COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

DECEMBER 27, 2001

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, was called to order by Chairman John David Stewart, at 10:05 a.m., Thursday, December 27, 2001, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilman Carmody.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby who was out of town. 1.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Burrell for approval of the Summary Minutes of the Administrative Conference of December 10, 2001 and the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 11, 2001. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen, Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby who was out of town. 1.

Councilman Stewart: I am certain that the members of the Council, all wish each of you a Happy New Year and hope that you had a wonderful Christmas experience.

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

Public Hearing: None.

Confirmations and/or Appointments: None.

Public Comments. Councilman Stewart: We have a request of two proponents here, Mr. Weiner and Mr. Weiss who wanted to speak on this. I’ve informed both of them that they were certainly, I was pleased to have them here, that I was going to move for postponement awaiting a legal opinion from the City Attorney on several issues. However, I offer that only as a matter of record. Mr. Wiener and Mr. Wise, we’d be happy to entertain your comments now or at the subsequent meeting.

Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Serio to allow Bill Weiner and Mr. Weiss (his representative) to address the Council (motion unanimously approved.)

Bill Weiner (401 Market, Suite 1110), Ordinance No. 194 of 2001: I own a piece of property that borders both Glen Iris and Baltimore. I’m here to ask you not to abandon the street that gives me my only automobile access. It is unfortunate I was not here on the 7^th when this issue was debated at your work session because there were many statements made there which were hearsay and just plain incorrect, but I am going to hold those comments to the end because I might run out of time.

There is a 13 foot drop at Baltimore which makes vehicular access almost impossible. Previous decisions to close and abandon this street have been unanimously rejected by four public bodies and rejected once by the Department of Operational Standards.

Community policy is that one hundred percent of adjoining property owners should concur to close and abandon the street. I am an adjoining property owner and I do not concur.

Consistency. Since this came up to the Council last time, there have been no change as to facts, laws, policies and the previous attempts to close and abandon the street has been unanimously denied by public bodies, four times.

There is no public benefit from closing and abandoning this street.

The economic results of this action. Closing and abandoning this street would give valuable public property to two citizens while destroying the property value of another. There is no compelling reason to override the unanimous vote of the MPC. There have been many irrelevant arguments given to each of you by the proponents presented at the 7^th meeting, some of them attacked my character, people talked, which has no bearing on this issue. There has been raised, how I plan to use this property; that has no bearing. And the fact that the City property is being maintained by somebody, doesn’t give them any preemptive rights.

Councilman Stewart: Mr. Weiner would you clarify for the records, which meetings that you are referring to? Mr. Weiner: December 7^th, the work sessions which I wasn’t here for. I didn’t know that it was going to be discussed.

Conclusion. Do not overturn the unanimous MPC decisions, leave things as they are. No changes to existing conditions are needed. Everybody has always known all the facts. They knew the facts when the bought the property. I’d been there longer. I bought the property because of this access. If you close the street and change the status quo, who wins, who loses; so, why do it.

Councilman Stewart, your resident is located at the corner of Fairfield and Prospect. Your house is slightly raised above the street. Your only vehicular access into your lot is off an alley behind your house, at grade. If that alley was closed, you would be in the same situation that I’m in and it traditionally can not be closed without your permission because it gives you your vehicular access. I’m asking you, to give me the same consideration that you enjoy at your residence.

Councilman Stewart: Mr. Weiner, for the record, portions of that alley were closed before I bought the house.

Mr. Weiner: Right, but I am talking about the angle part that is still open. And I also would like to say that when Mr. Malpass and Ms. Terrell started this action, they never approached me as an adjoining property owner. They knew I was opposed to it. And I am asking that if you vote today and uphold the decision of the MPC, I will then meet with the two neighbors to see if we can work out a compromise that then City could sign off on which would provide me with the driveway that I’ve always depended upon and would allow Mr. Malpass to expand his house and get rid of his setback problem and Mrs. Terrell could be compensated in some manner.

Again, I go back to all this extraneous stuff that has been introduced. Again, there has been so many extraneous and irrelevant things put into this simple issue. The cost of my driveway. It is my cost, I will take care of it. It does not have to be built to city street standards.

It has been said that I haven’t taken care of my property. I have always let the adjoining property owner use it to maintain it, as a trade-off. I’ve never been cited by the City for not maintaining it. I’ve never heard from my neighbors, any complaints. And when and how I develop my property really has no bearing on this as long as it is done legal and I meet all zoning and building codes.

From the 7^th, I’ve looked a preliminary copy of the minutes and found some problems with some statements. I bought the property in the 60's because I realized that access from the dedicated street, Glen Iris, made it a buildlable lot. Without that, it is not a build-able lot. Mr. Kirkland assertion that access from Baltimore would be doable but expensive, but I bet Mr. Weiner knew that when he took this property. Answer: Yes, I did know that, that is why I bought the property because it had access from Glen Iris which is doable and not expensive.

Councilman Burrell’s comments about slopes are absolutely right. The slope from Baltimore is so extreme that the only access to the property would be with a stair. However, as the height difference from Ontario is much less and a horizontal distance, is greater than a driveway of normal slope could be built by bringing in little fill. Mr. Kirkland stated whether I gain access to my property from Ontario or Baltimore, it would be very expensive. I disagree and this is what I just said, that we can bring fill in and just have a simple driveway from Ontario.

It was also said at the meeting that others on that street pulled off the street and park in front of their house. That is true. The problem here is that the slope is not parallel to the street and where they have space between the slope and the street, I do not. The slope starts right at the curb so there is no way to park a car there.

It was asserted that I should have asked for an encroachment to allow a driveway. I contend that in fact I did because in ‘62 when this went before the City Commission, I stated I was going to put a driveway there. In ‘84 when it went before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, I stated that I was going to put a driveway there and I’ve been consistent of stating that I do want to put a driveway, accessing my property over the right-of-way.

There was some confusion, in the minutes, that it seemed like it got of track where Baltimore was going to be extended and Glen Iris and meet up. This is not the issue at all. I don’t know how it came up and Mr. Carmody was correct that, would be very difficult. It is not even being proposed. The street just dead-ends into my property and should remain that way.

Councilman Stewart’s statement on December 7^th that I would have to build over the drainage ditch, is not true. There are many solutions that I’ve developed over the year that are not over the drainage ditch. It must be kept open for maintenance.

The issue of putting a driveway over public property. It is done all the time. Almost every resident in Shreveport, when you go from your garage down your driveway, you cross city property getting to the street, that is where the sidewalk is and this is just normal procedures. It is just a little bit longer.

Mr. Carmody asked if I have every expressed a desire to purchase the right-of-way. No I did not. It is a public street nor did anyone every suggest to me that the street was for sale.

There is a problem if the street is put up for sale. It is a 60 foot right-of-way which is a build-able lot and a third person could come in, bid high, get the lot and build a house there, and then all of the adjoining property owners could lose. It does meet all the necessary zoning requirements for a stand alone lot.

In conclusion, I think it was unfortunate that I was not at the December 7^th meeting. I was told about this meeting and not that one and it was discussed and it was a lot of stuff brought up that was totally irrelevant and I think I’ve cleared it up and I thank you for the extra time, very much.

Mr. Jeff Weiss (6041 Gilbert Drive, Shreveport): I am also here on, I guess it is, Ordinance 194. Bill asked me to stand in among other purposes in case he left anything out. I’m not sure he did, but there is a truism in that a picture is worth a thousand words. If you will look at the plat of what we are talking about, this is actually from the 1984 hearing but nothing has changed. You can see we have got only three lots involved. In a way, I think it is unfortunate that the issue is before you again for the, I guess, it is the fourth time. With three lots involved, it is hardly a public matter. There is no traffic flow issue here, there is no safety issue here. When we were at the MPC at which they unanimously denied their request to close and abandon this, there was another closure brought before the MPC that was granted. In that situation, you had horrible traffic flow issues, you had safety issues, you had drive-by shootings. Those are the kinds of issues that these public bodies should be talking about, but clearly there is no public issue here.

I understand that Councilman Stewart has requested a legal opinion regarding this matter. I can’t imagine, personally with no offense intended to Councilman Stewart, what that legal opinion is asking the City Attorney to address. To me, this is so not a public issue that it, I can’t understand what the question is, but I am certain that if the Council denies this request to overrule the unanimous decision of the MPC, the matter will be at an end and I would expect even if the Council overrules the MPC and votes to close it, in all likelihood, the matter would be at an end. I can’t see what the ground for postponement would be. I can’t see what the legal opinion issue, what the legal uncertainty is.

What I do see is you’ve got fairness that you should consider. Is it fair to condemn one person’s property in order to benefit two others? That doesn’t seem fair and the second one, is this the kind of public issue that this Council should be addressing?

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Weiner, you cleared up one, I won’t say, allegation, but I guess maybe a statement was made about you keeping the property clean. I could not see you doing anything but keeping it clean. As long as I’ve been on the Council, and I guess it has been a long, long time, you’ve always been a person that have always shown a tremendous interest in Shreveport and the integrity and neighborhoods and what ever you can go in order to enhance the City, I’ve always found you very willing to do it. Still lets say if, lets say if the grass was not cut, I couldn’t not see that that would be a reason for me to vote to overturn the MPC. And I appreciate you clearing that up this morning that there was an agreement that the property could be used, but it would be kept clean by, I guess, the people who was using it.

Mr. Weiner Thank you for your kind words. At one point, I did terminate the agreement because thy were not maintaining it, they were trashing it so I had to stop it.

Councilman Burrell: I am not familiar, but what is the question? They brought up a question about the legal opinion and I think you stated that too, what are we trying to resolve in terms of the legal opinion?

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Burrell, Councilman Stewart had asked for that opinion based upon a request from me to determine whether or not you would have to have the acceptance of all adjacent property owners of the City’s desire to close before we could legally do it. I think that your question is one that has a lot of merit and that is, what are we asking this attorney to tell us and again, I think Mr. Weiner said that we don’t need to clarify that because there is no law. This has always been a policy issue but again, I would like the City Attorney to guide us in this so that we know the proper procedure because in some instances, I am familiar with excess state property where they require all the property owners to acknowledge that the property will be abandoned and so, again, that was my question. It might not germane to what Mr. Weiner’s position is here, I just want clarification from our City Attorney.

Councilman Burrell: Well, so am I to understand then, that if you had a number of property owners surrounding property, and this is just a matter of information, say if you had 8 property owners and one want something closed then if they have the votes and that one property owner objects then we can pass it?

Councilman Carmody: That is what I want to know because on the state level in some circumstances, it requires 100% acceptance by everyone and so again, I am just trying to find out from a municipal level what the law pertains to so that we can be clear on that.

Councilman Serio: Somewhere along the same line as Mr. Burrell is thinking, I am just curious, if we were to close this right-of-way would the property then be split two ways or three? Do you split it down the middle or do you split it in thirds so that each property owner that abuts it, has the same ability to acquire property on. I am curious if we were to do this, do three property owners gain or two and that needs to be addressed by the Legal Counsel.

Councilman Carmody: I was discussing it with Mr. Stewart before the meeting that I was trying to find what appeared to be the fairest way to handle it and I know that I talked to Mr. Weiner about this before, but in that there is not a street there and we keep kinda referring to closing this street, I mean, there is a right-of-way there, but there is no improvements per se’ to the street. If the property or if the Council ever saw fit to declare it surplus property and have an evaluation and an appraisal made on the property and the property placed up for bid, it would give an opportunity for the free market to look at the situation. Mr. Weiner would have an opportunity to bid on it, anyone else who was interested. Now, he brought up a good point, if the fourth party came in, not one of the three adjacent property owners, and said, I’d like to buy it for a house that could be a possibility too, but again, there is not a street there. We are talking about land and from all observation, it appears to be drainage right through that portion of that subdivision; so, that is why we are trying to ask for some clarity as to what would happen. I can’t answer your question thought as to whether or not the property will be split directly down the middle and given to two property owners or divided into thirds and done that way, so again, I think that Councilman Stewart was going to look for postponement today, so that we could look into these matters and get some more information so we could make a good decision.

Councilman Serio: One of the other things that I found quite interesting was that the concept that the property has no value for development from Baltimore. And I know in my own district, if Council members wanted to look at Dunmoreland Circle, there are at least 5 maybe 6 houses–nah, maybe 4 to 5 houses that are built on probably about a 20 to 25, I guess you would call it, a cliff. Councilman Carmody: Drop off. Councilman Serio: It is a drop in which the houses are literally built on piers with walkways and driveways that are pretty much, aboveground, 20 to 25 foot above ground. And so, we have got houses in the City that are built on lots of this nature. In fact have even more incredible drops than this particular lot has and that literally runs off of Dunmoreland Circle on the north side of the circle. I mean, there is a, we do have houses built on lots that have this type of a topography in the city of Shreveport.

Councilman Burrell: As a point of clarification in terms of ingress and egress to this piece of property as it relates to a vehicle going in, is there any other vehicular access to this property other than this location here that along, the right-of-way that is in question?

Councilman Stewart: I believe that it has been explained to me and Mr. Weiner and Mr. Weiss can get me straight, the property Mr. Weiner owns faces on the west side at the dead-end of Baltimore? Mr. Weiner: Yes, sir; here’s the drawing. Councilman Stewart: Baltimore and then this adjoins it from the south side, and the property runs from the west to the east?

Mr. Weiner: If they could put this drawing up, I think it would help explain it. There is Baltimore. From Baltimore, there is a steep slope from elevation 98 to elevation 85, that is about as steep as a stair. And the slope starts right at (inaudible) Street which is within the right-of-way here. It is totally impossible to get a car in. When I bought the lot, I bought it because I realized there is a dedicated but undeveloped street. Councilman Burrell: We understand that. Mr. Weiner: Right here it becomes (inaudible).

Councilman Burrell: We understand that. The question is, is there any other vehicular access to this property other than one that you are proposing here that would be a reasonable access? Mr. Weiner: There is pedestrian access. The only reasonable automobile access is on Glen Iris, the street being proposed to be closed. You can not get a car down that hill.

Councilman Spigener: We’ve spent a great deal of time discussing this issue. It involves three property owners or three citizens in this City. I see no public benefit, I mean to the community, public for closing and abandoning this. And I think we are spending a great deal of time on something that I don’t think is of a great deal of public interest and public benefit and when these four other bodies or these four other times they has been, the decision is made to leave this open, I think we are spending a whole lot of time on something that I don’t see a great deal of benefit to the public to.

Councilman Stewart: Any response ya’ll have to any of the comments, that is pertinent? Mr. Weiner: The only thing I would like to know is, I would hope that you would vote on it today. I just don’t see any reason to postpone it, but should you postpone it I would ask that you let me know when it is going to come up again.

Councilman Stewart: Mr. Weiner, I’ve already told you that date. Mr. Weiner: Postpone it to a specific date.

Councilman Stewart: I gave you that date, the second meeting in January assuming that the Council votes.

Mr. Weiss: My parting comment would be, I agree with Councilman Spigener.

Councilman Stewart: I appreciate everybody’s time and I think several of us, of ya’ll have addressed the fact that we spent tremendous amount of time. Let me give you the quick closure here.

I was approached by this, several times. Most recently by two residents on Ontario. I said to them simple get me a petition from surrounding people and I will bring it to the Council. They got a petition. I think there were three names. I said that is not enough. I have to have somebody on Baltimore, I have to have all the surrounding areas. They submitted another petition.

1. Ladies and gentlemen, for the record, I have done that every since I have been here since, 1991. I have always insisted on a broad source for the petition, I think that is what we finally achieved. My assumption initially is that I wouldn’t receive it, so therefore, I feel we are incumbent to do it. 2. I think it is strictly and issue to be looked at legally because of all the questions. There is a tremendous amount of reference to insinuations and interpretations of the past. . . policy to request a legal opinion which I think is the critical issue. The fact that it has been before us four other times over 30 years, shall we say, is an issue only of history. Times change, issues change and opportunities change. And I don’t know that this is an appropriate time for this, but I think it is pertinent and appropriate and I think encumbered, I’m encumbered to present this opportunity to the Council for its consideration at the request of 7 or 8 or 9 constituents much in the same fashion that in the past, Mr. Weiner has requested things and I’ve done the same thing.

I did advise/request that Mr. Thompson advise Mr. Weiss and Mr. Weiner at the last meeting as well as my comments that we would postpone this until the second meeting in January in order to get a legal opinion, I’ve always requested it and I always will. And I did advise Mr. Weiner’s attorney of this by telephone while Mr. Weiner was out of the City because I did not want him to interrupt his vacation.

Councilman Burrell: Also, to Mr. Weiner, we normally grant the privilege to the Council person who is over the area if he ask for an opinion although we can override that but I think that that is just out of courtesy. Second thing is, Mr. Thompson’s standpoint, clarification: We need five votes anyway to overturn an MPC position on this matter, is that correct? Mr. Thompson: On this particular issue.

Councilman Burrell: So, given that fact, I know that if we were to do that, it would be five individuals with their viewpoints being considered to have to overturn this issue and under the circumstances, I think Councilman Spigener made a very good point along with Councilman Shyne and others who are looking at these property issues.

But another concern that I do have is the maintenance of this property if it remains open. I think it should be a shared situation. If you want it left open then share in the maintenance of it. I don’t see having adjoining property owners maintaining it or should I say, not being maintained at the expense of two adjoining property owners and not a third; so, hopefully they will work that situation out.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Chairman, did you have another Public Comment? Councilman Stewart: These are Public Comments on agenda items to be adopted and the other two people who requested to speak are not on legislation; am I incorrect?

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Stephens’ item is not to be, I think that was Mr. Burrell, I am not cutting in but I think. . . . Councilman Stewart: Please hold. Mr. Thompson could you correct me, direct me here? Mr. Thompson: I believe that the item for Mr. Stephens is on Introduction and can not be voted on at this meeting.

Councilman Stewart: Mr. Shyne, thank you for your input.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda: None.

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION:

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

RESOLUTION: None.

ORDINANCE: None.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION:

RESOLUTIONS:

The Deputy Clerk read the resolution by title: Resolution No. 168 of 2001: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Shreveport Urban Renaissance Corporation in furtherance of the City of Shreveport Neighborhood Revitalization Plan and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Serio for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

Delete the original Agreement and substitute with the attached amended Agreement.

Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of the amendment.

Councilman Carmody: I had asked for the postponement in order to give the Council members time to review the amendment and I am comfortable with it and would ask for the Council’s support today.

Amendment passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

Motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of the resolution as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

Councilman Burrell: I think this will, hopefully, put us in a position to start moving forward on our revitalization effort. You may have recently seen on the news report that one house has been built on Darien Street. I think that our focus now is to try to go into some of these areas and do some revitalization efforts. I think we’ve been working on this about 3 years now and I appreciate the Council’s support and the Mayor of course who is very supportive of this and has supported Community Development, Mr. Ferdinand’s office, to move forward on these revitalization efforts. We need to be very serious about this. This affect the quality-of-life of some of citizens that are, well they call it, disadvantaged, but some of these communities that are deteriorating. And as people come into our City and we are talking about putting on a good face for those persons who are coming in that are visiting our City, they are just not staying on the major thoroughfares like I-20, I-49, they find their way into many of our inner city neighborhoods. And in so doing, when they see this and it looks like a war zone, then, I am sure it does not reflect well on our City. So, I think this is something that is a long time coming and that is something that we should definitely be very supportive of.

RESOLUTION NO. 177 OF 2001

AN RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO CLOSE THE AT-GRADE CROSSING OF DESOTO STREET AND THE UPRR (UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD) BETWEEN THE PIKE STREET AND MANSFIELD ROAD AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Department of Operational Services is requesting to close the at-grade crossing of DeSoto Street and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and

WHEREAS, the closure of the at-grade crossing will enhance the public and vehicular safety of the citizens of Shreveport, and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular and legal session convened that the City is authorized to remove the at-grade crossing of DeSoto Street and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR).

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 ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

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

Councilman Carmody: Could I ask Mr. Thompson to make sure of, this is to reconsider this matter or are we now reconsidering it? Mr. Thompson: Yes, we moved to reconsider it at the work session and place it back on the agenda, so now it is up for adoption.

Resolution passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 178 OF 2001

AN RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO CLOSE THE AT-GRADE CROSSING OF MORNINGSIDE DRIVE AND THE UPRR (UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD) BETWEEN KENT STREET AND MANSFIELD ROAD AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Department of Operational Services is requesting to close the at-grade crossing of Morningside Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and

WHEREAS, the closure of the at-grade crossing will enhance the public and vehicular safety of the citizens of Shreveport, and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular and legal session convened that the City is authorized to remove the at-grade crossing of Morningside Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR).

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 ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Shyne for adoption.

Councilman Carmody: I appreciate probably where Mr. Shyne is about to come from but I’ll go ahead and make my piece.

I have received one letter, I know that he has received one letter from persons expressing some apprehension over these closing and maybe the City’s motivation in doing so. But, having been out there and looked at these areas, I do think that it is a safety issue and having ridden the alternative route back to access the other thoroughfares, I know that, I believe that our City Engineer told us that there was a delay of possible 40 seconds or so in order to access to get out and I feel that our first priority on the Council should be for the safety of the citizens of this community. Again, I don’t know if anyone has been injured at this particular crossing or any of these lately but it does appear that this would be a positive action on the part of the municipality to try and make sure that we have citizens whose safety we consider paramount and although the 40 seconds might be considered an inconvenience, we might be avoiding tragedy somewhere down the line.

Councilman Shyne: My vote will be a no vote but it will not be against the safety aspect of it. I guess I’ve traditionally been a voice for those who have been more or less, crying in the wilderness and it is pretty hard for me to change my position at this particular point.

I have gotten some letters and some calls from persons who feel like it would be a great inconvenience to them. I really have not had an opportunity to see what the percentage would be on closing it or keeping it open, but my no vote would not be from the standpoint that I am against safety at this particular point. It seems like I’ve gotten more calls and more concerns from those that would like to keep it open, so at this particular point, I will vote to express their wishes at this Council meeting.

Resolution passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener and Burrell. 5. Nays: Councilman Shyne. 1. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 182 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE MAYOR’S SIGNATURE TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND MOTOROLA CREDIT CORPORATION AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, through the Department of Operational Services, has contracted with Motorola Credit Corporation in the amount of $826,246.50 for radios and related equipment; and

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

and regular session convened that the Mayor’s signature for the December 3, 2001 contract between the City of Shreveport and Motorola Credit Corporation is hereby ratified.

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

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

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

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

RESOLUTION NO 183 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO DONATE A 1987 ELGIN PELICAN

STREET SWEEPER TO THE NAVAL AND MARINE CORP RESERVE CENTER AND

TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport desires to donate a 1987 Elgin Pelican streeetsweeper to the Naval and Marine Corp Reserve Center which serves a public purpose and renders a public service; and,

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 315 of 1979, requires City Council approval of an agreement made and entered into by the City of Shreveport and any person or entity, whereunder such person or entity receives a donation in return for service which serves a public purpose; and,

WHEREAS, the Naval and Marine Corp Reserve Center has agreed to accept all responsibility, financial obligations and liability associated with the acceptance of this donation; and,

WHEREAS, the 1987 Elgin Pelican streetsweeper is inoperable and non-repairable and is deemed surplus of the City of Shreveport; and,

WHEREAS, this donation under these circumstances provides for the most cost effective manner to dispose of the property.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due regular and legal session convened, that the Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Shreveport and the Naval and Marine Corp Reserve Center for the donation of the 1987 Elgin Pelican streetsweeper effective December 11, 2001, substantially the same as the document filed in the Office of the Clerk of Council on November 27, 2001.

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

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

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

Councilman Burrell: I know street sweepers have always been one of those issues that we’ve dealt with saying, that we didn’t have enough of because of the complaints of community that our streets are not well-kept and I know that we’ve improved on this considerable over the last year or so. Given that fact, then I noticed it is an ‘87, is it one in disrepair or is it a new one, do we still have adequate street sweepers? Because, I still get comments, I know throughout my district about the streets not being swept and I know we just had one street sweeper, I think to fall through a building or through a parking lot so I am concerned whether or not we have adequate street sweepers ourselves before we donate one we may still need.

Mayor Hightower: We do. If you will recall, I guess it is almost 2 years ago, we contracted out street sweeping so a private company actually sweeps all of the streets and intersections for us on a set schedule. As you see, it is a 1987, I am not even sure that it works so that. . . we just have no use for them. We have a couple that are used for emergency situations, downtown, that type of thing, but overall street sweeping has been contracted out to a private company.

Councilman Burrell: I remember that, and in fact they seem to be doing a pretty good job, that is the reason why I say I hadn’t heard any comments here recently, but I know we did have a problem before.

Resolution passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

Councilman Carmody: I know that Councilman Burrell had asked the question, I did want to make sure. Was this particular sweeper that suffered some damage there in the parking garage? Mayor Hightower: I don’t know if it is the same one or not.

Councilman Carmody: I just didn’t know if it was functioning, until you ask.

RESOLUTION NO.184 OF 2001

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SOCIETY AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society will hold its annual convention in the City of Shreveport September 9 - 12, 2002 at the L. Calhoun Allen Exposition Hall ("Expo Hall"); and

WHEREAS, the Congressional Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the objectives and purposes of the Society include, but are not limited to, service to country in peace and in war; inspire and stimulate youth to become worthy citizens of this country, and to foster and perpetuate Americanism, which are public purposes; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport ("City") desires to co-sponsor the 2002 Congressional Medal of Honor Society Patriot Banquet by providing the use of Expo Hall on September 12, 2002 for the event.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular, and legal session convened that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is authorized to execute a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with the Congressional Medal of Honor Society relative to the City’s co-sponsorship of the 2002 Congressional Medal of Honor Society Patriot Banquet on September 12, 2002 at Expo Hall. The Agreement authorized by this resolution shall be in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney.

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 ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 185-A OF 2001

A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 42 OF 1999, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENTS TO A SECTION 108 LOAN AGREEMENT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shreveport approved Resolution No. 42 of 1999 ("Original Resolution"), a Resolution Authorizing the Submission of an Application for a Loan Under Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and Otherwise Providing with Respect Thereto, which Resolution authorized the Mayor to execute a loan agreement between the City and The Fairmont Towers Limited Partnership ("Partnership"), and providing for a 20 year term for such loan agreement; and

WHEREAS, the City received approval of the Section 108 loan and entered into a loan agreement with the Partnership; and

WHEREAS, as a result of the timing and structure of the Section 108 loan to the City and unavoidable delays in construction of the project, the term of the loan agreement should be extended to slightly over 20 years, through and including December 31, 2021;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that Resolution No. 42 of 1999 is hereby amended as follows:

The second "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" clause of the Original Resolution is amended to read as follows:

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the loan agreement between the City and Fairmont Towers Limited Partnership shall be for a term not extending beyond December 31, 2021. The agreement also shall contain a provision that the interest rate and payments will be adjusted upon permanent financing by HUD."

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the term of the loan agreement between the City and the Partnership may extend through, but not beyond, December 31, 2021.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is authorized to sign all documents necessary to complete the loan transaction between the City and the Partnership.

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 that 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 hereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 186-A OF 2001

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

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

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

WHEREAS, SOUTHLAND PRINTING COMPANY, INC. is located in Census Tract 205.00 Block Group 4 , 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 SOUTHLAND PRINTING COMPANY, INC. and their project MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT / WAREHOUSE #4 BLDG., Enterprise Zone Application

# 20010465 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.

Councilman Stewart: Mr. Thompson, do we have indication from Mrs. Huckaby, as to direction here? Mr. Thompson: I have not heard any and I’ve not heard that she is opposed to it.

Councilman Stewart: Any member of the Counicl had any discussion with Mrs. Huckaby? Councilman Serio: I’ve not had discussion with her unless, I think with the nature of the business and the way that this is probably one of the finest growing businesses in north Shreveport, right now. She has put this on the agenda, I have no reservations.

Councilman Stewart: Would you like to make a motion, Sir? Councilman Serio: I’ll make a motion.

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

Councilman Serio: I have the opportunity to pass by as we do a television show every week, everyday out of Channel 6 and pass by this particular business on a, almost two or three times a week. It is amazing the growth that we’ve seen in north Shreveport with this particular business, they’ve been before the Council before and proud to say that we’ve got such a fine facility in the city of Shreveport.

Resolution passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 187 of 2001

RESOLUTION STATING CITY OF SHREVEPORT’S ENDORSEMENT OF CONTINENTAL EXPRESS 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, CONTINENTAL EXPRESS is located in Census Tract 235.00 Block Group 9 , 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 CONTINENTAL EXPRESS and their project HEAVY MX , Enterprise Zone Application # 20010451, 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 Shyne, seconded by Councilman Spigener for passage.

Councilman Shyne: I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this. Anything that we can do that will help the economic growth of this community, I think we need to be behind it.

Resolution passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 188 OF 2001

RESOLUTION STATING CITY OF SHREVEPORT’S ENDORSEMENT OF COMMUNITY BANK OF LOUISIANA 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, COMMUNITY BANK OF LOUISIANA is located in Census Tract 210.00 Block Group 4 , 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 COMMUNITY BANK OF LOUISIANA and their project FAIRFIELD BRANCH, Enterprise Zone Application # 20010423, 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 Carmody, seconded by Councilman Serio for passage.

Councilman Carmody: Just quickly for the benefit of the persons here and those watching us, when the Council makes these motions which of course I support this one as well as the other two, we are not depriving our particular community of any tax dollars. We are just stating our endorsement of this community to receive the benefits of the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program, so I agree with Mr. Shyne, whatever we can do to help benefit our businesses, I think that it is incumbent upon us to do so, but not at the expense of us depriving ourselves of any source of revenue.

Councilman Shyne: I have a concern, if I vote a positive vote for this and go by an apply for a loan, that will not be a conflict of interest, will it? Councilman Stewart: They’ll let you know, Sir. We’ll ask Mr. Ramon back there.

Resolution passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS:

1. Resolution 189 of 2001: A resolution amending the pay schedule for municipal fire civil personnel, and otherwise with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Burrell, seconded by Councilman Carmody for Introduction of the Resolution to lay over until the January 8, 2002 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:

1. Ordinance No. 196 of 2001: An ordinance closing and abandoning all of one alleyway and a portion of another alleyway in the two blocks bounded by Exposition and Alabama Avenues and by Penick and Jackson Streets in the Exposition Heights Subdivision, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 197 of 2001: An ordinance amending the 2002 Budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 198 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance by rezoning property located on the north side of Martin Luther King Drive 500 feet west of Legardy Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1H, Urban One-family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

4. Ordinance No. 199 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by approving the continuation of B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District, limited to "radio and television store and repair shop with auto audio and security installation" only, on property located on the NW corner of Youree and University Drive, Shreveport, Caddo Parish Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

5. Ordinance No. 200 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the north side of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, 150 feet east of Laurie Lane, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana from B-1, Buffer Business District to B-1-E, Buffer Business/Extended Use District, limited to "a pet care facility as described at the public hearing" only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

6. Ordinance No. 201 of 2001: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the NW corner of Greenwood Road and Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-3, Community Business District and B-3(SP1-2), Community Business (Industrial Park Overlay) District to I-1 (SPI-2), Light Industry (Industrial Park Overlay) District and I-1, Light Industry District and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Burrell for Introduction of the Ordinances to lay over until the January 22, 2002 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE:

1. Ordinance No. 183 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the lease of city-owned property at 740 Stephenson Street to Enver Alidema and Drita Alidema and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on November 13, 2001 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Stewart, seconded by Councilman Spigener for adoption.

Councilman Stewart: This is a renewal of a lease agreement that has been in effect for quite some time, I’d encourage an affirmative vote.

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

2. Ordinance No. 185 of 2001: An ordinance authorizing the execution of an agreement with Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Shreveport and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on November 13, 2001 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Burrell to postpone (request of the Mayor) the ordinance until the January 8, 2002 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

3. Ordinance No. 191 of 2001: An ordinance ratifying the lease of city-owned property to Louisiana Unwired, LLC, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on November 27, 2001 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Burrell adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

4. Ordinance No. 193 of 2001: An ordinance to amend certain provisions of Section 62-79 of the Code of Ordinances relative to fees charged by the Department of Public Assembly and Recreation and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on December 11, 2001 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption.

Councilman Carmody: I just wanted to let the Council members know as well as the balance of the commuity that, I know that we all hate to see user fees go up. Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to have an hour in which I could go and enjoy our municipal golf courses with a brother, and really for the amenities we give our citizens, I know it sometimes perceived to be an inconvenience to have asked them to put any more money toward the user fee, but again I think that SPAR does a wonderful job with what we’ve got and I know that we’ve got some other competition and it is just a matter of the cost of doing business has basically gone up so we are asking everybody to share in that, so I would appreciate a positive vote from other Council members to support this.

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

5. Ordinance No. 194 of 2001: An ordinance to reverse the decision rendered by the Metropolitan Planning Commission during their public hearing meeting of November 7, 2001, by closing and abandoning the portion of Glen Iris Boulevard located north of Ontario Street in the Glen Iris Addition Subdivision, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on December 11, 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 (as indicated earlier in the Public Comments), seconded by Councilman Burrell to postpone the ordinance until the January 22, 2002 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

Councilman Carmody: Can I ask our Clerk of Court to verify what the date of the second meeting in January, will be? Mr. Thompson: The 22^nd.

Councilman Carmody: The 22^nd of January; thank you Sir.

Councilman Stewart: That is the Tuesday? Mr. Thompson: That is correct.

6. Ordinance No. 195 of 2001: An ordinance amending the 2001 Capital Improvements Budget and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on December 11, 2001 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Spigener, seconded by Councilman Burrell adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Stewart, Carmody, Serio, Spigener, Shyne and Burrell. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Pearl Huckaby. 1.

The adopted Ordinances:

ORDINANCE NO. 183 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 740 STEPHENSON STREET TO ENVER ALIDEMA AND DRITA ALIDEMA AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport ("City") is the owner of certain immovable property located at 740 Stephenson Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana; and

WHEREAS, the Stephenson Street property was acquired by the City’s Department of Community Development in conjunction with the Neighborhood Revitalization Program; and

WHEREAS, the property has been leased to Enver Alidema and Drita Alidema (collectively "Lessee") since 1999. The original lease of this property to the Alidema’s was authorized by Ordinance Number 218 of 1999; and

WHEREAS, Ordinance Number 196 of 2000 authorized an amendment to Ordinance Number 218 of 1999 which extended the lease for an additional year at the same rental rate; and

WHEREAS, City and Lessee now desire to enter into a new lease for the Stephenson Street property subject to the terms contained in the attached Residential Lease; and

WHEREAS, the attached Residential Lease provides among other things for a rental term of one (1) year at a rental rate of $200.00 per month and requires the Lessee to provide and maintain property and liability insurance throughout the Lease term; and

WHEREAS, the property is not needed for public purpose and is a permissible exception to Article 7 Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974; and

WHEREAS, the lease of this property is in accordance with the provisions of LSA-R.S. 33:4712.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the City of Shreveport is authorized to lease city-owned property at 740 Stephenson Street to Enver Alidema and Drita Alidema for a term not to exceed one year, at a rental rate of $200.00 per month, and subject to Lessee’s compliance with all additional terms and conditions of the Residential Lease attached hereto.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all documents relative to this lease.

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

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

/s/John David Stewart, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 191 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO LOUISIANA UNWIRED, LLC, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport ("City") is the owner of certain property generally referred to as the Louisiana State Fairgrounds property ("the Property"); and

WHEREAS, the Property is managed by the State Fair of Louisiana, Inc., ("State Fair") pursuant to a long term lease with the City; and

WHEREAS, on July 14, 1998, State Fair leased a portion of the Property to Louisiana Unwired, LLC., ("Lessee") for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a wireless communications system. The Lease provide for an initial term of ten (10) years and grants the Lessee and an option to the Lease renew for two (2) successive terms of ten (10) years each. A copy of the Lease is attached hereto as Attachment "A"; and

WHEREAS, payments for the initial term of the Lease are $6,000.00 per year and are paid to State Fair; and

WHEREAS, the Lease was executed under the assumption that the 1986 amendment to the original lease between City and State Fair granted State Fair authority to lease all or a portion of the Property; and

WHEREAS, the Property is not needed for a public purpose.

WHEREAS, the ratification of the Lease is in accordance with the provisions of LSA-R.S. 33:4712.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the attached Lease between the State Fair of Louisiana, Inc., and Louisiana Unwired, LLC., on July 14, 1998, is hereby ratified and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute any and all documents with State Fair of Louisiana and/or Louisiana Unwired, LLC., relative to same.

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

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

/s/John David Stewart, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 193 OF 2001

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 62-79 OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO FEES CHARGED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY AND RECREATION AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened that section 62-79 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to fees charged by the Department of Public Assembly and Recreation is hereby amended as follows:

Sec. 62-78. Fee schedule.

A fee schedule for activities, rentals and uses in the department of public assembly and recreation is hereby established as follows:

***

Description New Fee

Golf - Querbes and Huntington

(When applicable, taxes shall be applied to any charge listed below.)

Weekday $12.94

Holiday/Weekend $13.81

Senior/Junior Weekday $ 9.24

Senior/Junior Weekend $10.16

Twilight Weekday $ 9.24

Twilight Weekend $10.16

Tuesday Only $ 7.39

Cart Rental (18 holes) $16.63

Cart Rental (9 holes) $ 8.31

Golf - Lakeside

(When applicable, taxes shall be applied to any charge listed below.)

Green fee $ 6.47

Cart Rental (18 holes) $11.09

Cart Rental (9 holes) $ 5.54

***

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

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

/s/John David Stewart, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 195 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 correct the funding sources identified in a previously closed capital project 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):

Re-open the previously-closed project Texas Avenue Campus Plan Phase III -Central Energy Plant (96-A003) and appropriate it at its original amount of $3,000,000. Funding sources are $1,362,700 from 1996 GOB, Prop. 1 and $1,637,300 from 1997 GOB, Prop. 1.

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/John David Stewart, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

Discussion and/or Action Relative to the Public Safety Committee (remained tabled).

NEW BUSINESS:

Alcohol Retail Permit: Mr. Shah Mir (Employer: G/Burrell - 2506 Lakeshore Dr.) (Postponed until January 21)

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES. None.

CLERK’S REPORT.

Letters of Appeal: (not to be considered prior to January 22)

(1) Case No. C-78-01 - New Nat Café, 2911 Milam Street from B-1 to B-2, restaurant or other permitted uses within this zoning classification.

(2) Case No. C-79-01 - Sports Mall LLC/Randy’s Travel Town, 7288 Greenwood Road, from B-3 and B-3 (SPI-2) to I-1, truck stop or other permitted uses within this zoning classification.

THE COMMITTEE RISES AND REPORT.

There was no Report from the Committee.

ADJOURNMENT.

There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:42 a.m.

/s/John David Stewart, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council