COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

AUGUST 28, 2001

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, was called to order by Chairman Thomas Carmody at 3:10 p.m., Tuesday, August 28, 2001, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilman Spigener.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Pearl Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne, and Burrell. 7. Absent: None.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Spigener for approval of the Summary Minutes of the Administrative Conference of August 13, 2001, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 14, 2001. Motion approved by the following vote: Councilmen Pearl Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne, and Burrell. 7. Absent: None.

Awards and Recognitions of Distinguished Guests of the Mayor and the Council Which Are Required By Law: Mayor Hightower: No Communications, but I do have a guest. Councilman Carmody: Please introduce them to us. Mayor Hightower: I would like to ask Louisiana State Attorney General Richard Ieyoub if he would come forward.

Richard is in town today, actually to receive a pretty prestigious national award for an innovative program that he put together shortly after the Columbine incident in Colorado to address safety in Louisiana schools. And fortunate for us, we have had one school in particular, Queensborough Elementary, that was a shining star in the public safety realm (Councilman Shyne: I like the word shining, I like that, that’s a good word.) and Mr. Ieyoub has come up today to receive that award. But the good thing about the Attorney General is that it is not his first time in Shreveport, he is an elected state official that makes trip after trip after trip up here, and I know each and every one of you, have had the opportunity to meet him and discuss with him and when he is not up here, he is one of those state officials that will get on the phone and talk to you instead of having staff talk to you as well. So, Richard I just want to publicly thank you for the past 2 ½ to 3 years that I’ve been working with you on a regular basis and your willingness and certainly your abilities. Again, we want to congratulate you on your award today. Welcome, to Shreveport and if you’d like to say something to the City Council, they’d love to hear from you.

Mr. Ieyoub: You are doing fine, just keep going. You are taking my speech away. Thank your Mayor, thank you very much and ladies and gentleman of the Shreveport Council, thank you for letting me to appear here today before you.

As the Mayor told you, I was up to receive an award on school safety, a plan that we put together, a comprehensive plan, for all the schools in Louisiana. Was recognized nationally in Colorado by the officers, the school safety officers of the nation and certainly we were very proud to bring that award to Louisiana.

We had the ceremony which the Mayor attended at Queensborough school and I have to tell you, I was extremely impressed with that particular school as I have been about the entire Caddo Parish School system. I’ve got to tell you that as we begin to do our research into school districts throughout Louisiana and how we could best implement safety plans around the state, we look to Caddo for a lot of the initiatives that you have done in implementing this plan,

I have got to tell you, you have an outstanding school system in Caddo. Queensborough school, was just magnificent. I attended some of the classes and I was very, very impressed at some of the teaching methods that they were actually using in the classrooms as I watched the teachers teach, so it is really great to be here in Shreveport. And as the Mayor told you, I have been here on a number of occasions. I come up to Shreveport as often as I possible can. I have a lot of friends in Shreveport and I never cease to be amazed at the progress that the City is making and the tremendous effort that ya’ll are making in the way of stimulating the economy up here and business initiatives.

I congratulate all of you at the wonderful job that you are doing there. It doesn’t go unnoticed around the State, certainly I noticed it in Baton Rouge, being one official, a state wide official that Shreveport is certainly progressing and it is a wonderful place to be. I always enjoy being here.

I hope to continue to work with you on a daily basis, if necessary, and as the Mayor said, I stand ready to try to help you in whatever way possible. I know sometimes certain legal issues arise. I try to do my best to get my staff to act very expeditiously and try to answer any of your legal questions. We work very closely with your city attorneys and other individuals that advise you. We will always stand ready to do whatever we can to assist you and assist the City of Shreveport because I think that you are one of the most important cities that we have in our state and certainly, very, very important to the well being of the entire state of Louisiana; so, thank you very much for allowing me to be here today. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you and once again, I stand ready to help you in whatever your endeavors may be. Thank you Mayor.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Attorney General, Tom and I are the youngest two on the Council and we would appreciate if you would introduce your beautiful staff over there. Mr. Ieyoub: Well, sure. Would my staff: Dorean Brasso and Sandra Ezell, Ms. Pitman here and Ms. Langston—not Langston any more, Robinson, right. Frances Pitman and Beth Robinson. Beth has recently was married to Judge Robinson in another area, Bossier. I know it was Bossier. I am very carefully about saying Bossier–I say Shreveport/Bossier, that’s the correct way to do it, I think. And also I want to introduce Pat Robinson, Pat was one of our corporate sponsors. She’s from Blue Shield/Blue Cross that helped us put together this comprehensive plan. We also have Mike Russell is here with me, Mike is on of my assistants. I don’t know where Mike, Mike might have stepped out.

But we distributed 5,400 CD ROMS around the state of Louisiana that contained everything that one needs to know about school safety and it is a coordinated effort for law enforcement, for school administrators, for anybody that is involved in school safety and we put it together after we traveled the state asking questions from teachers and administrators and students as to what they really felt would be necessary to implement a good plan and then we did our own research so it is an excellent thing and that is what the award was for. But, is there anyone else from our staff that is here? Thanks again, we really appreciate it.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Ieyoub, thank you for your kind words and we certainly appreciate you being here. Mr. Ieyoub: Thank ya’ll.

Councilman Burrell: Attorney General, on behalf of the persons who represent Queensborough--Councilman Shyne: And I’m the other one. Councilman Burrell: Councilman Shyne is the other one, we do have some assets in Queensborough. And, we are making a lot of changes even in those neighborhoods that have been neglected for some time; so Queensborough is one of our shining stars.

Mr. Ieyoub: It was a very beautiful school and I was very impressed and Lola May was there, the head of the—she has been working hard. I remember meeting with her on a number of occasions and you are to be congratulated. It was very, very nice.

Councilman Burrell: I was kind of wondering how the Mayor got there Joe, and we didn’t make it.

Councilman Shyne: Well, I have to work for a living.

Mr. Ieyoub: I believe you were on the program, though.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Chairman, if I could, if the Council would bear with me, I would like to move to suspend the Rules. I believe we have Reverend Holden here and he has another engagement that he needs to get to and I would appreciate it if I could impose on ya’ll to suspend the rules and let him come forward.

Councilman Carmody: Let me ask though, I do have a request to speak from Mr. Holden. Would he want to want for Public Comments on the end of the agenda? Councilman Shyne: I think that, it might be a little bit lengthy and if we could hear his comments, since we have the Chief here and . . . would that be better for you Reverend Mr. Holden? If we would suspend the rules and let you come forward now instead of waiting until the end? Okay.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Burrell to suspend the Rules. Councilman Serio: Am I under the consideration that today we do have a public hearing, that we need to have, as well during the session and say that maybe we could handle that after the public hearing? I mean, we move our agenda around quite a bit. Councilman Shyne: It is really up and down, but I was hoping that we could handle him and get through with him.

Councilman Serio: I guess Mr. Shyne, the reason I ask that, is at the last, two weeks ago---Councilman Shyne: I will withdraw my motion and bring it up after the public hearing, if you all feel more comfortable with it.

Councilman Serio: Let me express my concern to Mr. Shyne. Two weeks ago at the last meeting, I was detained and had a early appointment that turned out to be a long appointment. When I got back to the office around 4 o’clock, I flipped on the t.v. and found out we were in Public Comments or what appeared to be Public Comments. And I said, I took a long distance call and came back about 20 minutes later and found out that we had just started the meeting, which I could have made if I had of realized that the meeting was not over at the time.

And I think that we have a set agenda and if we could stick by our agenda, that possible we could all complete the agenda and all of the things that need to be approved and I think that our people that do show up for the meeting, knowing that the printed agenda has a schedule to it. And if you come in to speak or if you come in to hear what is brought forward in the Public Hearing and in the first part of the agenda, then it throws everybody off and I appreciate trying to bring people forward, but I think we need to just go by our agenda when it is appropriate.

Councilman Shyne: Councilman, if it makes you comfortable, I will. But I would want the Council to understand that we do have that privilege and that is why we have that flexibility to suspend the rules from time-to-time and I think that we need to do that, to suspend the rules from time-to-time because there are issues that we need to bring up.

I understand that we do have a printed agenda and we do need to go by the printed agenda, but there are sometimes when the printed agenda is not necessarily carved in stone and that’s why we have the ability to suspend the rules, but at this particular point if it makes you uncomfortable, I will withdraw my motion and I will make it again after we get through with your Public Hearing, if that is alright with the Council. Councilman Burrell, would that be alright. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my motion and after we get through with the Public Hearing, I will make the motion again to suspend the rules. I think we need to have this flexibility, that is what democracy is all about.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you sir, I appreciate you gentlemen talking this through.

Public Hearing: ZONING APPEAL: C-29-01, REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP., 2600 blk. of Claiborne Ave., from R-2 to B-3; drive thru restaurant or other permitted uses in this zoning classification. (B/Stewart) (Ordinance No. 110 of 2001)

The Chairman declared the hearing opened and called for persons to speak in favor of the application. No one came forward to be heard.

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

Councilman Shyne: That was to the point, didn’t take very much time. At this particular point, I would like to move to suspend the Rules. Councilman Carmody: Could I ask if we could just wait, I think, until 7B on the agenda, that is Public Comments right there. We are two items away from that. If we could get through Confirmations and/or Appointments, work our way down to that point, I’d be happy to do that.

Councilman Shyne: If it makes the Council comfortable to do that, I will withdraw my motion. . . .

Confirmations and/or Appointments: None.

Public Comments. Councilman Carmody: For clarification, Mr. Thompson, those persons wishing to speak on matters that will be voted on before this Council today? Mr. Thompson: You can call them up at this time and those who want to speak on items that are not before the agenda, normally our rules would call for calling those up at the end of the meeting, that is what the rules call for but as you know, our rules have been sort of turned on their head recently. So, it is up to the Council whether you want to take all of those at this time or whether you want to just take the ones who want to speak on an item that is on the agenda.

Councilman Carmody: I show that we have a request to speak for annexation, that is on the agenda for today.

Councilman Shyne: Can I impose upon on you and ask you to bring Reverend Holden up first. I think he has another appointment that he needs to get to.

Motion by Councilman Shyne to allow Reverend Holden to speak, seconded by Councilman Burrell.

Councilman Burrell: Since you are reading off those that are under Public Comments, the statement was made that for those items that we would vote on today, f there are people to speak on those, then they would. What about items that are passed issue, because we have one dealing with the special permit? Mr. Thompson: Under the normal rules, it would come at the end of the meeting.

Councilman Carmody: Just for the other Council members information I have a large number today, of requests to speak before this Council, under Public Comments, I have 10.

Councilman Spigener: I assuming that our 3 minute rule will apply at this point as well as if we were to do this at the end of the meeting? Councilman Carmody: That is my understanding, as well.

Councilman Spigener: Will you instruct so that we can have the clock going.

Councilman Carmody: I will certainly instruct.

Councilman Spigener: Thank you.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Burrell did we get an answer though to your question? Councilman Burrell: I made a statement?

Councilman Burrell: It was a statement, I mean it is like Councilman Shyne, it is not etched in stone but I’ll accept that under the circumstances. I want a clarification that, are you saying then if it is an issue on the agenda today, then they are permitted to speak at this time, if not then we resort back to our original policy? Mr. Thompson: Well, what I was saying that the rules say, if it is a matter to be voted on today, it would be heard first at this point on the agenda. If it was not, it would be heard at the end of the agenda at the Committee of the Whole. But because our rules generally are influx at this time, it is up to the Council as to whether it wants to go by those original rules or to allow everyone to speak now. I am just saying that, because everything is influx right now and we didn’t have the rules as structured as they were, you may want to do something else; that’s all I’m saying.

Councilman Stewart: I think that Mr. Thompson’s assessment of issues being influx is an accurate assessment but since we have not had any rules to the contrary, I would suggest that we maintain, subject to individual discretion if we chose, the format we’ve had in the past until we find ourselves positioned with a good opinion, if it should change.

Councilman Carmody: I do have a motion and second to a request to allow Reverend Holden to speak. I do note that it not regarding a matter before the vote of this Council today.

Councilman Shyne: If it is going to cause this much of a problem, I had no idea. You know, generally we have not, in the past, had such a problem in suspending the rules or maybe somebody up on the agenda if they had to leave but if it is going to ‘cause a problem, in order to give them adequate time, I will withdraw my motion and we will just let it flow through.

Councilman Carmody: Please, sir. And we don’t mean to inconvenience anybody in the public, but again we are trying to work out how the agenda should be operated. I do have three requests to speak regarding matters which will come before this Council today for a vote. If it is agreeable with the other Council members that we move to allow them to speak.

Councilman Burrell: Although we are under Public Comments section, we are saying here that they are matters that will come before us, that we will be voting on. Would it be appropriate that we speak at the time that they are voted on or in this segment, is what we are saying. We are going to take all of the comments on those issue? Councilman Carmody: During this part of the agenda, this would be the time for those persons to speak.

Councilman Serio: Just a little clarification, the reason we are straying from the normal way that we conduct this body, typically on a Monday we’ll hear issues or we will hear comments and things that we are going to vote on today. Typically, in any given meeting we will hear comments at the end of the meeting. Is there a logical progression or a logical reason why we are straying at this time and if we do that, are we going to create a precedent in the future and we are not going to be able to revert back to?

Mrs. Glass: Mr. Serio, the reason that we are adding the Public Comments at the beginning of the meeting today is the new law that we discussed yesterday that the Legislature adopted stating that persons shall have the ability to have Public Comments at a meeting. It is our understanding that part of the intent of that was that people could speak on matters that were on the agenda before they were adopted. So, that is why we have advised you to allow the Public Comment on matters that were on the agenda for adoption today at the beginning of the meeting. As best we can determine, that’s our best interpretation of the new law.

Councilman Serio: So, what we have been doing on Mondays is inappropriate or is that not also allowing that same opportunity at that time?

Mrs. Glass: Well, as I said, it is a new law and there is not any court cases or anything interpreting it, but our best interpretation at this time, is that you have to allow it in this meeting not in a previous meeting. We hope to get some clarification either by a court suit or by some other way eventually, but at this time, that’s our best interpretation of it.

Councilman Stewart: Mrs. Glass, just in a general response please. I appreciate what you’ve stated and I have a generally understanding as a layman or a layperson, but my appreciation of Mr. Wainwright’s comments seems to indicate that he feels differently than what we’ve been advised. Is that a reasonable summary of his observations?

Mrs. Glass: That is what I heard him to say yesterday. I guess it is a question of, as I said, it is a question of interpretation. The City Attorney has given his interpretation, which is not the same.

Councilman Stewart: I appreciate that, because all I wanted was exactly what you said, put on the record and that is in no means placed before anyone to question the City Attorney’s opinion but merely to state that another individual, Mr. Wainwright, who represents the City, who is an attorney, who I understand was present at some of the arguments, felt that there was room for consideration and I would encourage all of us and the City in particular, subject to the guidance of the Mayor and the Council, to get a good objective opinion from this point forward from perhaps, who might appear to be the most knowledge attorney in the state or the most practiced in that particular part of what I would define, the law.

Councilman Shyne: My advise to this Council would be to follow the advise of the City Attorney. If I am not mistaken, I believe that is who the Mayor has hired and we have approved to give us our legal opinions. I know Mr. Wainwright and I presume that he is a fine attorney, but that’s not really what we hired him for. I think that—is the City Attorney in here, Mr. Ramon?

I have found Mr. Lafitte to be a very capable attorney and I have found him to be the kind of person if he did not have the information at hand, he would spend many, many hours researching what we need to have. And at this point, if we have any questions, I would advise anybody to ask Mr. Lafitte and I would advise us to follow his opinion because that is what we hired him for. And if we are not going to follow the opinion of the City Attorney, hey, we don’t really need one. There are a lot of opinions that, opinions are kind of like heads, everybody got one. But, you kind of have a tendency to go with the opinion of the particular individual that you have hired to give you that opinion.

And Mr. Lafitte, I’ve seen a lot of city attorneys down here and I’ve been here for a long time, ‘cause I am not as old as Roy, I think you are doing a fine and very excellent job and you have bene able to give as good of an opinion as any of the other city attorneys that I’ve worked with; so, I would advise this particular Council to abide by the opinion that Mr. Lafitte has given us, whether we agree with it or not at this particular juncture, I would advise us to go with it and if we have some disagreement with it, I know you wouldn’t mine discussing it, even at this particular juncture or at any other juncture, so Mr. Chairman, that’s my take on it.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Lafitte, do you have any problem with the way that today’s agenda is put together and at this point in the agenda, us entertaining Public Comments on the matters that will come before this Council for a vote? Mr. Lafitte: No, I have no problem with the way you are conducting the agenda at this time and plus I don’t know if all of you have had a chance to see the opinion that I gave which in effect determined that if any individual is given the opportunity to speak at a public meeting, which this is a public meeting or make any comments they so desire. The law specifically said, at such meeting. It is my interpretation that they may speak at any Council meeting on any item that is on the agenda whether they had an opportunity at another meeting or not.

Councilman Burrell: On behalf of the statement that Councilman Serio just made, concerning setting precedent. I think this Council if nothing else, has really shown me that precedent are set based upon whose convenience it is and whether or not you got the vote to change it; so, don’t concern yourself about precedence because when been changing precedence like month to month.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Burrell to allow Mr. E. W. Hornott to address the Council; motion approved.

Mr. E. W. Hornott (145 Arbor Lane, Shreveport): This is in reference to Broadway Liquor reopening. We have had several discussions about this. We are negotiations with the owner to partner up and clean this establishment up and make it real presentable to the public and run a clean operation. I would also like to offer less opening hours, there is a school nearby that gets out about 3 o’clock. We could not open until after school is already out of school, such as 3:30 or 4:00.

Councilman Shyne: That’s in Councilman Burrell’s district but it is right coming into, it used to be in District F. I’ve met with some citizens in that area because over the last, I guess maybe 12 to 15 years, we’ve been trying to delete some of the liquor stores that we have out in the Mooretown area. We have enough liquor stores in Mooretown to sell liquor to everybody in the city of Shreveport. That’s the last thing we need in Mooretown is a liquor store and we are fighting to improve the quality-of-life within a neighborhood and you don’t improve the quality by putting a liquor store in there. I don’t know how you could dress it up, I don’t know how you could present it. We got too many liquor stores now, that you pass by there and you see all kind of individuals (inaudible) using the restroom, keeping all kind of little dirty language. Matter of fact, I guess maybe eight or nine years ago, we had to kind of look into that situation where those people would be whistling at the little kids and all, that come by there. I am begging--that is the last thing that we need in that particular area, a liquor store. We just don’t need anymore liquor stores.

Councilman Burrell: The reason why I am not commenting at this time is because I am reserving my comments to the portion of the agenda where the issue will come up.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Huckaby to allow Mr. James Pannell to address the Council; motion approved.

Mr. James Pannell (3835 Eileen Lane), President of the Shreveport Branch NAACP: I came to speak on a couple of issues, but according to the ruling, I’ll be able to speak on the issue of the—Councilman Carmody: Annexation Ordinance 112. Mr. Pannell: And my concern, I would again register my concern that according to my understanding of the federal law is, is that the City of Shreveport is required to get pre-clearance for all annexations prior to those annexations. I saw nothing in the ruling that said anything about whether that was people or land.

And it is very evident that the City of Shreveport has been annexing large areas and they have been building rather expensive large homes in those areas which maybe contrary to some of the Council people or Council women position is, is that because of the income of African-Americans, we are prohibited by cost of moving into those neighborhoods.

The last time I was here Councilwoman Spigener made a comment that, people could move where they want to and she knew of no real estate agent or other people who deny people that. I would offer Mrs. Spigener an opportunity to come to the NAACP office and look at complaints that we do have of real estate agents who do not offer property to black people in certain areas of town; that is not an uncommon issue, it is a very documented issue.

As far as whether this position on the annexation is correct or not, my first inclination would be to ask the City Attorney. But, it appears that according to, Mr. Stewart here, the City Attorney may not be qualified to answer maybe we should ask Mr. Wainwright as to what that situation is.

Councilman Burrell: I appreciate Mr. Pannell’s comments because there are complaints and there have been complaints about people moving in certain parts of our City. True enough, I think if you have enough money, the ideal idea is that you can, but in, well we don’t live in a color-blind society nor do we live in a society where justice is always served. And, these issues speak, we talk about race issues, it is not always race, it is economics but when you raise up the rug, there is still a bit of racism that is there. But we do have some very strong concerns dealing with annexation issues and hopefully we will get some resolutions if this Justice Department, under this new Administration that we have, does their due diligence to look into these issues fairly. I don’t know what the outcome would be, but I am willing to wait and see what they are because I think it is important to Shreveport, at this point in time in Shreveport’s development, we don’t want to have a divided Shreveport. And, the way it is going based upon some of the decisions that have been recently made, there will be a north and south Shreveport, maybe a east and west Shreveport the way this development is going and I am very much concerned about that. I am not concerned abut now, I am talking about the future. Our community as a whole need to embrace and talk about these issues because the way our population is moving, and especially any new growth is moving, I-49 and probably I-69, will be a dividing point between two separate communities within Shreveport and that concerns me tremendously.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist look at some of the demographics and how those things are changing here in Shreveport and there are people who actually have an interest and controlling that and we need to look at this as a whole because others are looking at us also. So, that is my concern is for the well being of Shreveport as a whole, not one community or the other. We have enough division between Shreveport and Bossier, we don’t need a division between Shreveport and Shreveport, and that’s the concern I have.

Mr. Pannell: I think we are getting very close to the line, this Council is, that should not be crossed and several people are coming up to that line and some of them are even stepping across that line, particularly when it come to racial issues. And, I think that, like I said that there is a lot of stuff that is attempted to be swept under the rug, but those thing are just coming to the forefront on their own and there some things that ya’ll are going to have to deal with before ya’ll term expires. And I don’t know whether that is good or bad, that some of these terms are expiring, but we are going to have to deal with time pretty soon.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Burrell to allow Mr. Walter Clawson to address the Council; motion approved.

Mr. Walton Clawson (908 Beck Building): I am here to make a comment and to ask a question about the annexation item that is on the agenda under proposal 112. My concern is that in a recent conversation with Mr. Kirkland, I was concerned about whether when the City is enforcing the ordinance on applications for gated communities, the way that the scheme works currently my understanding is that the Metropolitan Planning Commission conducts a public hearing on whether or not an applicant for, under Ordinance 78-4, should be heard and then that matter after the public hearing is brought to the Council. I asked him the question of if there is a gated community that is in the Parish that then asks to be included into the City, is there a public hearing before that annexation. And it is an area apparently that no one has inquired of before. My concern is apparent. My interest is as the Council is aware, I am involved in litigation concerning the constitutionality and legality of the City ordinance on gated communities, but if there is a gated community in the parish that then applies, does the City Council conduct a public hearing prior to an annexation in the form of forming yourself into a Committee of the Whole and a public hearing? I’ve never seen any record of that having happened and there have been several subdivisions that have been included into the City within the recent past that are gated that we can find no record of their making an application.

The significance of that would then be that to the extent that no public hearing has been held by the MPC and to the extent that there has been no public hearing by the Council but simply that there has been a vote on annexation. Has the Council ever expressed or has the City ever expressed its position on the criteria announced in the city ordinance on gated communities having been complied with. And this question I believe has a significant general application to the question that is before the Council for annexations generally, and that is, I am unable to determine anywhere that there is an expression of the criteria that are applied by the City in annexations to the extent that there was an expression of those criteria, I believe that some of the issues that I’ve read about recently would be well served. I am not sure who the right entity is to address my actual question to, whether it is the City Attorney or the Council, but I avail myself of this opportunity. I thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Burrell: I did inquire as to whether or not there is a public hearing or any procedure that the Council has to address properties that are actually moved from the Parish into the City and the answer that I got without just extensive investigation is, no, but maybe someone else can correct that.

Mr. Clawson: That’s my appreciation. I can’t find any procedure that is in place currently that is used as a matter of course.

Councilman Burrell: And because of that answer that I received, I have already asked our Clerk of Council to get with Judy to look into this matter and if it is not, then we need to create an ordinance that will give us the authority to do that because as you know, the regulations in the parish and the city are different and if you have an existing development that is in the parish that has moved to the City and there is no pass through to check and see if it conforms to, the parish law conform to the City law, then we are actually in violation of the trust of our citizens to make that assurance. So, I don’t know if it is as of yet. Like I said, the initial response I got was no and I think we need to look into it further; so maybe someone else may know that it is it is just that that was response that I got. Is there a clarification on that point?

Councilman Carmody: I was going to ask maybe if Mr. Kirkland could come forward. Charles, could you come up for a second, maybe you could help me with it. Mr. Clawson, I am not sure, you seem to have been out of the Chamber at the time that he spoke.

Mr. Kirkland: I am going to try to duck this one fairly quickly, Mr. Carmody, but go ahead. Councilman Carmody: I guess what Mr. Clawson had sounded like was that there may be an appearance of trying to circumvent the law by being in the parish and doing some type of residential development that is gated and then petitioning the City and us annexing it in that subdivision with the gates without a proper public hearing which is required of a subdivision within the City seeking to gate that community.

Mr. Clawson: I invoke Mr. Kirkland simply to say, that we have had a brief conversation in which I inquired of him: Is there a procedure that you are aware of that requires the MPC to hold a hearing. He was in good faith and was very responsive and said, I am not aware of one, my recollection of the conversation. I am aware of one. . . . Councilman Carmody: I believe that IS what Councilman Burrell said, that he got the same response.

Mr. Kirkland: I guess Mr. Chairman and members of the Council, it sounds like apples and oranges to me. You are mixing gated community as one subject and then annexation as another. I am not aware of any relationship between the two other than coincidentally, many of the new subdivisions around the City, in the City, and right outside the City, want gated community status but there are separate laws that deal with both subjects in the City and to the Parish, as far as gated communities.

Your best person to answer questions for you though on annexation, I am simply because I’ve been involved and Mr. Thompson knows and several of us have been involved over the years with different committees that have looked at, on behalf of the City and the Parish, annexation policies of the City. So, I have a little bit of a history as to what we’ve done and I’ve known a number of the mayors and the very aggressive annexation policies that almost every mayor to a person, going back to Clyde Fant and maybe even some prior to that, has to a person said, we have an aggressive annexation policy.

A number of years ago, we recommended the Planning Commission after about a year of study, some modified annexation policies but they were never adopted so what is still in place is an aggressive annexation policy usually set by the Mayor’s Office and followed by the Council. But Public Works and Mr. Dark, there are a number of knowledgeable people in this room that know a lot about the subject of annexation, but I’m a little bit surprised that there is any question. The process is so clear for annexation: those who want to be annexed applied to you and they simply if they’ve got 25% of the assessed value and 50 + 1 voter, they will meet the law of Louisiana to be considered for annexation. You vote it up or down, it is that simple. There is no other, if you are dealing with raw undeveloped land, then Mr. Burrell when you get into the developed areas, you do have other factors to consider but that again is up to this Council as to what you want to weight and how you want to weight it. With that, I’ll try to back out of it, Mr. Chairman

Councilman Burrell: I am very much aware of the policies when you do have populated areas because it does depend upon the people who are there to voice their concerns as to whether or not they want to be annexed or not. But, undeveloped property, I think we have set a–we use the word again, a new precedent here on this Council where we’ve had an aggressive annexation policy that has been thwarted by whatever reasons there are, the reason why we change right in the middle of a stream because one African-American developer decided that he want to develop a piece of property in which in Shreveport’s history, I am still go back to find to see if we have every had an African-American developer here in Shreveport to develop any subdivision, either predominately black or white subdivision in this City and I have not found one yet. So, really we may have a new situation here that we don’t know how to handle, I mean, that we’ve never experienced before.

I think it was something interested, just for the benefit of the public and I see Don who is here from The Times, I have not seen the article yet, but it is my understanding that you all took a poll on this particular issue about annexation right after the last, I mean, one of the articles that came up. And I hate to take hearsay at this point, but it was sort of interesting because I felt under the circumstances, the way that the question was posed, do they feel racism was involved in the annexation issue dealing with West Shreveport and Southeast Shreveport and maybe some of you saw the poll that was taken. Don, was there a poll? I see you out there. And the figures that I got and I’m saying I’m taking this from someone who read me the information, I did not see it myself and you may qualify that, that the poll that was taken was like 56% that said yes and 44% that said no that there could have possible been a racial implications there in that vote.

And then I look at it from the standpoint, I said okay if that be the case then, what kind of survey, you know how surveys are, I mean, being a mathematician myself, you can take numbers and do what you want to do with them, but at the same time looking at this particular situation it was taken over the Internet. Now, I do know that less than 10% of people in the African-American community has Internet or, and I was trying to look at it from the standpoint, what was the population or the sample that they used in order to get those responses.

And if you go along with that, then based upon the sample that they took, it was probably majority white if not all whites in the community and to get a response like that of 56% to 44% to say yes, they felt that racism was involved in it, it made me feel vindicated myself because many people any time we talk about these issues, we always want to say that, we always want to resort to race. But here we have almost one race, if that was the case, that is saying that they believe that, that was the case. So, that made me feel that, hey maybe we are on the right track here or something is wrong with our annexations. I’ll give that back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda: Councilman Carmody: Do we have any legislation to be added to the agenda? Councilman Shyne: I believe it was brought to our attention that because of the situation that we are in, we would not add any legislation. Councilman Carmody: Thank you sir, I appreciate you reminding me of that, that is correct. Councilman Shyne: And that’s because I’ve been told by Attorney Larry English that I have a memory like an elephant. Councilman Carmody: Thank you for that Mr. Shyne.

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

There were no Resolutions or Ordinances on the Consent Agenda for Introduction.

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

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

RESOLUTION:

RESOLUTION NO. 106 of 2001

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHARLES LEON NUNLEY, LOCATED AT 7596 SHIRLEY FRANCIS RD., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Charles Leon Nunley has 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 Charles Leon Nunley, be authorized to connect the building located at 7596 Shirley Francis Rd., 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.

RESOLUTION NO. 107 of 2001

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GLENN STEWART LOGUE & TANYA FUGLAAR LOGUE, LOCATED AT 181 FLOURNOY LUCAS RD., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Glenn Stewart Logue & Tanya Fuglaar Logue 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 Glenn Stewart Logue & Tanya Fuglaar Logue, be authorized to connect the building located at 181 Flournoy Lucas Rd., to the water & sewer system of the City of Shreveport.

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

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

ORDINANCE:

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

ORDINANCE NO. 121 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE CLOSING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF EAST STEPHENSON STREET RUNNING BETWEEN WHEELESS AND ALEXANDER AVENUES AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the portion of the 30 foot-wide dedicated East Stephenson Street running east from Wheeless Avenue a distance of 904.07 feet and abutting the north line of Lots 1 thru 7 of the Madison Park, Unit No. 1, Subdivision in the NE/4 of Section 7 (T17N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and as shown and as indicated and as more fully described on the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby closed and abandoned, and be it ordained that utility and drainage servitudes be retained throughout the closed and abandoned street right-of-way.

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

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

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION:

RESOLUTIONS:

RESOLUTION NO. 105 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH ST. PAUL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, it is recommended that the City of Shreveport enter into a contract agreement with St. Paul United Methodist Church to construct improvements to reduce flooding and flood damage to the church.

WHEREAS, the lower level of St. Paul United Methodist Church located at 1001 Pierre Avenue has flooded three or four times in the last five years. The church has requested the City’s assistance in resolving the flooding problem.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the City of Shreveport be allowed to enter a contract with St. Paul United Methodist Church for a drainage improvement project consisting of a protective flood wall and an associated pump system.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLED 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 Huckaby, seconded by Councilman Shyne for passage.

Councilman Huckaby: I am thrilled to see the passage of this motion because my husband has worked hard and long to see that St. Paul United Methodist Church drainage is corrected and I am sure that they are all proud and I thank the Council if they’ll vote for that.

Councilman Burrell: I will also add to what Councilwoman Huckaby, because Councilwoman Huckaby, we’ve all been out there to that Church, but I know when Hilry came on, he spent a lot of time out there it is something that needed to have been correct a long time ago, the water got dumped into that area. It has caused a lot of damage. I appreciate the Administration for moving ahead to try to give them some relief. That church is a very historic church which is a part of Shreveport and it was crumbling and being undermined by this water that is going through there; so I think it is a good day for the church as well as for the City.

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

Councilman Shyne: Councilman Stewart, I kind of made a motion in your absence and I don’t know whether it is because you and I kind of have a little something in common. Councilman Stewart: You are better looking. Thank you very much, I appreciate the Council’s indulgence and support.

RESOLUTION NO. 108 of 2001

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

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

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

WHEREAS, SAMBUCA is located in Census Tract 201.00 Block Group 1 , which is a designated Enterprise Zone, and

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

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

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

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

1. To participate in the Enterprise Zone Program

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

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shreveport, in due, regular, and legal session convened that SAMBUCA and their project SAMBUCA JAZZ CAFÉ, Enterprise Zone Application # 20010173, is endorsed to participate in the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program.

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

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

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

Councilman Burrell: Not on this particular business itself, but on the issue of the Enterprise Zone Program, I know the Mayor brought up yesterday that he may be looking at addressing this issue. It is something that I know that I’ve addressed a number of times and over a number of years starting back when we started talking about the Enterprise Zone Program which was actually initiated as a mean by which to develop hard developed areas which normally falls within our inner core areas, areas that have been somewhat neglected or people who have moved out. We’ve had diminishing tax base over a period and it was like a shot in the arm for those businesses who considered moving back into some of these areas to employ many of the unemployable, things of that nature. And I think the last time that we addressed this issue, we did not address the portion of the rebate associated with, city taxes, I believe, it was city taxes, Mr. Mayor. The state, we really didn’t have a whole lot of control over that any way, that is a state program.

But I think that we may need to address it from the Council standpoint. I know the Administration said that they will address it but we need to be involved in this, also because we are trying to develop a lot of our inner core areas and I think we need to have some input into this also. And for those of you that don’t know, any place in Shreveport could fall under this particular program. And what it does, it lessens the incentive for development in our inner core area. So as far as I am concerned, it does very little good to give incentives to develop hard to develop areas. We need to try to take it back to the original meaning, although the state has passed legislation saying that, you can use the program whether it is in the inner core or not, but I think we need to address that and I would like to get permission from the Chair to work with the Mayor on this since I am trying to deal with a lot of inner City issues.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Burrell, I would be happy to give you that permission. I would also like to work with you in that I think that the topic, when it was brought up yesterday, we’ve seen this by this Council’s action that we have basically put our endorsement on granting to these businesses the opportunity to abate the state tax and kept our city taxes in tact. But as the program was originally envisioned, it was to be used as a mechanism to redevelop improvished areas and when the state opened it up to the entire community, as long as you met particular criteria then you could have that incentive.

I agree with you that, in order to get some additional push to going back and looking in these areas that we need to revisit it and certainly would be happy to work with ya’ll to see if we can come up with viable solutions to help remedy that situation.

Councilman Burrell: Mr. Mayor, would that be okay? Mayor Hightower: Absolutely.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS:

1. Resolution No. 109 of 2001: A resolution authorizing a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with the Caddo Parish School Board relative to the mutual use of facilities, buildings, and equipment and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 110 of 2001: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into a Cooperative Endeavor with the State of Louisiana for the purposes of constructing the Shreve Park Frontage Road, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Resolution No. 111 of 2001: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development concerning Broadmoor area "Youree Drive" flood control improvements, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Spigener for Introduction of the Resolutions to lay over until the September 11, 2001 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Pearl Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne, and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:

1. Ordinance No. 128 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located 400 feet east of Shreveport-Blanchard Hwy and 150 feet north of Woolbert Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1H-E (SPI-2), Urban, One-Family Residence/Extended Use (Industrial Park Overlay) District to R-1H-E (SPI-2), Urban, One-Family Residence/Extended Use (Industrial Park Overlay) District limited to a "250 foot communications tower" only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 129 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the west side of Youree Drive, 500 feet north of Ardmore Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from SPI-3 (B-1) Commercial Corridor Overlay (Buffer Business) District to SPI-3-E (B-1) Commercial Corridor Overlay/Extended Use (Buffer Business) District limited to "an 800 square foot, one-operator barber shop" only and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Spigener for Introduction of the Ordinances to lay over until the September 11, 2001 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Pearl Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne, and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE:

1. Ordinance No. 110 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 Claiborne, 275 feet east of Hearne Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-2, Suburban, Multi-family Residence District to B-3, Community Business District and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on July 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 Stewart, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption.

Councilman Stewart: I move for approval subject to some stipulations from the Metropolitan Planning Commission and would appreciate a second (Councilman Carmody).

Councilman Stewart: For the record, it has been discussed on several instances with Mr. Kirkland and various members of the staff, and Mr. Carmody who is in the real estate business. This Council. . . .location. No. 2. Provide a protective barrier for the residential area to the south. Recognizing that there is vacant lots on this street, a hotel, motel across the way, there is one very nice rent house next to it and one abandoned house. So it faces from the southeast, the intersection of Clairborne, Hearne Avenue, and I-20 in the interest, so I think its appropriate that we allow this and would appreciate your support.

Mrs. Glass: I’m trying understand whether Mr. Stewart, you are referring to the stipulations that are already in the ordinance which says that:

1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with a revised site plan showing screening fence requirements and detailed landscaping, to be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of any permits, with any significant changes or additions requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

Does that cover, that’s what in the ordinance now or if there are additional stipulations we would need to prepare a written amendment because this is an ordinance.

Councilman Stewart: May we ask Mr. Kirkland to join us so that we have an understanding. Mrs. Glass, I appreciate the advise and I was not aware, based on my discussion with Mr. Kirkland of the depth and breadth of what you just shared with us. Mr. Kirkland, could you guide me, please.

Mr. Kirkland: Well, the Board denied as you know and it was unanimous on the decision. I say that, well no there was one for it. But you and I have talked but you have not asked me to prepare any new stips. We did talk about a brick column fence, but we would need those, I think, we need some sort of a stip that would address a 7 foot fence, screening fence, and I think you wanted a 2 x 4 is what you and I talked about, type of lumber, womanized or other, to be used between the columns and with (inaudible) strips between the joints. But that would take a specific design, perhaps, Mrs. Glass, a stip that design of the fence should be submitted to the Planning Director for specific approval to carry out the intent of the Council or something, enough to. . .I know what Councilman Stewart wants, but I did not get asked to prepare stips to that effect, so I thought as–I think we could. . . Councilman Stewart: Mrs. Glass, I am happy to address this in any fashion. If you think it is more appropriate for a postponement and a more formal stipulation, I am happy to embrace that.

Mrs. Glass: If there is not a problem with postponing it, we do need an written amendment. We would either have to try to craft something today or if you could postpone it, it would make sure we have it correct.

Councilman Stewart: Be happy to ask for postponement subject to the written information from the Metropolitan Planning Commission based on my discussion.

Motion by Councilman Stewart, seconded by Councilman Huckaby to postpone the ordinance until the September 11, 2001 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Pearl Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 7. Nays: None.

2. Ordinance No. 112 of 2001: An ordinance to enlarge the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A tract of land located along the Southern Loop and Norris Ferry Roads in the SE/4 of Section 20 and in the NE/4 of Section 29 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana and providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on July 24, 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 Shyne for passage.

Councilman Burrell: Mr. Chairman, on this issue, I’ve given it some thought. I even took the opportunity at last Council meeting and asked for the postponement for Councilman Serio. There could have possibly been a 3-3 vote on this and voted this particular issue down on the annexation. I am still very much concerned, you’ll probably hear this discussion from here on until we resolve, to my satisfaction even if it’s to no one else’s satisfaction that we are annexing property into the City on a fair and equitable basis.

As I expressed earlier, and really was surprised at the poll that was taken by The Times that gave us that information, which I never saw it, which let me feel that I was not throwing up this race card as we have a tendency to throw up it is normally a race card whenever some of us in the African-American community does it.

I have a problem with this. I have a problem when there was no reason in my idea why we were not able to annex property in West Shreveport. And yes I say West Shreveport, because that’s what I represent. I’m not here to represent. . . .I represent it first, I put it that way. I try to represent the City as a whole. But under those circumstances to let issues like that die on the vine setting, saying that we’re setting new precedents on issues, although it would have been in Councilwoman Huckaby’s district. I think these issues that we are talking about on annexation are very, very critical and important issues.

I addressed the issue yesterday and this is steering from this a little bit, but it has relevance. I asked about the roadway that was being constructed in the Shreve Park area which is in Councilwoman Spigener’s area. And the fact that the businesses that are coming that are spin off for the GM plant, I felt should be in West Shreveport. But if there are people who are steering businesses over somewhere else that means when we develop property in West Shreveport, we may not have the people that actually work at these plants if its somewhere else in West Shreveport to occupy property that’s in West Shreveport. Yes, I’m being very cautious as well as being very protective of our development in West Shreveport. Because, if these businesses although GM is in West Shreveport, are gonna be moved to the Port or anywhere other than West Shreveport, I’m gonna have some concerns, because it affects everything in West Shreveport. First of all, you are taking jobs that are necessarily service jobs, that have the income level that can support housing and other development in West Shreveport to another part of the City and I can appreciate the fact that we talk about this umbrella concept, that it helps everybody true enough but I’m looking for it to help West Shreveport first especially if its in West Shreveport. Because we have shopping centers over there that are dying on the vine. We have businesses as you know that are moving out. Councilwoman Spigener should be the first one on top of it because South Park Mall is gone. Sams is gone and we are losing places over there on Pines Road that’s either going to Bossier to and shop or going to Southeast Shreveport. I have nothing against those areas mind you, but at the same time, I don’t want to represent an area that is a ghost town. And I think its my responsibility, as a representative of that area, that if we’re not annexing properties in that area where we can actually have housing development and other types of developments in those areas to satisfy the people who want to move into those areas because the jobs might be on that side of town, then I got a problem with it. I have to raise the question. I may be way off base but that’s why they elected me to be way off base if necessary and maybe somebody can explain these things to me, to some satisfaction that I can go back to my constituents and explain to them the same questions that they are asking me. I’m asking you some of the same things that they are asking me and I have no answers to them.

And under this policy here, where we seem to be only annexing in certain parts of town, I’ve got to deal with that issue. And that issue right now, leaves me to believe that we should not be annexing until we can get a sense of fairness or a clear explanation or an explanation the public can accept as a whole if we gonna talk about majority. Because according to that survey, the majority of the people felt there was something other than the explanation that was given as to why we could not annex in West Shreveport that there was something else in that in the decision that was made on the annexation or not annexing in West Shreveport where we are continuing to annex in Southeast Shreveport.

I just have a strong problem with it Mr. Chairman and at first I was gonna go along with it, but I just can’t support it at this point. And that’s my statement until we can get the Justice Department ruling. That is if they decide to go head on and look into it right now, it appears that they will but that’s where we are with it. And it’s no reflection on Councilman Serio. I’m sure that he would be the same way if it were just reversed. So that’s where we are. Again, its not in my district, but it is in West Shreveport. It is in Councilwoman Huckaby’s district. It affects Councilman Shyne’s area, Councilwoman Spigener sure enough, because we sort of borders on that west side. So, again, I just can’t support it until such time that we can get some sort of feedback from the Justice Department.

Councilman Shyne: I’d like to ask Councilman Burrell, is this the sign language for race card? I saw him do that a couple of times.

Councilman Burrell: That’s an old "Nixon" days. And this just came my mind today. I’m not a demographer, but I do study demographics. And just looking at Shreveport and how it’s looking now in terms of development and growth, I could draw a line down I-49 and to the North on I-20 and that’s where we are. We have nothing major other than the GM plant on the West side that has taken place unless you want to call Walmart a major development. And some people say that its just the opposite its killing other stores.

But, I hate to see us as a community only having growth in those areas when we need it so much in all of Shreveport. No reflection on you. I know y’all have . . . that’s your areas, but that is where we are.

Chairman Carmody: I don’t think we anything left to annex in District C.

Councilman Burrell: Unless you go in the middle of the lake.

Councilman Shyne: We got everything about 6 or 7 years ago.

Councilman Carmody: Hey, ya’ll took it in before I got here.

Councilman Serio: Tom, there is an area of Bossier that’s still in the District.

Councilman Carmody: That’s true, maybe I can (inaudible).

Councilman Shyne: I think the former City Councilman from that district, if I’m not mistaken, he name is Keith Hightower, got everything in before you got there.

Councilman Carmody: That is correct

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

Councilman Serio: I’d like to thank the Council Members for their vote and one thing I want to make clear is we had not opposition to this. There was nobody that came up to speak against this annexation into the City.

Lets look at District D and District E from several years ago. I remember a time probably about 10 or 12 years ago when the folks that, the folks and the merchants along Line Avenue were complaining that all the national chains were coming in and developing along Mansfield Road. And, the question was why are they developing Mansfield Road and not developing deeper into the City. And we have seen a change, we have seen a change in the last 10 years. And we’ve seen an incredible change and an incredible amount of growth in my District, which I’m proud of. And I’m not, I wish I had a good answer as to why. And I wish I had a good answer as to why 15 years ago, the national chains established out on Mansfield Road and didn’t establish anywhere else.

Councilman Burrell: Maybe it’s the leadership.

Councilman Spigener: I resent that, Mr. . .

Councilman Burrell: The Mayor was out west Shreveport then, Councilwoman Spigener.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Serio has the floor please.

Councilman. Serio: And you know, the transition has taken place. I wouldn’t want to take away from that, because it pays for taxes for everybody that’s used all over the City. I mean, several years ago, I asked Gene Eddy to give me some help, that I needed new bus routes in the City, that I needed to expand the bus routes in my District to incorporate further down Line Avenue through Spring Lake to the developments that were taking place on the south side of Line Ave, but I needed to incorporate new bus lines that went out past LSU into the business parks out on Bert Kouns because there is development taking place for employment. And that is important. And we have to have, you got to have people for the employment., you’ve got to have the business that are development, and right now, we’re very fortunate.

What is taking place, as we’ve always said over the last couple of years, I need more help. I need more help with development of the highways out so that all of a sudden it does become congested. That if 3132 isn’t brought outside the City, that sooner or later, we’ll be congested and that old growth would develop, but die on the vine as can happen. But you know, look at what is going on. If we have good development, there’s great development up on Line Avenue and I was pointing out yesterday, coming in this morning I noticed that one of the pool places that’s located right at the corner of Eden Gardens is expanding and almost tripling their size. We have developments all over District D: inside Cedar Grove, inside the Youree Drive area, out on Bert Kouns and of course towards Southern Trace, this is another good development. I think it’s the kind of development that affects and provide tax dollars for everybody in the City. It is not something that is withheld within the area itself. I do appreciate your time Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Carmody: The Chair does have a comment. In my line of work, the bottom line is that the free market follows demographics. We see it in the Mayor’s business. There is a tendency for businesses to flock to where they perceive the public that has the ability, they have discretionary income, they want to be there.

I remember as a child every bit clothing I ever wore came out of Shreve City. Shreve City has very little left. It’s frustrating to me. And I hear it from my constituents, I know the Mayor did the entire time he was on the Council. The persons that live around there are very concerned. But the free market, the persons that are trying to survive have to compete.

You know, you think of the Linwood Auto mile. At one time, that’s where all the automobile dealers were and you can drive down there now and with the exception of a few dealerships and I think most of them are used cars, they’re gone and they are all on Bert Kouns. Why? Because that’s where the traffic is. Because that’s where the perception is if you were trying to buy an automobile, you can go to where the selection is greatest and make your choice. I’ve realized the frustration that you’re talking about. I think each one of us does in different sections of our districts where we see flight of retail development. It’s a challenge that this Council and this Administration has. We just talk about it. We have got to come up with some type of viable solutions to give the incentives to these businesses that look at the population that’s still there. Theses persons are not going anywhere. They have a vested interest in the properties that they have lived in. They’ve paid their mortgages and they’ve now, they want the opportunity. They don’t want to be inconvenienced by having to drive 15 or 20 minutes from where they live to buy their groceries. But it’s a difficult thing for us politically to say "we want you to go here" when in my line of work, I show people from all the nation properties here in town and some of ‘em, they tell me "you couldn’t give it to me" cause that’s not where our market strategy shows that we’re successful and it’s the reality of the economy that we live in.

Councilman Shyne: If some of you all want some business in your area, I have some liquor stores I’ll send out there cause, I mean, it seems like that every time I look up, somebody want to locate a liquor store out in my area. Does that mean that we have that kind of income where we buy a lot of liquor out there. I’ll trade some liquor stores for you all to have in area, we are sick and tired of having them. Every time we look up, somebody want to put up a good looking liquor store. I don’t need no good looking liquor store in that area.

Councilman Stewart: An oxymoron.

Councilman Shyne: Exactly right. If ya’ll need some businesses in area, talk to some of these people that want to locate a liquor store in Mooretown, and tell you are welcome in your district because I don’t need them.

Councilman Spigener: I can certainly understand Mr. Burrell’s frustration and as he alluded to the fact, I share many of those. And as you’ve said Mr. Chairman, I think, sometimes its perception, but we must remember that perception is realty to those people who have those perceptions. So, I, again in my district we are floundering and scratching our heads as to what needs to be done, but as Mr. Carmody said, when businesses do demographics and they decide to locate in an area, there are many things that drive their decision. I don’t like that, I don’t want to accept it, but I think we are going to have to come up with some other solutions that are not what’ve known in the past. And yes, Mr. Carmody, I am one of those individuals that become almost angry when I have to go to some place to shop that I am not accustomed to and I try to remember that those people that are working there, had nothing to do with that; so, my attitude doesn’t show in my shopping. But I am very frustrated about some issues in my district, but we will have to seek other solutions because we can not tell, we can not demand where people put their businesses.

Councilman Burrell: I accept that fact. I am not naive in the area of economic development, I can assure you of that and I wouldn’t want anybody to allude to that fact, they can if they want to, but I can assure you that I am very astute to what goes on and decisions that are made in terms of economic development.

Now, I know that in situations like this there are, I mean, these companies they make their decisions on the demographics but I know that there are also other reasons why businesses go into these areas based upon on how the areas are marketed, also. No one can tell me that when you go out and you are looking for a business that the persons who are marketing certain areas, don’t get a leg up on these businesses and where they go. They don’t always make them independent. It is based on incentives that may be there. It is based upon thoroughfares or access, many of those things. So if they decide not to go into the area where you have greater access to things, then it must be for other reasons.

Now, I am not accusing anyone of necessarily steering, but I know some of that happens too, I am not stupid. All I have to do is talk to some of the people with the Chamber although some don’t want to admit, some do.

My concern here in terms of annexation if there is an opportunity, then don’t kill an area from the start because you refuse to bring it into the City, that is my problem, No. 1. and that decision is made on this Council. That is made through our decision as to whether we annex or not, it has nothing to do with the Parish. When the City gets ready to annex, we don’t wait on the Parish to make a decision. Now, if you are telling me that, you better show me that in writing because I have not found it yet and it has been alluded to the reason why we made those decisions or change our precedence on annexations was because of some decision of waiting on a decision that the Parish was making. We don’t wait on no decision that the Parish makes. We make our own decision. We are the City Council. We are not the Parish Commission; so, I don’t accept that as a reason.

I just don’t think it is fair. We need to be above board in how we deal with each other. If we are going to have property in the City for people to live in, we can annex that property into the City where they will have access to City water and other city services, then we should give everybody that opportunity, is all I am saying. If not, then I think that we need to just put all of our government in one part of the City or the other. I am just as proud of the area that I am representing as you all are with your own and it is my responsibility to voice that regardless as to whether anybody likes it or not.

Again, Council woman Spigener when I said leadership, it has nothing to do with you. I was partly making a joke, but at the same time (Councilman Shyne: Are you sure, Roy?) Nah, I am not like you Joe. It did not reflect on you. I was taking a potshot at the Administration, but not one from the standpoint of being critical or not, it was based upon–I say, well, the development normally goes where the Mayor of the City go and that is just really one of those inside jokes that we use, Mr. Mayor. But because a lot more emphasis are placed in those areas. Maybe when we get one in West Shreveport, maybe the development will go out in West Shreveport, Mrs. Spigener.

Councilman Carmody Are you declaring, Councilman?

Councilman Burrell: No, sir.

Councilman Carmody: I just want to make sure, this might be some breaking news here.

Councilman Burrell: Mr. Chairman, if it takes that, then that might be the way it has to go.

Councilman Serio: The Biomed, whose district is that in?

Councilman Stewart: Mine.

Councilman Serio: It is in your district. I was getting ready to say something, we now that the Auto Mall, as soon as Cheve-Land moves out and then it opens up the opportunity for the Biomed mile. And I know that with the development and the property that they’ve just finished over there that, that should continue to move forward as well, with the development and the property that just, I think it has been completed upon Kings Highway. Am I correct Mr. Stewart, it was completed?

Councilman Stewart: Yes, sir that is correct.

Councilman Serio: It did open, didn’t it. It is a very nice facility so maybe we will see, stretch it out to the Ford auto mall.

Councilman Stewart: I think we all are here to debate what’s the right way to go forward and I support everyone’s feelings as long as they remain objective and I think that is where our focus is. I think it is much easier for all of us to learn from the successes of others and I think a lot of our predecessors not pointing fingers has not embraced that, and I hope they will.

And for the record, I would suggest one very positive place to look, and that is Dayton, Ohio. I’ve mentioned this once before. If you go back approximately 3 years, you’ll fine it featured in Newsweek magazine, where they had a declining area that went very bad, very quickly. Brought in the author of Defensible Space which you’ve heard me mention before, Oscar Newman who is an architect, and completely turned it around. At the end of the five year period, crime was going down and everything was looking up. And it had one common denominator that we hear argued about quite often and there are two sides to it, this was a gated community. And the issue is not to keep anybody out of the community, except the criminals. And the issue of one way out for criminals is normally a key, because it has been explained to me by the authorities and as you can witness in this particular issue in Ohio, as a way of remedying. So, my most important thought in my mind is, let us learn at the benefit and at the behest of others.

3. Ordinance No. 122 of 2001: An ordinance amending the 2001 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on August 14, 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 Spigener for adoption. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program C (Street Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Street Projects for Economic Development (98-C011) by $3,000,000. Funding source is State Capital Outlay.

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

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

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, there was a problem with a sewerage line out in that area. Has that been taken care of?

Mayor Hightower: Talking about in Shreve Park?

Councilman Shyne: Yes, for the General Motors plant. I think there was a. . . . Mayor Hightower: Yes, actually the parish, we are working in conjunction with the parish on that. That is not in Shreveport Park though that is out in West Industrial Park. I know that they are working on that.

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

4. Ordinance No. 123 of 2001: An ordinance amending the 2001 budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on August 14, 2001 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Huckaby adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Pearl Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Serio. 1.

5. Ordinance No. 124 of 2001: An ordinance amending the 2001 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on August 14, 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 Spigener adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Pearl Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Serio. 1.

6. Ordinance No. 125 of 2001: An ordinance levying various taxes totaling twenty and seventy-six one hundredths (20 and 76/100ths) mills per dollar on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport for the Year 2001 in the amounts and for the purposes described herein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on August 14, 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 Huckaby for adoption.

Councilman Carmody: The following three items are renewals of existing taxes, is that correct Mr. Antee?

Mr. Antee: That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: There is no increase.

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

Councilman Shyne: I am glad that you cleared that up because I am a Democrat. You know we have always been accused of wanting to tax and spend.

Councilman Carmody: We just all re-new right across the aisle from one another.

7. Ordinance No. 126 of 2001: An ordinance levying a tax of thirty and fifty-four one hundredths (30 and 54/100ths) mills per dollar on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport for the Year 2001 for the purpose of paying principal and interest on the outstanding General Obligation Bonds of the City of Shreveport, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on August 14, 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 Burrell adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Pearl Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Serio. 1.

8. Ordinance No. 127 of 2001: An ordinance levying a tax of seven and ninety-nine one hundredths (7 and 99/100ths) mills per dollar on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the bounds of the Downtown Development District of the City of Shreveport as defined by Act 554 of 1978, as amended, for the purposes as set forth herein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on August 14, 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 Shyne adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Pearl Huckaby, Stewart, Carmody, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Serio. 1.

The adopted Ordinances as amended follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 112 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT - A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERN LOOP AND NORRIS FERRY ROADS IN THE SE/4 OF SECTION 20 AND IN THE NE/4 OF SECTION 29(T16N-R13W), CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

TAG NO. 01-03

BY: COUNCILMAN

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

WHEREAS, a petition was 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:

From the point of intersection of the west right-of-way line of the 80 foot-wide Norris Ferry Road with the north line of Section 29 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish Louisiana, run south

01/ 06' 20" west along the west right-of-way line of the Norris Ferry Road a distance of 953.28 feet to the point of beginning of tract of land herein described and to the southeast corner of the west 726 feet of the east 766 feet of the south 300.00 feet of the north 953.28 feet of the NE/4 of said Section 29 and being a point on the present City limits line as established by Annexation Ordinance No. 75 of 1994: Run thence, from said point of beginning, north 88/ 51' 43" west along the south line of the west 726 feet of the east 766 feet of the south 300.00 feet of the north 953.28 feet of the NE/4 of Section 29 a distance of 726.00 feet; run thence north 01/ 06' 20" east a distance of 973.75 feet to the intersection with the south right-of-way line of the 120 foot-wide Southern Loop Road (Parish fee per Book 2966, Page 331, and originally called the East-West Road and renamed per Book 3306, Page 596) in the SE/4 of Section 20 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana; run thence along the south right-of-way line of the Southern Loop Road along a curve to the right or west having a radius of 1944.86 feet an arc distance of 403.48 feet; run thence south 14/ 58' 35" west leaving the road right-of-way a distance of 144.00 feet; run thence parallel with the said south right-of-way line of the Southern Loop Road along a curve to the left or east having a radius of 2088.86 feet an arc distance of 32.38 feet; run thence south 14/ 05' 17" west a distance of 120.00 feet; run thence again parallel with the south right-of-way line of the Southern Loop Road along a curve to the left or east having a radius of 2208.86 feet an arc distance of 167.90 feet; run thence south 01/ 06' 20" west a distance of 973.82 feet; run thence south 88/ 53' 51 east a distance of 16.60 feet; run thence south 01/ 06' 09" west a distance of 120.00 feet to the intersection with the south line of the N/2 of the NE/4 of Section 29; run thence south 88/ 53' 51" east along the south line of the N/2 of the NE/4 of Section 29 a distance 973.39 feet to the intersection with the said west right-of-way line of the 80 foot-wide Norris Ferry Road and to a point on the present City limits line as per Annexation Ordinance No. 75 of 1994; run thence north 01/ 06' 20" east along the west line of the Norris Ferry Road and along the existing City limits line a distance of 359.78 feet to the point of beginning, and containing 15.0421 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 file, within ten(10) days of the final passage of this ordinance with the Clerk of the District Court for Caddo Parish, a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by this ordinance.

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.

/s/Thomas Carmody, Jr., Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 122 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2001 Capital Improvements Budget to shift funding sources for several projects, to appropriate additional funds and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 175 of 2000, the 2001 Capital Improvements Budget, is hereby amended as follows:

Program A (Buildings and Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Building Maintenance (95-A005) by $91,500. Funding source is Riverfront Development.

Increase the appropriation for Festival Plaza Depot (00-A004) by $251,300. Funding source is Riverfront Development.

Program B (Parks Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Riverfront Marina Barge (01-B001) by $660,000. Funding source is Red River Waterway Commission.

Program C (Street Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Neighborhood Street Improvements (96-C009) by $150,000. Funding sources are 1980 GOB, Prop. 1 $106,600, 1996 GOB, Prop. 4 $20,000 and 1999 GOB, Prop. 4 $23,400.

Decrease the appropriation for Jewella at Meriwether Road Intersection (96-C022) by #381,500. Funding sources are 1980 GOB, Prop. 1 $106,600, 1989 GOB, Prop. 1 $18,400, 1996 GOB, Prop. 4 $20,000 and 1999 GOB, Prop. 4 $236,500.

Increase the appropriation for Street Projects for Economic Development (98-C011) by $64,500. Funding sources are 1989 GOB, Prop. 1 $18,400 and 1999 GOB, Prop. 4 $46,100.

Create a project entitled Barnwell Center Sidewalk Improvements (01-C010) and fund it at $220,000. Funding sources are 1999 GOB, Prop. 4 $167,000 and 1994 A URB $53,000.

Create a project entitled Downtown Streets Sidewalk Improvements (01-C011) and fund it at $150,000 from 1999 GOB, Prop. 4.

Increase the appropriation for Street Projects for Economic Development (98-C011) by $3,000,000. Funding source is State Capital Outlay.

Program E (Water Improvements):

Decrease the appropriation for Water Mains for Economic Development (93-E006) by $53,000. Funding source is 1994 A URB.

Create a project entitled 1100 Portland Water Main Installation (01-E003) at $280,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Program F (Sewer Improvements):

Decrease the appropriation for Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (98-F013) by $200,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Increase the appropriation for Cedar Grove Force Main Rehabilitation (99-F003) by $400,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Decrease the appropriation for Hearne Avenue and Thomas Street Sewer Collapse Repair (00-F003)  by $100,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Decrease the appropriation for Zone 5 - 2000 Project No. 1: SSO Program Control (00-F001) by $680,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Increase the appropriation for  Zone 4 - 2000 Project No. 1: SSO Program Control (01-F002) by $100,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Create a project entitled  Odor Control for Sewer Collection and Transmission Systems (01-F006) at $200,000. Funding source is Water and Sewer Revenues.

Program I (Fire Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Police and Fire Academy Improvements (96-I004) by $97,700. Funding source is 1997 GOB, Prop. 1.

Program L (Transit Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for SporTran Maintenance Center (96-L002) by 44,400. Funding sources are General Fund $8,900 and Federal Transit Administration.

Decrease the appropriation for 1997 SporTran Capital Improvements (97-L001) by $44,400. Funding sources are General Fund $8,900 and Federal Transit Administration $35,500.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all other sections of Ordinance No. 175 of 2000 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Totals and subtotals shall be adjusted accordingly.

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

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

/s/Thomas Carmody, Jr., Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 123 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET FOR THE POLICE GRANTS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it desirable to amend the 2001 budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund, to appropriate additional funds and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 185 of 2000, the 2001 budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund, be amended and re-enacted as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

2000 and Prior-Year Receipts:

Increase Prior-Year Police Block Grant by $6,600.

Increase Prior-Year Drug Knock and Talk by $12,500.

Fiscal Year 2001 Receipts:

Increase Police Block Grant by $8,900.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

From 2000 and Prior-Years Revenues:

From Prior Year Asset Forfeiture, increase Materials and Supplies by $900. Decrease Improvements and Equipment by $ 900.

From Prior Year Police Block Grant, increase Contractual Services by $6,600.

From Prior Year Drug Knock and Talk, increase Personal Services by $12,500, increase Materials and Supplies by $2,200 and decrease Improvements and Equipment by $2,200.

From FY 2001 Revenues:

From Police Block Grant, increase Contractual Services by $8,900.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 185 of 2000 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

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

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

/s/Thomas Carmody, Jr., Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 124 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET FOR THE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2001 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund, to appropriate additional fund balance from prior years to capital projects and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 184 of 2000, the 2001 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund, be amended as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Estimated Fund Balance as of 1/1/2001 by $1,094,300.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Operating Reserves by $751,500.

Increase Transfer to Capital Projects by $342,800.

All totals and subtotals are to be adjusted accordingly.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 184 of 2000 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

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

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

/s/Thomas Carmody, Jr., Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 125 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE LEVYING VARIOUS TAXES TOTALING TWENTY AND SEVENTY-SIX ONE HUNDREDTHS (20 AND 76/100THS) MILLS PER DOLLAR ON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT FOR THE YEAR 2001 IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

An ad valorem tax of Twelve and Thirteen One Hundredths (12 and 13/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2001; for the purpose of general operating expenses of the General Fund.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of Ninety-eight One Hundredths (98/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2001; for the purpose of operating and supplying recreational facilities and appurtenances and maintaining the same, title to which shall be in the public, in accordance with the results of a special election held July 19, 1997.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of One and Seventy-three One Hundredths (1 and 73/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2001; for the purpose of providing revenues sufficient to enable the City of Shreveport to provide a three-platoon system in the Police Department, now in effect in the City of Shreveport in accordance with Act 323 of the Legislature of Louisiana for the year 1936.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of One and Thirty-one One Hundredths (1 and 31/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2001; for the purpose of improving, repairing, and maintaining the streets of the City of Shreveport, title to which shall be in the public, in accordance with the results of a special election held July 19, 1997.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of One and Thirty-one One Hundredths (1 and 31/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2001; for the purpose of continuing the salary and wage schedule of City employees, in accordance with the results of a special election held July 19, 1997.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of One and Thirty-one One Hundredths (1 and 31/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2001; for the purpose of police and fire personnel and allowance for uniforms and equipment for said departments in accordance with the results of a special election held July 19, 1997.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of One and Ninety-nine One Hundredths (1 and 99/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation with the City of Shreveport, for the year 2001; for the purpose of providing funds for the City's portion of pensions, employee life insurance and hospitalization plan for City employees in accordance with the results of a special election held July 19, 1997.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be full authority to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish to extend said taxes on the assessment rolls of the City of Shreveport for the year 2001.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance, Ex Officio Tax Collector of the City of Shreveport, be and she is hereby empowered, authorized, and directed to cause said taxes, as herein above set forth, to be spread upon the tax roll of the City of Shreveport for the year 2001, to collect said ad valorem taxes for and on behalf of said City, according to law, and to place the same to the credit of the funds described herein above as authorized by law. The taxes herein levied shall become a permanent lien and privilege on all property subject to taxation as herein set forth, and the collection thereof shall be enforceable in the manner provided by law.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council shall provide a certified copy of this ordinance to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish immediately after its final passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance and the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Ordinance No. 92 of 2001 is hereby repealed.

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

/s/Thomas Carmody, Jr., Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 126 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE LEVYING A TAX OF THIRTY AND FIFTY-FOUR ONE HUNDREDTHS (30 AND 54/100THS) MILLS PER DOLLAR ON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT FOR THE YEAR 2001 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

An ad valorem tax of Thirty and Fifty-four One Hundredths (30 and 54/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2001, for the purpose of paying the principal and interest on the outstanding general obligation bonds of the City of Shreveport, and creating a reasonable reserve for the payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due and payable, and this shall be full authority to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish to extend said tax on the assessment rolls of the City of Shreveport for the year .

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance, Ex Officio Tax Collector of the City of Shreveport, be and she is hereby empowered, authorized, and directed to cause said taxes, as herein above set forth, to be spread upon the tax roll of the City of Shreveport for the year 2001, to collect said ad valorem taxes for and on behalf of said City, according to law, and to place the same to the credit of the funds described herein above as authorized by law. The taxes herein levied shall become a permanent lien and privilege on all property subject to taxation as herein set forth, and the collection thereof shall be enforceable in the manner provided by law.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council shall provide a certified copy of this ordinance to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish immediately after its final passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance and the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Ordinance No. 93 of 2001 is hereby repealed.

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

/s/Thomas Carmody, Jr., Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 127 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE LEVYING A TAX OF SEVEN AND NINETY-NINE ONE HUNDREDTHS (7 AND 99/100THS) MILLS PER DOLLAR ON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXATION WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AS DEFINED BY ACT 554 OF 1978, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH HEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

An ad valorem tax of Seven and Ninety-nine One Hundredths (7 and 99/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the bounds of the Downtown Development District, as defined by Act 554 of 1978, as amended, for the year 2001, and to be expended by the Downtown Development Authority for administration, operational expenses, capital improvements, project expenses or the retirement of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, all in accordance with the results of a special election held November 20, 1999 and this shall be full authority to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish to extend said tax on the assessment rolls of the City of Shreveport for the year 2001.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance, Ex Officio Tax Collector of the City of Shreveport, be and she is hereby empowered, authorized, and directed to cause said taxes, as herein above set forth, to be spread upon the tax roll of the City of Shreveport for the year 2001, to collect said ad valorem taxes for and on behalf of said City, according to law, and to place the same to the credit of the funds described herein above as provided for and authorized by the special election held on November 20, 1999. The taxes herein levied shall become a permanent lien and privilege on all property subject to taxation as herein set forth, and the collection thereof shall be enforceable in the manner provided by law.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council shall provide a certified copy of this ordinance to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish immediately after its final passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.

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

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Ordinance No. 106 of 2001 is hereby repealed.

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

/s/Thomas Carmody, Jr., Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. ABO Card appeal: Derrick P. Wilson. (Residence - 6801 W 70^th [G/Burrell]; Employer - 515 E Kings Hwy. - Phillin Station, [B/Stewart]) (Postponed on August 27)

Councilman Carmody: Have we received any correspondence? Mr. Thompson: We have not and I believe you gave him the option, if he did not get it in today he could come back at the next meeting.

2. BAC-61-01, BROADWAY LIQUOR, 4309 Broadway, Special Exception Use and variance in hours of operation in a B-3 District; package liquor store operating to 1 a.m. (G/Burrell)(Postponed on August 14)

Councilman Burrell: We met with the owners of the property as well as with the proposed owners of the property and I wanted to give them an opportunity to explain to me, what they would do to possible enhance the property, just to hear their side of the story because I try to be as reasonable as possible, at least give them a day to talk about their issue.

I did pull information from the Police Department on this and didn’t find anything too noticeable, but at the same time we have gotten an overwhelming response from the community that said that they did not want me to support this measure because again, you have two schools that are in walking distance of this facility, this business and one is an elementary school and the other one is a middle school. They were pretty adamant about this store not opening, again.

As I said before, I am not against liquor stores if they are in the right direction and Councilman Shyne said before, we have been fighting not only he has, I have in Queensborough, help close down a number of them because they were right in the middle of a neighborhood and, I have had the experience of some of them, actually violating our laws to the extent they sold to minors and the minor left the store and went right around the corner and shot a young man shortly after, and which really, sort of put a heart in my heart, in that since. And I am concerned about this because there could possible be a new housing development right close to this facility, right across the street.

So, with all of the negatives against it, it would be very tough for me to support it under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman. If it was in some other location that was actually in a more open shopping center area, yes. We would love to try to get them closer back into those commercial areas, although this is a commercial corridor, but it is between two neighborhoods right adjoining it and at this time, I just can’t see where I could support this and I ask the Council not to support it.

Councilman Shyne: I’ll second that and Councilman Burrell has said, everything—Councilman Burrell, you have really been a statesman today.

Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Shyne to uphold the decision (deny the appeal) for Broadway Liquor.

Mrs. Glass: I believe the ZBA voted to deny the application, so I think you would be asking to uphold their decision, denying the application.

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

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES. None.

CLERK’S REPORT:

Letters of Appeal (cases not to be considered prior to September 11)

˜ BAC-73-01, BROADMOOR UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, 836 Anniston; Special Exception Use in an R-1D District, church community house and educational building operating until 10 p.m. (C/Carmody)

˜ BAC-74-01, APOLLO TOBACCO, LLC, 559 E 70^th Street, Special Exception Use in a B-3 District, lounge with package liquor sales. (C/Carmody)

Councilman Serio: I see, I am looking at BAC-74-01, this is Apollo Tobacco. Councilman Carmody: 70^th and Line Avenue. Councilman Serio: It used to be Apollo Liquor. Councilman Carmody: It used to be, yes sir. Councilman Serio: This will be a lounge with package liquor sales. I thought it was changing to a tobacco store? Councilman Carmody: From my understanding that it was going to be a tobacco store, as well. Councilman Serio: Is this correct. Mr. Kirkland, will you add some clarification, please. Matter of fact, I drove by there today and it did say tobacco.

Mr. Kirkland: They applied for a lounge with package liquor sales. They were denied by the ZBA for the lounge, were approved for the package liquor sales. They then appealed that decision to you, the Council, because they still want the lounge with package liquor sales. Now, the police have said plainly and I don’t know that they’ve yet understood it, they being the applicant, that they can’t have package liquor sales at this lounge. So, they’ll have to decide what they really want to be, either a package liquor or a lounge, and obviously ought to clarify that before you vote.

Councilman Serio: Isn’t it a little convoluted, shouldn’t it be decided before we get it to vote on it?

Mr. Kirkland: Well, sir, I’m just saying that the applicant can appeal whatever they wish and say whatever they wish. I am just explaining that from my point of view, they certainly ought to clarify–and I don’t know that it normally would be voted on today, would it Mr. Thompson? Councilman Carmody: No, no, it is not to be considered. . . . Mr. Kirkland: So it is really on, if you follow your normal rules, you wouldn’t vote today.

Councilman Serio: I wasn’t trying to, I just saw the Apollo Tobacco, but I noticed they had, package liquor in it, and I thought it was an unusual combination. Mr. Kirkland: Right, very unusual.

Councilman Shyne: You said that they are asking for a lounge, also. Mr. Kirkland: They filed for a lounge with package liquor sales, that was denied by the board based on neighborhood concerns, the Board’s own sense of what was good for that location. The Board approved only a package liquor sales operations and then the applicant appealed to you for. . . .

Councilman Shyne: Did you all hear, I don’t know whether you all heard what he said because of the—that used to be in my district. It probably will be in District F again, when they re-draw the lines. I see Roy is smiling.

Councilman Burrell: You know something we don’t know?

Councilman Carmody: I was going to say, you are staking claim on the corner of 70^th and Line?

Councilman Shyne: It used to be in District F, and if you will notice there is a neighborhood now, there is a neighborhood. And before we vote on this, I would appreciate it if you all would take into consideration the neighborhood and how you would feel if you had a lounge that was maybe, 30 or 40 feet from your house. And I don’t mean any harm when I say this, but you could drive by there some times and you could see what goes on there. And I think we have a moral obligation to make sure that we maintain a certain quality-of-life within these neighborhoods, because I think I in some of these neighborhoods, this is why some of these people are moving out because they are trying to get away from this kind of stuff.

I am going to be truthful with you, if I lived closed to a lounge like that, I would have been gone a long time ago and that’s why I am very sensitive to people who live close to these establishment. Sure, I want them, but I don’t want them in the neighborhood. We had another one in the neighborhood, about five blocks from there and it took us years to get it out of the neighborhood. Once you zone in a lounge in a residential neighborhood or close to a residential neighborhood, it is pretty hard to get it out. So, I’m asking the Council to really think very hard and I have nothing against a lounge because some times I go to one and pull my shoes off and Pearl, I get down and get with it. Councilman Huckaby: You? Councilman Shyne: Yes, me. But I don’t think that. . . right, Roy. I take that back, not the preacher’s son. Roy, you are exactly right. I used to do that when I was younger, but I don’t do it now. I’m a preacher’s son. But I would ask this Council to really think twice now before we do that because those people in that area, a lot of them have gone in and they have done some repair to their houses. We spent about a half a million dollars on paving the street over in that area to enhance the neighborhoods and I think that we need to keep that into consideration.

COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.

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

There being no report from the Committee, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

/s/Thomas Carmody, Jr., Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council