence north 00°44'19" east a distance of 2624.77 feet along the existing City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 95 of 1960 to the intersection with the southeast corner of Lot 1 of the University Terrace South Subdivision as per Book 1450, Pages 287 and 289, and being a point on the present City limits line as established by Annexation Ordinance No. 164 of 1959; run thence north 89°17'03" west a distance of 2571.68 feet along the south lines of University Terrace South Subdivision and University Terrace South, Unit No. 3, Subdivision as per Book 1700, Page 21, and along the existing City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 164 of 1959 across the SW/4 of Section 33 and the SE/4 of Section 32(T17N-R13W) to the intersection with the existing easterly high bank of the Sand Beach Bayou; continue thence running north 89°17"03" west along the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 164 of 1959 to the centerline of the Sand Beach Bayou and to a point on the existing City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 268 of 1988; run thence in a southeasterly direction along the centerline of the Sand Beach Bayou and along the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 268 of 1988 to the intersection with the north end or point of ending of a boundary agreement line as described and filed and recorded in Book 773, Page 612, of the Records; run thence along the said boundary agreement line and along the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 268 of 1988 in the SE/4 of Section 32 the following two (2) distances: South 89°47' west a distance of 273.00 feet and south 00°13' east a distance of 1700.00 feet to the south end or point of beginning of said boundary agreement line and to the northeasterly right-of-way line of the 100 foot-wide Texas and Pacific Railroad; run thence south 63°43' east along the northeasterly right-of -way line of the T. & P. Railroad across the SE/4 of Section 32 (T17N-R13W) and across the NE/4 of Section 5 (T16N-R13W) a distance of 738.5 feet, more or less, to the intersection with the common section line between Sections 4 and 5 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, the point of beginning, and containing 159.42 acres, more or less.

NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport are hereby changed to include within the limits and boundaries of said City the above-described property.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the annexed area contained herein be and is hereby assigned to Council District "D".

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to record this ordinance 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.

ORDINANCE NO. 23 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY LOTS 119 & 120, OF GREENLAWN TERRACE SUBDIVISION AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the city of Shreveport has acquired certain real property; and

WHEREAS, the property listed herein is no longer needed for public purposes and should, therefore, be declared surplus and excess; and,

WHEREAS, Section 26-292 of the Shreveport Code of Ordinances provides that the sale of surplus property shall be by competitive bids after public notice.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the Purchasing Agent be and he is hereby authorized to advertise for bids for the following surplus real property owned by the City of Shreveport:

Lots 119 & 120, 2054 & 2056 Murphy Street, Greenlawn Terrace Subdivision, a subdivision of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, bearing Assessor’s geographical number 181435-032-0199 & 181435-032-0120.

Purchasers acknowledge and agree that the City of Shreveport shall retain, in perpetuity, a permanent servitude of drain encompassing the entirety of said lot, for use by the City, at its direction and/or discretion. Purchasers and their heirs, assigns or successor owners are prohibited from constructing or placing buildings, structures or other personal property, moveable or immoveable, on the above described property, as said property has been determined to be prone to flooding. Furthermore, purchasers and their heirs, assigns, or successor owners shall make no alteration of existing ground cover or topography without the express written consent of the Shreveport City Engineer’s Office. Additionally, purchasers and their heirs, assigns, or successor owners shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Shreveport from any losses or damages or any action or proceeding of any nature whatsoever resulting from or caused by flooding of the property.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the city reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the above described property is offered on an "as is, where is" basis without warranty of title or recourse whatsoever.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute any and all documents necessary to carry out the sale of the above described surplus property.

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 declared.

ORDINANCE NO. 28 OF 2001

N ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT A PORTION OF ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 90 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING; AND TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NO. 217 OF 1979 AND TO SUPPLEMENT AND AMEND SECTION 6, "PARKING TIME LIMITS", OF ORDINANCE NO. 27 OF 1948, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 40 OF 1948 AND TO CHANGE THE TIME RATE FOR PARKING METER ZONES 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 Sections 90-277(a), 90-332, and Section 6 of Ordinance No. 27 of 1948, as amended by Ordinance 40 of 1948, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport are hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:

Sec. 90-277. General civil penalty for parking infractions.

(a) Any person who fails to comply with any provision of this article relative to parking, stationing, standing or abandoning of a vehicle, for which no specific penalty is provided, shall, within ten days of the issuance of a parking citation therefor, pay $15.00 to the city.

* * *

Sec. 90-332. Overtime parking.

(a) It shall be a violation of the provisions of this division for any person to cause, allow, permit or suffer any vehicle registered in his name or operated by him to be parked overtime, or beyond the period of legal parking time established for any parking meter zone, or to permit any vehicle to remain or be placed in any parking space adjacent to any parking meter while such meter is displaying a signal indicating that the vehicle occupying such parking space has already been parked beyond the period prescribed for such parking space, or to permit any vehicle to remain or be placed in any parking meter space for a consecutive period of time longer than that limited period of time for which parking is lawfully permitted in the parking meter zone in which such meter is located, irrespective of the number or amounts of coins deposited in such meter; for example, it is a violation of this section to permit a vehicle to remain in a two-hour metered parking zone beyond two hours, irrespective of whether the owner or operator has returned to the meter and deposited additional coins therein; at any meter in the Central Business District as defined by the limits of the Downtown Development Authority, each succeeding period of overtime parking, or parking beyond the period of legal parking time established for the particular parking meter zone, shall be deemed a separate offense. The above designation includes both sides of all streets affected by parking meters.

(b) For the offense of overtime parking or parking beyond the period of legal parking time established for any parking meter zone, the penalty shall be a fine of $10.00; provided, however, that if such fine is not paid within ten days of the date of the offense, the fine shall be $20.00, $10.00 being added as cost.

* * *

Repeal Ordinance No. 217 OF 1979 Supplement and Amend Section 6 of Ordinance No. 27 of 1948, as amended by Ordinance No. 40 of 1948.

(a) Parking or standing a vehicle in a designated space in a parking meter zone shall be lawful for six minuets upon the deposit of five (5) cents, for twelve (12) minutes upon deposit of ten (10) cents, thirty (30) minutes upon the deposit of twenty-five (25) cents, sixty (60) minutes upon the deposit of fifty (50) cents. Total deposited may consist of any combination of five (5) cent, ten (10) cent, or twenty-five (25) cent coins of the United States of America.

(b) Said parking meters shall be operated in said parking meter zones every day between the hours of eight o’clock a.m. and five o’clock p.m. except Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; provided, however, that within the meaning of the ordinance the term "holiday" shall include only days designated as holidays by the City Council.

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 affect 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. 30 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT ARTICLE IX OF CHAPTER 78 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO NAMING AND RENAMING PUBLIC PROPERTY 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 Article IX of Chapter 78 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport is hereby enacted to read as follows:

Article IX. Naming and Renaming Public Property

Section 78-450. Policy.

The following policy is established for the naming and renaming of public property of the City of Shreveport. This policy does not apply to naming streets before the streets are dedicated as public streets. It does apply to the initial naming of public property of the City of Shreveport.

1. No public street or other public property may be named for an individual until the person has been deceased for at least 2 years.

2. No public street or other public property that memorializes (is named for) a person shall be renamed. Only streets or public property that have generic or geographical names may be renamed.

3. No public street shall be renamed unless the owners of two thirds (2/3) of the linear feet of the abutting property agree to change the name of a street.

4. The name of a street that is located within a designated Historical District shall not be changed unless there are compelling reasons for the change.

5. If a person or family donates property to the City, their wishes to name the property shall be considered favorably, except in no case shall the property be named for a living person.

6. The City Council shall be the final authority for naming public property.

Section 78-451. Procedure.

The procedure for renaming public property of the City of Shreveport is established as follows:

1. No public property shall be renamed unless an Ordinance been introduced before the City Council, which shall include, as a minimum:

a. If the property to be named or renamed already has a name, the origin and the significance of the existing name and any historical facts about the name.

b. The proposed new name.

c. The reasons for the proposed change, including biographical information about the person if the property is to be named for an individual. The biographical information shall include any significant contributions that the person has made to the city, state, or nation, whether the person was a generally recognized community leader, the history of the person’s public service, if any, and other ways the person has demonstrated outstanding service, brought recognition to, or otherwise enhanced the community.

2. The Ordinance shall not be adopted for 90 days.

a. During the 90-day period,

(1) The Clerk of Council will cause a display advertisement to be run not less than three times in the Official Journal of the City of Shreveport, stating the existing name, the proposed new name, the reasons for the change, and the date that the Council proposes to take action on the ordinance.

(2) If the name change involves a street, written notice shall be given to all abutting property owners, and the Council shall take such other action—such as personal notice to abutting property owners—as the Council deems appropriate. The ordinance shall not be adopted unless a petition is received containing the consent of the owners of two thirds (2/3) of the linear feet of the property abutting the street.

(3) The Council shall conduct research to determine the origin and history of the existing name, any deed restrictions affecting the property, the number of business and residences that will be affected by the change, and an estimate of the public costs of the renaming, such as costs of signage changes, emergency response costs, and other public services.

b. After the above requirements are met, the City Council may, in its discretion, adopt the ordinance.

c. This procedure shall not apply to the initial naming of public property of the City of Shreveport.

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 affect 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. 31 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY APPROVING THE CONTINUATION OF I-1-E, LIGHT INDUSTRY/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT LIMITED TO "A TYPE III LANDFILL LIMITED TO CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND WOOD WASTE PRODUCTS" ONLY, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MT. ZION ROAD, 1330 FEET WEST OF LINWOOD, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of property located on the north side of Mt. Zion Road, 1330 feet west of Linwood, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby approved for the continuation of I-1-E, Light Industry/Extended Use District zoning limited to "a Type III Landfill limited to construction debris and wood waste products" only:

A tract of land located in Section 35, T17N, R14W, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, being more fully described as follows:

From the S/4 corner of said Section 35, run thence N0°5'30"E a distance of 1464.27 feet to the POB of the tract herein described.

From said POB, run thence N19°45'44"E a distance of 47.40 feet;

Thence run along a curve to the left a distance of 296.20 feet (said curve having a radius of 1840.39 feet);

thence run N10°32'27"E a distance of 158.80 feet;

Thence run N89°43'9"E a distance of 704.50 feet;

Thence run S0°5'30"W a distance of 485.73 feet;

Thence run S89°43'9"W a distance of 826.14 feet to the POB; said tract containing 8.44 acres.

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

1. Approval is granted for a Type III landfill, as described in the DEQ rules & regulations, limited to construction debris and wood waste products.

2. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with the site plan submitted on March 2, 2001, with any expansions or additions requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

3. Hours of operation limited to 7:00 am to 5:30 pm, Monday thru Friday only.

4. Ingress and egress to the site shall be limited to a single entrance/exit only and on a road that is hard surfaced and in compliance with specifications for the anticipated loaded truck weights. Appropriate signage advising the public of the single entrance/exit shall be displayed.

5. The height of the landfill shall not exceed the height of the existing east property line.

6. Approval is granted for the operation of landfill by applicant only. Use of landfill is open to the general public.

7. An undisturbed buffer of 50 feet shall be maintained and/or restored around all properties along east side of the property.

8. All conditions must be complied with prior to the issuance of permits.

9. Strict compliance to the DEQ’S requirement that the company monitor against neighborhood dumping.

10. Approval is granted for a two year period.

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. 32 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NE CORNER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE AND DAVID RAINES, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1H, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO B-2, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of the south 125 feet of Lot 461, Jones-Mabry Subdivision, Unit #7, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, property located on the NE corner of Martin Luther King Drive and David Raines, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-2, Neighborhood Business District.

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

1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with a revised site plan showing a 6' solid wood screening fence along the east property line and landscaping to ordinance standards, to be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator, with any additions or expansions requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

2. In the event that parking becomes a problem and a valid written complaint is filed with the Office of Zoning Administration, the Zoning Administrator shall have the right to require the applicant to provide additional on-site parking.

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. 34 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NE CORNER OF FULLER AND BERNSTEIN, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1H-E, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT (GROCERY STORE) TO R-1H-E, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT LIMITED TO "A DAY CARE CENTER" ONLY, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of Lots 76 and 77, Linwood Subdivision, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, property located on the NE corner of Fuller and Bernstein, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1H-E, Urban, One-Family Residence/Extended Use District (grocery store) to R-1H-E, Urban, One-Family Residence/Extended Use District limited to "a day care center" only.

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

1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with a revised site plan indicating a fenced play area and compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, to be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator, with any significant changes or additions requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

2. The number of children is limited to either the number allowed by the State Daycare Regulations or 32 children, whichever is less.

3. Approval is granted for 24-hour operation.

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. 35 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LINE AVENUE, 275 FEET NORTH OF YOUNG PLACE, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1H, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS DISTRICT AND B-1-E, BUFFER BUSINESS/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT LIMITED TO "THE STORAGE OF MATERIALS NEEDED FOR THE REAL ESTATE OFFICE" ONLY, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of 0.25 acre in the W/2 of the N/2 of the south one acre of Lot 30, Kane Agricultural and Industrial School Subdivision, less the road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, property located on the east side of Line Avenue, 275 feet north of Young Place, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District on the eastern 118' of the site, and B-1-E, Buffer Business/Extended Use District limited to "the storage of materials needed for the real estate office" only, on the western 118' of the site.

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

1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with a revised site plan indicating adherence to the Landscape Ordinance and a 6' tall solid wood screening fence along the north, east, and south property lines adjacent to residentially zoned property, to be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator, with any significant changes or additions requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

2. Waiver of the side yard setback requirement for structures adjacent to residentially zoned properties is granted.

3. If a letter stating no objection to a 6' - 8' high chain link or wrought iron fence is submitted, a waiver of the solid wood fencing requirement is granted.

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. 36 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BERT KOUNS INDUSTRIAL LOOP, 750 FEET EAST OF KINGSTON ROAD, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM B-2, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT TO B-3, COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of property located on the south side of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, 750 feet east of Kingston Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from B-2, Neighborhood Business District to B-3, Community Business District:

A description of two parcels containing all of Lot 2 of the Blom Commercial Subdivision Unit #2, and the northern portion of Lot 6 of the same subdivision, Unit #3, both located in the W/2 of the SW/4 of Section 2, T16N, R14W, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, more particularly described as follows:

TRACT 1

The west parcel is bounded on the west by the east line of Lot 1 of the Blom Commercial Subdivision, Unit #10, on the north by the south R/W of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, and includes the west 70.79 feet of said Lot 2 of the Blom Commercial Subdivision Unit #2. Said parcel is more particularly described as follows:

Commence at a found .5 inch iron rod at the NW corner of said Lot 6 of the Blom Commercial Subdivision Unit #3 on the south R/W of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, said point also being the POB and also is the NE corner of Lot 1 of Blom Commercial Subdivision, Unit #10;

Run S89°55'16"E a distance of 140 feet along the south R/W of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop to a set .5 inch iron rod. Thence leaving said R/W run S0°13'41"W a distance of 349.94 feet to a set .5 inch iron pipe.

Thence run N89°54'47"W a distance of 140 feet to a found .5 inch iron pipe at the SE corner of Lot 1 of the Blom Commercial Subdivision, Unit #10.

Thence run along the east line of said Lot 1, Unit #10, N0°13'41"E a distance of 349.92 feet to a found .5 inch iron rod and the POB. Said property, together with all its improvements and subject to any restrictions, R/W’s or servitudes of record, containing 1.125 acres.

TRACT 2

The east parcel is bounded on the north by the south R/W of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, the east by Lot 5 of the Blom Commercial Subdivision, Unit #3, and includes the east 129.21 feet of Lot 2 of the Blom Commercial Subdivision Unit #2. Said parcel is more particularly described as follows:

Commence at a found .5 inch iron pipe at the NE corner of Lot 2 of the Blom Commercial Subdivision, Unit #2, said point being the POB and also the NW corner of Lot 5 of the Blom Commercial Subdivision Unit #3, run S0°28'10"W along the west line of Lot 5, Blom Commercial Subdivision Unit #3 a distance of 349.96 feet to a set .5 inch iron pipe. Thence run N89°54'47"W a distance of 127.74 feet to a set .5 inch iron pipe. Thence run N0°13'41"E a distance of 349.94 feet to a set .5 inch iron pipe on the south R/W of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop. Thence run along said R/W S89°55'16"E a distance of 129.21 feet to a found .5 inch iron pipe and the POB. Said property, together with all its improvements and subject to any restrictions, R/W’s, or servitudes of record; containing 1.032 acres.

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

1. Development of Lot #1 shall be in substantial accord with the site plan submitted, with any significant changes requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

2. Development of Lot #2 shall be in substantial accord with a site plan to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to beginning construction, with any significant changes requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 37 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SW CORNER OF SAVANNA AND INDUSTRIAL LOOP, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1D, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS DISTRICT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of Lot 1, less the R/W, Savanna Park Subdivision, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, property located on the SW corner of Savanna and Industrial Loop, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1D, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District.

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

1. Development of the property for use of the existing structure for office use shall be in substantial accord with a revised site plan showing required parking spaces, landscaping and required screening fence, to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission, with any other use, expansion or additions requiring submission of a site plan for further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO 67 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF A NEW GENERATOR FOR FIRE STATION #7 AND RATIFYING THE EXPENDITURE OF APPROXIMATELY $17,000 AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the generator at Fire Station #7 failed during normal testing procedures; and

WHEREAS, a new generator was purchased in order to comply with PIAL standards; and

WHEREAS, failure to replace this generator could have caused Fire Station #7 to be without service due to the loss of key communications and operations equipment in the event of a power outage; and

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

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 Shreveport Fire Department to replace the generator is hereby authorized and ratified and that the expenditure of approximately $17,000 for this purpose is hereby authorized.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that monies for this emergency purchase shall come from the operating budget of the Shreveport Fire Department.

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. None.

NEW BUSINESS: None.

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMITTEES.

CLERK’S REPORT:   None.

COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.

The Council resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Spigener. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Huckaby, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Stewart. 1.

There being no report from the Committee, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

/s/Joe Shyne, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council