COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

JANUARY 28, 2003

The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, was called to order by Chairman James Green at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 28, 2003, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Councilman Jackson led the Council in the Invocation.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Absent: None.

Approve Minutes. Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Gibson to approve the Administrative Conference Summary Minutes of January 13, 2003 and the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 14, 2003. Motion approved by the following vote: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Awards, Recognition of Distinguished Guests, and Communications of the Mayor Which Are Required By Law. None.

Awards, Recognition of Distinguished Guests and Communications of the Council.

Councilman Hogan: Its my privilege and honor to present to you the Evangeline Eagles, our state championship football team. I am going to ask them, if ya’ll would, just come to the front and we are going to recognize you. You don’t have to give a speech and I’m going to meet you down there in a second (see Resolution No. 6 and remarks under Resolutions).

Report on Convention Center and Hotel Project: Mr. Antee: Since the last meeting there has been a whole lot of movement from the City’s end because the Design Team and the construction management firm have been working to get the thing ready for bid. Meetings went on last week between the construction manager and the design team and I think all of the documents will be sent to Bart Malow from Slack Alost by tomorrow and so things are progressing along that way.

As far as the hotel, there has been no real movement on that, other than the fact that the architectural firm and our in-house architects have been working on the language and hammering out the contract which they should be getting close on for the design contract of the hotel.

Councilman Lester: On the hotel, who do we have down as the architect of record on the hotel project, is that all HRI?

Mr. Antee: It will be HCI which is a division of HRI as well as the Slack Alost firm because of the connection to the Convention Center. Now, they have not finalized all of the members of their team. As you know, designing a project of this size, there may be as many as 15 or 20 sub-contractors that are all headed up by the HCI / Slack Alost team and that is part of what they are working on now, is putting that team together.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Antee, I know that we have discussed this in the past about the initial scope of work that Whitaker Construction had did to come in for, I guess, for $71 million dollars that we had allocated to this development. I guess this morning when I was reading the Times, I had seen that part of the scope of work I guess has been revised to some extent in that they mentioned that there would be a reduction of levels on the parking garage?

Mr. Antee: That’s not exactly correct. The $71.3 million dollars that was in the was in the contract with Whitaker, one of the add alternates was two levels of the parking garage or two of the add alternates were one level each of the parking garage. The contract signed with Whitaker for the $71.3 did not include six levels, only four. But we were bidding it with the add alternates in the event that the bids came back and there was money to add back the levels of the parking garage then we would be able to utilize the lower bid cost by doing it as an add alternate rather than adding it on later, so that may have been somewhat confusing in The Times, but the contract did not include six levels, it only included four.

Councilman Carmody: And the only other question I have was, are there any other substantial changes to the scope of work? I know that we talked about it before, maybe some amenities that were not going to be put out in the scope of work but are there any that are as substantial as levels of parking garage would be?

Mr. Antee: The main changes from what was bid was the foundation structure which went from an on grade slab to a structural slab which is on pliers and a lot of that had to do with the stability of the soil as the remediation process took place that is one change. The other is some state fire marshal issues, you know, move this light, move this door (that type of deal). Also, there is a reduction in the scope of work from the Whitaker contract because they were going in and bringing the site from the existing site to the flat surface that we have now. We saved anywhere from a half to three quarters of a million dollars by going ahead and doing it at the same time we were doing the remediation, so that amount of work will come out of the Whitaker contract. We’ll have to add into the change in the structural slab. Other things not really changing the scope it is just basically a better way of doing it where the contractors came in and did some value engineering and said, you can do the same thing but you can do it with this rather than what is specified here and you get the same effect, the same quality, the same maintenance but for a less cost.

One exception to that and the value engineering item is, on security cameras I think the system that was designed is a system that way more than most buildings built like that has, but the contract will have the conduit and everything plumed to where we put them where they are needed now and then as we need to, we can add the cameras and just run the lines and all through the existing conduit, but that is about the only, I am sure there are some others, but most of it was in the form of value engineering. But that item alone went from about a $650,000 dollar cost to about a $250,000 dollar cost just by eliminating some of that equipment.

Councilman Carmody: Could I ask that maybe if you could supply the Council with the original scope of work and indicate what is actually being taken out so that we do know, item for item, what is going to be in there.

Mr. Antee: In the contract that we provided to you all last time, there is an exhibit on there, on BE items, and that is what that is.

Councilman Gibson: Yea, that exhibit does have the value engineering on there, Councilman Carmody. Ken, in terms of the original proposal before the citizens, didn’t we put out just a generic description of this project or were we specific on "x" number of levels of parking garage and "x" number of square feet for the facility itself? Weren’t we generic in nature when we put that $85 million dollar bond election out?

Mr. Antee: Oh, definitely because that was prior to any of the design.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, that is what I thought.

Mr. Antee: That was all in the schematic. I think at the time that it was put out, it range from 1200 to 1600 cars in the parking garage and they way it was bid was four levels of 1200 with the ability to add the two levels back to get it to 16.

Councilman Gibson: Well, I reviewed some of my notes going way back and we started this process back in the Bo Williams Administration, ya’ll made sure that we follow through on it in terms of the Convention Center task force.

Other question I have is, could I get a break out in terms of the, City Council a break out of the design fees to Slack Alost in terms of what has been paid originally and the fees paid for the re-design of the foundation. And then the other question is, are they being paid design fees for the value engineering that was incorporate in the new drawings?

Mr. Antee: The only re-design fees that have been paid have dealt with the structural versus the on-grade slab.

Councilman Gibson: So, they are taking into account the value engineering in their original fee?

Mr. Antee: Right. We have not received any invoice or request for invoice, that I’m aware of. I don’t doubt that at some point in time and as with everybody out there, that they are at least going to ask.

Councilman Gibson: I understand and that’s. . . .

Mr. Antee: I have no indication that they will, that they have, but that’s the nature of the business.

Councilman Gibson: The only thing, I’d like to invite both the Administration and my fellow City Councilmen, on February 4^th, and I’d like to publicly acknowledge Mayor Hightower and the Fair Share Department working with the construction industry. On February 4^th at Expo Hall, there will be a bonding industry seminar. These bonding companies, both locally and their connections throughout the state and region are coming in to do presentations for small businesses, including minority business firms, to help provide bonding opportunities over and beyond some of the capacities that are going on in the area and the fact that, this project will not be covered by the construction manager in terms of bonding, but instead bonding under the public bid law will be required on each of the individual 40+ packages. And I think it would be important that if you have an opportunity to swing by to visit with these small businesses and also get a little understand of some of the local firms including Querbes and Nelson who is coordinating this particular bonding seminar along with the State, is coming in with some of their resources to help our small businesses get the type of bonding that they can in order to bid on this project.

Knowing the bond market the way it is right now, the construction industry has been under a real tight scenario the last 18 to 24 months which is putting a lot of pressures on our small business to be able to bid this project. So, I’m asking your attendance to encourage these small businesses in every form and fashion and also meet some fo these firms that are coming up from New Orleans and Houston, working with our local insurance companies to provide those resources.

Presentation from the 4-H Club: Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Green to suspend the rules to allow the Presentation (motion unanimously approved).

Halley Hamelin, President of the Caddo 4-H Junior Leadership Club: With me is Sarah Maynard and Coty Curtis. This week is 4-H Week. On behalf of Caddo 4-H, I would like to thank you for your support. I would like to tell you a little more about our organization. Caddo 4-H is in 62 schools. LSU-S and their faculty provide monthly educational programs in the school club. A total of 1430 teachers in 26 of these schools, have been trained in the Character Counts educational program, thus reaching approximately 13,633 students. 4-H is a community service organization. For example, this year clubs have donated over 3,000 pounds of beans and rice to the Northwest Louisiana Food Bank and over 60 stuffed animals to the Shreveport Fire Department. Members can enroll in various 4-H Projects such as leadership, photography, food science, communication, childcare, wildlife, and many more. No matter what project they chose, 4-Hers learn by doing. As a token of our appreciation, we would like to present you with these cookies. Thank you.

Councilman Green: Where are the pigs, at?

Ms. Maynard: We had to leave them at home, they wouldn’t let us bring them in the building.

Councilman Green: They would like for you to introduce the rest of the gang that you brought with you.

Ms. Maynard: Sarah Maynard, Coty Curtis, Mrs. Curtis and Kyle Curtis.

Councilman Gibson: I was just wondering, what part of the City, they live?

Ms. Maynard: Shreveport.

Councilman Jackson: That would be District G.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green to return to the regular order of business (motion unanimously approved).

Report on Property Standards Program: Mr. Ferdinand: I was advised to make a very brief presentation and consistent with that (thank you Dianne), you should have had at your position already, two documents: 1) with the number of structures that has been demolished since January 2002 which should be about 234 structures and 2) another package which is the status of about 650 houses that is either in a securing posture or to be demolished. And those that is in the securing posture, they will continue to be monitored for deterioration to see if they deserve to be, if they warrant to be moved over to the demolition status and I’m open for any question (to my understanding, this is what the Council had asked for).

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Ferdinand, I realized when that when we asked for this report that basically your information was encoded at the time when the Council district lines where different than they are today and so I recognize a number of these structures that show to be within District C that I believe now are in District B. So if I could ask that the next time we receive it, if you all could take that little extra effort and make sure that we designate the correct area where these structures are located.

Councilman Walford: If a structure is on here shown as demolished, then we can assume that a contractor has been paid for demolishing that or what?

Mr. Ferdinand: Approximately, I would say, 98 or 99% contractor was paid to demolish a small percentage, the owners demolished themselves.

Councilman Walford: So if there is one on here that says it was demolished, and I go to that address and there is a house standing, I can assume they built another one and it is falling down or is there a mistake? I am finding. . .

Mr. Ferdinand: Oh, is that right?

Councilman Walford: On the previous list, the same thing is showing up on this one.

Mr. Ferdinand: It should be a mistake, if that is the case.

Councilman Walford: I just don’t want to think that a contractor got paid and this thing is still standing.

Mr. Ferdinand: It is probably a mistake then, but we will check and verify that.

Councilman Walford: I will get with you and give you the address.

Mr. Ferdinand: Please do.

Councilman Walford: Or we can go ride and look at it.

Mr. Ferdinand: Whatever your druthers.

Councilman Walford: I’d like to do that.

Mr. Ferdinand: Just let us know.

Councilman Lester: I want to thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Ferdinand as well as Mr. Bowie on this project. I want to reiterate, a request that has been made by myself and other Council members as it regards to a list of the liens that have been forgiven or removed by Code Enforcement during calendar year 2001 and 2002, either at the owners request or at the request of an elected official. We made that request back in December, we still haven’t gotten that information; so, if we could get that as expeditiously as possible, we really would appreciate it, so we can move forward.

Mr. Ferdinand: So noted.

Councilman Walford: I have another question and maybe we need to visit more on this, but in our Committee meetings, you were telling us how much was being spent for the grass cutting and so on, this came up at a neighborhood meeting last night, I was asked a question. Is it possible to use Job Corp or Shreve Corp for any of that to save the city money and at the same time create some useful employment, since that is all under you, I thought maybe?

Mr. Ferdinand: I am not aware of any volunteer organization that Job Corp or Shreve Corp which is under Shreveport Green. Obviously there is a city wide program, a yearly or periodic clean up that I think Shreve Corp spearheads and about two or three weeks ago, we had a meeting with one staff person with the Parish, some Parish Commissioners had expressed a desire to do something with the urban area of their parish commission district; so, I am not aware of any Job Corp. Not sure if we have had any dialogue with the Police Department to discuss using maybe some of the inmates at the jail. Wardell, have we discussed that with the Police Department?

Councilman Walford: Like I say, this came up from a citizen just as an idea and I thought I would check with you.

Mr. Ferdinand: We will definitely broach the subject with the Job Corp and see if Shreve. . .other than just the annual clean up thing that we all participate in.

Mr. Thompson: At the committee meeting that you all had, the committee asked Data Processing to see if they couldn’t enhance Permits Plus so that you could get some more information on these reports. When they went and looked at it, they reported that the reports that you have in front of you is a WordPerfect document, it is not one that was generated by Permits Plus. But there was a meeting held between Mr. Bowie and his staff and Dan Thomas and his staff last week, and they say that you can generate these kinds of reports, in the same kind of format that you have with Permits Plus if all of the fields are filled in, in the program. So Mr. Bowie committed to try to get all of that done, but he said he would need about 30 days before they could then generate reports from Permits Plus rather than doing it in a WordPerfect format and he wanted the committee to see whether or not the Council and the Committee would let them skip a meeting and then two meetings from now come back with a report from Permits Plus that would not have to be generated manually.

Councilman Lester: I spoke with Mr. Thompson about this. As many of you are aware, this is one of the committees I’ve been fortunate to give the charge of. This is a issue that affects all of our districts but I am impressed with the cooperation that is being fostered between Data Processing and other members of the Administration. I would like to thank Mayor Hightower for encouraging it. I think it is going to pay off tremendous dividends in the end, so having said that, at this time, I would like to make a motion consistent with the information that has been given to us by Mr. Thompson that will allow Data Processing and Code Enforcement and Mr. Bowie’s department to work together and absorb them of the responsibility of coming before us at the next meeting with a report so that in 30-days they can have a computer generated report that will be up to date given their training on Permits Plus system that we now currently have in effect. Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody (motion unanimously approved.)

Public Hearings: None.

Confirmations and/or Appointments: None.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda. Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Gibson to add the following to the agenda:

1. Resolution No. 16 of 2003: A resolution authorizing the employment of special legal counsel to represent the City of Shreveport and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 14 of 2003: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by approving the continuation of B-1-E, Buffer Business/Extended use District limited to a "pet day care facility with grooming as described at the public hearing" only on property located on the north side of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, 150 feet of Laurie Lane Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 15 of 2003 by Councilman Gibson: An ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances, to create the Planning and Infrastructure Committee, a standing committee of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

4. Ordinance No. 16 of 2003 by Councilman Carmody: An ordinance amending the 2003 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto ($1.4)

5. Ordinance No. 17 of 2003 by Councilman Carmody: An ordinance amending the 2003 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto ($2.0 million).

6. Ordinance No. 18 of 2003 by Councilman Carmody: An ordinance amending the 2003 Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto ($2.0 million).

Mayor Hightower: Before ya’ll vote on those, I’d like to talk about a couple of them, if we could. I talked to Councilman Carmody earlier today and yesterday one of these amendments was discussed to talk of eliminating the project on the Parkway North Extension and today, you have before you another one that seeks to take money out of the Riverfront Development Fund. I would ask and talked to Councilman Carmody earlier today, the extension of the Parkway Project as you heard yesterday from many of our constituents, it is an important project and it is in the overall master plan and the project needs to go forward and I would certainly think that we would need to do that a bite at a time versus trying to go raise $12 to $15 million dollars at a time and you heard all of the arguments for that thought process, yesterday.

The one that is being introduced today on the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund, takes out, I assuming, $2 million dollars to put into the concrete fund. The worry that I have about that and I’ll let Mr. Dark explain it a little better, but currently more money is coming out of the fund than is going into the fund and over the past several years, we’ve used Riverfront money to balance the Operating Reserve, over the past several years to balance the Operating Reserve in the General Fund. Which in turn is something that the rating agencies look at to give us bond rating. So it is very important that we not, at least in my opinion, not upset that apple cart so that it doesn’t affect our bond rating especially while we are continuing to re-finance as many bonds as you see come before you and have seen come before you.

What I would ask the Council to do instead of putting these on the agenda is to give the Administration a couple of weeks to go back. We save money in several ways, we save money through the refinancing of the bonds which frees up extra dollars to do more projects or add to the projects that we are doing.

The other thing that we’ve been able to do on the Stadium financing by the way we financed it, we saved $2.6 million dollars doing that, in financing.

We also may have some projects that we were prior bond issue projects that came in under the budgeted amount, which would give us some extra dollars.

But, what I would like for the Council to do is give us two weeks to go back and look and see how much money we could find that we could allocate to concrete replacement programs and do it in that fashion instead of putting at risk, the Parkway Extension or a possible bond rating risk by taking money out of the Riverfront Fund.

Mr. Dark: I just want to add that I am quite concerned about the possibility of taking $2 million more out of the Riverfront fund. That fund starts the year of 2003 with about $7 million dollars in balance. We are spending that down to about $5.5 million already in the budget you’ve already passed. To make that go to $3.5 in one year’s time, I think is something we would rather not do at all. We would rather save some reserve in that fund because it frankly is about the only reserve we have left of any size that is available from year-to-year; so, I’d very much ask you to do what the Mayor just talked about. Give us the opportunity to look through street bond money that already exist, projects that are already out there, unappropriated balances that are already out there, and see if we can come up with a number that is reasonable for concrete maintenance that does not use the Riverfront Fund to do it.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Dark, while I certainly can appreciate it, yesterday I tried to listen attentively and not inject much relative to the conversation that we had in regard to the extension of the Parkway because I think the extension of the Parkway was obviously something that was lock in step with what the Master Plan was and certainly I was not in favor of necessarily scraping that project because many people who did speak yesterday, I think made very valid points and salient points, at that.

In trying to do that, I think, my colleague, Councilman Carmody also raised a significant issue and that is, very often when we look in the larger and just kind of the failure of humanity that we appreciate things that are more short term and we can’t really appreciate as much of those things that are big picture and long term. Fortunately, there are some who continue to do the long term thing for those of us who are impatient. I just believe, also that the streets and where people drive every day is where (no pun intended) but where the rubber meets the road, literally and how people feel that they are affected. I think there are certainly people who will be impacted by the extension of the Parkway, but a whole lot fewer than will be impacted in my opinion by being able to supply and to replace those streets and those projects that need to be done in our neighborhoods. As you know, that $2 million represents right at where the unfunded needs are as it relates to concrete program.

I, in having conversations with Councilman Carmody and the Chairman and others, agreed even on yesterday that there should be a way to do both. There should be a way to provide for our citizens the kind of concrete projects that are necessary and to not have to prioritize some neighborhoods over the others and still continue to do what we need to develop north Shreveport and to extend the Parkway out to North Shreveport.

And I think Mr. Chairman and Mayor Hightower, that what you see before you was just an effort to try to put both things on the table and I am willing to listen to those other ideas that the Mayor, that he alludes to, however, I am always leery when we say, we will find as much as we can and I think what Mr. Dark is saying is, we’ll find as much as we can find but I think our concern was that there was $1.9 million dollars of unfunded needs. And I personally was not going to be personally satisfied although I am willing to do whatever we can financially do, wasn’t going to be satisfied with coming up with $900,000, of course it is more than we have now, (additional dollars) but if we can find a way to find the $2 million dollars, the $1.9 whatever the case may be, I just want to urge us not to just find something but do what we can to find what is adequate because we’ve put band-aids on things for a long time and I think what citizens are concerned about is being to move forward with a project and not the exclusion of another project. And, I think that that was the Mayor’s concern on yesterday and certainly was my concern as well, is that we not scrap one project in order to do another, but we must do what we can, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, to find a way to do both because I hate to think that the extension of Clyde Fant Parkway takes priority over being able to do what we can in these neighborhoods and I know that that is not the case, I just don’t want it to be misinterpreted that way.

Councilman Green: Mr. Thompson, would you give us some guidance. If in fact we would like not to put these two items, as introducing them, do we vote on, make a motion as to not to introduce them at this time?

Mr. Thompson: I think the proper motion would be to move for a division of the question and to vote on each item separately.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Thompson, I don’t know if it answer is the same thing, but if we voted to receive these, are they amendments or—resolutions. . .

Mr. Thompson: You would be voting to add these times to the agenda and they would have to lay over for 2 weeks, it couldn’t be voted on until. . . .

Councilman Jackson: Is 2 weeks the time we were talking about anyway. Well wouldn’t it be okay to just put them on and if we couldn’t vote for 2 weeks, it really wouldn’t matter for 2 weeks if we just put them on there, I guess my question.

Mr. Thompson: You could not vote on it in 2 weeks.

Councilman Jackson: Right, we would have to lay it over for 2 weeks. Mayor Hightower, would that give you adequate time?

Mayor Hightower: That would absolutely give us the time, but two of the things that I am concerned about: 1) the bond rating commission seeing an effort to pull money out of the Riverfront Fund on our agenda and 2) also the folks from North Shreveport that are concerned about the Project, if we are going to go find some money somewhere, why put them through the grief? That was not, I don’t want to say what I was going to say, but I don’t want to say that that’s not as important as the other one, they are both important, but I would rather just not have them on the agenda. If we come back within the 2 weeks and we find some money and certainly it is important, but this Council is going to be asked to prioritize for the next four years and it is easy to say that, you know, if we have a bunch of crime tomorrow night, that we ought to go buy a bunch of more police cars and some more bullets and not worry about that medic unit and that fire truck that we need. I mean, we all got to keep in mind that we’ve got a 100 paths that we have got to go down at the same time and continue to fund what we have to fund to keep everything operating and moving forward, and this is one of those. I know there is $2 million dollars out there and everybody needs to understand, we have money—Tom, do you have that number that we have in the Streets?

Mr. Dark: We are probably going to be spending between $12 and $16 million dollars in street construction and overlay and maintenance this year, in other areas, including the Concrete Street and Asphalt Overlay Program that you already know about.

Mayor Hightower: So it is not like we are neglecting streets, by any means. We are spending that kind of money in them, but we know and we acknowledged during the budget process that we have this many more panels that we would like to replace and we want to go find as much as we can, but at the same time we have got to understand that this summer may bring a lot of heat and a lot of panel busting through expansion. If that happens, we need to know that we’ve got some money somewhere that we can go out and fix those that are buckled up versus those that have cracks running through them. We have got to keep a long term in mind and w want to come back with as much as we can.

Councilman Jackson: Well, the reason I asked the question is for the same thing that you’ve said, while we give an appearance, certainly we don’t want to give an appearance that makes us look weaker but by the same token and that is to the Bond Rating Commission or what have you, but I don’t want to give the appearance to our constituents that we are not doing whatever we can by the same token. So, I guess mines is a question of appearances as well and if my procedural, rather than not put it on the agenda at all, I think placing it on the agenda gives it priority for attention and then we will be sure. Because anything can happen over the course of 2 weeks and if it is not on the agenda, then we’ve got 2 weeks and then we’ll have 2 more weeks to place it on the agenda and in effect, it would have been 4 weeks before we can effectively have done anything. I guess my request to put it on the, at least place it on the agenda, keeps it in the forefront and forces all of us to give it attention and to do something about it, now.

Councilman Gibson: Bundled in with these other ordinances is an ordinance that speaks close, near and dear in my heart in the industry I represent. Is an ordinance to establish first time ever, a Council committee dealing with critical infrastructure. We are talking about 2 weeks, we are talking about short term needs and I would encourage my fellow City Councilmen to look at and approve this ordinance establishing this committee that would not look at current infrastructure, but long term infrastructure needs and also working with the Administration to come up with the necessary financing, short term and long term, to solve the problems and we have massive amount of problems in each one of our districts. And this will give the Administration some additional support in terms of information flow and we won’t get into these knee-jerk reactions of being able to go either look at one project versus another and, I have to agree with the Mayor in terms of what takes precedence and depending on the weather conditions and other things, our infrastructure is exposed on a daily basis.

The other thing that is in this ordinance, for the public’s indulgence is, something that Mike Strong and the Administration badly need and that is a Geographical Information System (GIS) that allows our Public Works Department and our Administration to manage the necessary resources and know where our infrastructure and utility, water and sewer, and everything else that is in this community to make sure that we don’t go out, if Thomas Carmody has a project that is coming up and do overlay, that 6 months from now there is going to be another project that is going to come in and have to uproot the water and sewer and then we just ripped up freshly laid asphalt. But this system will allow us to properly manage all the different components that a City has to have and I will suggest to you that, that will put us on the cutting edge of managing the necessary resources that we currently have in front us and the needs assessment that we will be working through this committee to be able to address.

And I would encourage you to look at this ordinance and I think it will help address some of the concerns and some of the issues we currently have on the docket through my fellow Councilman Carmody’s ideas of looking at where we find the resources.

Councilman Lester: I would just echo some of the comments that were made by Councilman Jackson. I believe that if we look at our concrete situation, we have $1.9 million dollars of unmet need. I think one of these amendments to take the $2 million from the Riverfront Development will make funds available to ameliorate the situation that exists in all our Council districts, not just one or two. And I think that it will do it in such a way that we can address a need without having to tax our citizens because this Riverfront Development money is money basically paid from out of town folks, and I think that it should be used for the benefit of the entire City and I think that this will be a proper use of the money.

I would like to go on record again and I’ve spoken to Councilman Carmody as well as the folks from West Shreveport as their representative, and I’ll go on record again saying, that I am not in favor of reallocating the $1.4 million dollars from the Extension of the Clyde Fant Parkway but I do believe the amendment that Councilman Carmody is proposing also as far as the $2 million dollars, is a good compromise as well because it deals with the need and does not take from one particular neighborhood to the benefit of the others and I think that that is, a positive. At the same time the Administration has made a commitment that says that they are going to try to find some additional resources.

I believe given the fact that we can not vote on this for 2 weeks as is our rules and our policies and our procedures, I would ask my colleagues to move forward on this and lets adopt these amendments, put them on the agenda, let them lay over for 2 weeks and in 2 weeks we will get a report from the Administration and then we will go from there. That gives everyone a chance to make an intelligent decision as far as what our budget actually reflects, what the Administration can come up with, and in fact if at that time, we see a scenario where we can meet the unfunded need without the necessity of tapping the Riverfront Development Fund, then we can do that. If we have a scenario where we can do it otherwise, we can do that too.

So, I would just ask that we move forward with this amendment and try to get something done for the benefit of all of our districts and not overly burden one particular district, that being mine, in the North Shreveport area.

Councilman Walford: First of all for the audience, the reason I’m smiling has nothing to do with the comments made by Councilman Lester, but there is an e-mail up here for all of us from Mr. Gibson, wanting to know where the cookies are so we are going to send those that way.

Motion by Councilman Walford to separate all of these for consideration, seconded by Carmody Green. Motion approved by the following vote: Councilmen Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Green. 5. Nays: Councilman Lester and Jackson. 2.

1. Resolution No. 16 of 2003: A resolution authorizing the employment of special legal counsel to represent the City of Shreveport and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to add the resolution to the agenda.

Councilman Carmody: I recognize the name but I was curious, Mr. Antee is this the same Keene that was formally your partner?

Mr. Antee: About 11 years ago.

Councilman Carmody: Could I get a breakdown of–is it Keene? Could I get a breakdown of his expertise in this particular field before the 2 weeks?

Mr. Antee: Sure, I think there is a resume attached, if not they can attach a resume. He is also the same Mr. Keene that is former U. S. Attorney for this district with about 25 years of litigation experience.

Councilman Carmody: Very good.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Antee, he will be representing the City on what particular issues? Is he representing the City as far as real estate issues associated with the Convention Center or any type of litigation that would come or arise as it relates to the Convention Center?

Mr. Antee: He’ll be involved in any of the litigation with Safeco, the bonding company, in the event there is litigation and he’ll be involved in the negotiations that will take place once the bids are received with Safeco; so, that is limited to that area.

Councilman Lester: Whose fulfilling that function now, as far as—no one is fulfilling that function at this time, as far as negotiating on behalf of the City with Safeco?

Mr. Antee: The Administration is, the Mayor and myself. Mr. Keene has sat in on meetings with us, but we do know that once the bids are received, then we’ve got to sit down and do hard negotiations with Safeco. In the event that we can’t reach an agreement, we need to be prepared to move and move quick with legal action in order to force the bond and what we don’t want to do is sit back and wait and do the negotiations and then have to gear up. We want to be going down two roads at the same time, so that in the event we don’t reach an agreement, we are ready to go.

Councilman Lester: In a posture to litigate.

Mr. Antee: That’s right.

Councilman Gibson: Ken, I want to thank you for the foresight of bringing this firm in because I think they also bring another set of eyes in terms of construction orientation, in terms of construction background which I think they do have. Is that correct?

Mr. Antee: Construction background?

Councilman Gibson: Well, in terms of law background.

Mr. Antee: Yes, he has represented contractors. I think he has represented–he’s been in practice for many years.

Councilman Gibson: Well, I appreciate that.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

2. Ordinance No. 14 of 2003: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by approving the continuation of B-1-E, Buffer Business/Extended use District limited to a "pet day care facility with grooming as described at the public haring" only on property located on the north side of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, 150 feet of Laurie Lane Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Gibson to add the ordinance to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

3. Ordinance No. 15 of 2003 by Councilman Gibson: An ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances, to create the Planning and Infrastructure Committee, a standing committee of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford to add the ordinance to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

4. Ordinance No. 16 of 2003 by Councilman Carmody: An ordinance amending the 2003 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto ($1.4).

Motion by Councilman Carmody to add the ordinance (died for lack of a second).

5. Ordinance No. 17 of 2003 by Councilman Carmody: An ordinance amending the 2003 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto ($2.0 million).

6. Ordinance No. 18 of 2003 by Councilman Carmody: An ordinance amending the 2003 Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto ($2.0 million).

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Lester to add the ordinances to the agenda. Motion denied by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Carmody, Gibson, and Jackson. 4. Nays: Councilman Walford, Hogan and Green. 3.

Councilman Green: This item has been introduced.

Mrs. Glass: I believe under the open meetings law, it takes a 2/3rds vote to add an item to the agenda on Tuesday.

Councilman Walford: So this item fails.

Public Comments:

Mr. Bradley Shaffer, Attorney in Lansing, Michigan (3800 Capitol City Boulevard): Some of you may know Lansing, there is where Nick (inaudible) used to be head football coach.

I have been asked by my client, Deja Vu to come and address you today in regard to the consideration of what is generally referred to the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance.

I submitted a lengthy packet of materials last week. I have to apologize for that late submission. It wasn’t anything calculated even though I read in one of the pages of the paper this morning that I had done this intentionally. Those of you who might have been following matters, we have been involved in some protracted litigation over the past month, not involving the City, just to be able to get open and I have been down here about 5 times in the last 5 weeks dealing with that issue and it was only until last week that I had an opportunity to get these materials together, so I do apologize for that and I beg your indulgence.

I believe that, in certain regards of the letter speaks for itself. What I have tried to do is to bring before the Council certain, particularly, constitutional issues, that is my specialty in the law, First Amendment rights and I have tried to attach the appropriate documentation, varies case law that is supports the position and comments I have tried to make to you. For example, one of the things, the very first thing I set forth in the letter is the unconstitutionality of what are called the criminal disability provisions, in your proposed ordinance. There is a Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals decision that I cited too, Fernandes vs. Limmer that is right on point that rules those matters unconstitutional. There are a number of issues as contained in the ordinance that I think or at least it would be my opinion a court would find constitutionally infirmed. And the question is really today, how you might want me to address those.

There are certain things that my client has problems with and I can discuss those however those will not fix all of the constitutional infirmities of the ordinance. If you want me to address all of those, I can do that as well and let me just give you an example: I don’t think it was the intent of the City Council to make every hotel and every casino in this City, a sexually oriented business subject to regulation and more importantly, subject to having every employee of the facility have to have license, go through the fingerprinting process. But in reality, that is what your ordinance does, by its definition and particularly by its definition of "other sexually oriented businesses." And I can take you through that, but I’d ask you to take my word for it, that is in fact, the case.

We have additional problems and concerns in regard to the employee licensing, not only are the criminal disability provisions unconstitutional, in my opinion, but all of the matters that is contained in the ordinance that facilitates. . . . a little information. We believe that all of those are constitutionally infirmed as well.

I am sure your City Attorney has either done a great deal of research on this or will do research. You can type in my name in Westlaw and you can get all the cases that I’ve litigated these matters, this is not something that I do, you know, once every third Tuesday. I am a First Amendment attorney, I do this day in and day out. I am very familiar with these ordinances. There is nothing in this ordinance that I’ve not seen before and many of the provisions that are contained in there right now, I have challenged and successful have challenged. And don’t say that as some type of threat, I’m trying to be here today so that we can have some communication in order to, hopefully, come to some type of agreement as to what the ordinance should say not only to placate my client, but more importantly, so that someone else down the road, some other business, some other individual doesn’t come and sue the City in regard to constitutionally infirmed provisions that we can correct here and now. And let me just go through a few of those very quickly; I’ve touched on two of them.

Councilman Carmody: Can I ask Mr. Shaffer to reference the pages that he is quoting from, I guess this is your letter to us?

Mr. Shaffer: Yes, sir.

Councilman Carmody: It would help me so that I know where we are going.

Mr. Shaffer: I apologize.

Councilman Green: Time wise, Mr. Shaffer, how long will you think that this would take?

Mr. Shaffer: I’d like to be brief about this. I would be more than happy to take whatever questions, but I really want to only cover about five or six issues, maybe five minutes.

Fernandes vs. Limmer is found on Tab A, Exhibit A of the material and that is----Councilman Lester: I was just making a law school reference.

Mr. Shaffer: I do understand that a number of you are lawyers, so you can see what is in there. There is also the issue of the suspension and revocation of licenses. And I guess I should kind of give an example in the political arena because all of you are in some regards, politicians.

You don’t have to get a license to campaign, to engage in First Amendment protected activity in your conduct in campaigning or being a politician and the Supreme Court generally has very circumscribed limitations on what government can do to impose a pre-condition on engaging in First Amendment activity.

Yet your licensing scheme not only requires a license of the businesses and employees, broadly defined employees, before they can engage in First Amendment protected activity, but it also imposes suspension and revocation requirements on the licensing.

What I would submit to you--and I am going to give some case law that you lawyers can jot down that is not in the materials. I did have to put the materials together in quite abbreviated fashion---but, I would submit that if people violate the provisions, I am sorry but I really did. I swear to God. You can ask my staff, they were there until 8 o’clock at night trying to put all of this together.

Councilman Walford: There is a reason that you did this in green, I guess for money, right?

Mr. Shaffer: No, Michigan State. That was just my jab at Nick (inaudible).

Councilman Gibson: That helped you.

Mr. Shaffer: But the papers today were reporting that Nick (inaudible) may be up for the Lion’s head coaching job.

In regards to suspension of revocation, what I would submit to you is that there are a number of cases, in fact a very recent case out of a Federal District Court in Texas, which says that you simply can not suspend or revoke a license to engage in First Amendment protected activity. You can fine people if they violate your ordinance, you can have criminal sanctions, but you can not simply suspend or revoke licenses. So, my clients have problems with the suspension and revocation particularly in regard to the fact that the way your ordinance is set up, you can have one violation of an ordinance, one violation, and there can be a suspension for up to six months. And the United States District Court that I would reference is a case called Millennium Restaurant Groups vs. City of Dallas and the case is found at 191 Fed Sub 2^nd 802 and there is a companion case to that, as well and I can provide all of these citations later on.

There is also what I would refer to as a strict liability provision in the ordinance and what I would submit to you is that there are actually two provisions of your ordinance that conflict with one another. And when I am talking about strict liability, what I mean is that a violation of an ordinance provisions on something that an employee may do can be ascribable to the business for suspension, revocation or fining provisions.

You have one section, 72-17 (b) which sets up a, which actually does not permit for strict liability and then what you have is (I’ll take that back), 72-17 (b) does provide for strict liability. Whatever an employee does is a violation on behalf of the club for suspension, revocation or fining. And then you get to 72-20 which I believe is the correct constitutional approach and what that says is that, the club has to have knowledge by its management staff of a violation in order for there to be a suspension or revocation, so I would submit to you, those two provisions are just diametrically opposed.

There are provisions that I’ll call a stage requirement in 18 and a no touch provisions. And in regard to my particular client, what you have understand is we are already subject to the state liquor codes, the Shreveport liquor codes. Those provision already deal with these problems and issues if what the City Council wants to do is, it wants to insure that there is no improper sexual touching, that’s already in the law, that is already in the state liquor code.

So, when in this ordinance you attempt to go beyond that and merely prohibit any type of physically touching whatsoever, a handshake, would be a violation of this ordinance subjecting the club and an entertainer to suspension, revocation and fining, that I would submit to the City Council is over broad. Like I say, if you have problems with sexually touching, and you should, that’s already addressed.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Shaffer back when you first starting speaking a moment ago you referred to criminal disability as it relates to the First Amendment. I am not sure if you are aware, but we have a law here that was enacted by one of our local state senators, Max Malone, and it says that if someone is a convicted felon that can not run for public office. I didn’t know if you were aware of that.

Mr. Shaffer: Not only am I aware of that, there are. . .

Councilman Hogan: And it has held up, constitutional muster.

Mr. Shaffer: That’s correct, Sir and as has the prohibition of convicted felons to own fire arms, as has the federal and certain state prohibitions in regard to convicted felons not being able to vote.

And when you take a look at the case law, there are a number of cases that deal with that issue about why there is a distinction here and what the case simply hold though is that, running for public office is not necessarily a constitutional fundamental right. And in fact, owning a firearm, at least how it has been construed by numerous courts and I deal with these issues as well---I am doing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the NRA on some of these issues, so I am also familiar with Second Amendment matters as well—those aren’t analyzed the same way.

And so, you can’t take a look at one thing and say well, this is okay to prohibit a convicted felon when you have not, merely running for public office which is kind of a public forum type of thing, but you have somebody being precluded from actually making a living and engaging in First Amendment protected activity in making a living at that, I don’t think they are analogist.

Councilman Hogan: I am going to defer to, Thomas Arceneaux is not here today, but I will get back to you on that. I would like to defer to him and get a little more advise on it.

Mr. Shaffer: Sure, and I give him the citation of the cases that deal with the gun issue and the voting issue as well.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Shaffer, it is not how I wanted to spend my Saturday morning, but. . . .

Mr. Shaffer: I apologized to you before.

Councilman Walford: That’s alright.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Shaffer, I appreciate the work because I can understand what it is like to put this together and for the record, I am the only lawyer up here, that is why everyone was smirking and laughing.

But if you could please, provide, I think you indicated that there were some other case citations, if you could provide those, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Shaffer: No problem.

Councilman Gibson: I was just smirking because this is an attorney’s dream right here, this ten pounds of paper.

Mr. Shaffer: It’s a secretary nightmare.

Councilman Lester: Some of us deal with concrete, some of us deal with paper.

Councilman Walford: All my north Shreveport friends are out there and I just want to make sure that they understand that, we did not add that item to the agenda. You are welcome here, we are glad to have you but it is not something that you have to address now.

Councilman Gibson: Can I ask for a suspension of the Rules for a second. There is one person in your district Mr. Walford, that has another appointment that has some brief history.

Motion by Councilman Gibson to suspend the Rules to allow Public Comments, seconded by Councilman Carmody (motion unanimously approved). Motion by Councilman Lester to allow the speaker to speak, seconded by Councilman Walford (motion unanimously approved)

Mr. Greg Kennedy (2040 Lakecrest): I wanted to come forth and thank you for your vote that you just made. It is very important to the Agurs area. I am also one of the founders of the Agurs Business Association and we put up quite a battle over the years to try to get our , the Agurs area in part of Shreveport.

In 1988, and I want to review this history briefly, in 1988 we passed a bond issue that would extend the Fant Parkway up behind Artie Nevel Sign Company, go over an overpass to the Jack Wells Boulevard, and also have an exit going to Airport Drive. This would have allowed tremendous industrial development in our area. And during the next four years, when Hazel Beard was Mayor, I kept calling downtown wanting to know whenever our project was going to get started. Well the only answer I ever got well, it is on the drawing board, its on the drawing board. The next thing I knew it was on the drawing board, but it was a much reduced and got kind of (inaudible) version of it; that money was move somewhere else.

I think it was a great mistake because possible some of the traffic problems you are having in South Shreveport now, would have been out in our area had this not done. It was not done by Council action, it was done by, I believe Tom Dark said it was an administrative decision, a political decision, I forget just which one he told me, I believe, he said administrative decision.

So, please give us a chance to grow. Don’t–two wrongs don’t make a right. Thomas, stay out of our bond money. The citizens voted for it twice. I think we are entitled to it and thanks again for your consideration and your courtesy of letting me speak.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to return to the regular order of business (motion unanimously approved).

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION:

TO INTRODUCE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

RESOLUTIONS:

Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Walford for Adoption of the Resolution on the Consent Agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 9 OF 2003

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELLERBE ROAD/FLOURNOY-LUCAS INTERSECTION PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 98 C004, PARCEL NO: F-1, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has developed the Ellerbe Road/Flournoy-Lucas Intersection Project, Project No. 98 C004; and

WHEREAS, the property described in the legal description, and more fully shown on the plat map marked as Exhibit "A" attached hereto, is situated in said development; and

WHEREAS, conveyance of fee title to the property comprising Parcel No: F-1 by cash sale deed is not possible due to use restrictions contained in the present owner’s acquisition deed; and

WHEREAS, public necessity dictates that this property be owned by and subject to the use by the City of Shreveport.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the expropriation of this property is necessary for the public interest; therefore, the City Attorney be and he is hereby authorized to institute expropriation proceedings against the owners of record, as they might appear at the time of filing suit, of the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto as Parcel No: F-1, to be acquired in fee title.

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.

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION:

RESOLUTIONS ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE:

The Deputy Clerk read the resolution by title: Resolution No. 203 of 2002: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Parish of Caddo Relative to the development and operation of a park and related facilities in the Martin Luther King Area and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody to postpone the resolution until the February 11, 2003 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NUMBER 4 OF 2003

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A HISTORIC PRESERVATION EASEMENT WITH A QUALIFIED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORGANIZATION AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport is the recipient of a grant funded by the Historic Preservation Fund for the Save America’s Treasures Grant Program; and

WHEREAS, the grant funds will be used to improve and preserve the architectural, historic, and cultural values and significance of the McNeill Street Pumping Station; and

WHEREAS, as a condition of the grant, the City is required to grant a preservation easement to a qualified organization whose purpose is the improvement, preservation and maintenance of historic or historically significant the property; and

WHEREAS, the easement will be granted for a term of fifty (50) years.

NOW, THEREFORE NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular and legal session convened that the Mayor is authorized to execute a Historic Preservation Easement with a qualified historic preservation organization, substantially and in accordance with the draft thereof which was filed for public inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Council on January 14, 2003.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, CONTINUED - RESOLUTION NO. 4 OF 0203

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 resolution or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 5 OF 2003

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A SECTION 9 (5307) APPLICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR A GRANT UNDER THE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED.

WHEREAS, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to make grants for a mass transportation program of projects;

WHEREAS, the contract for financial assistance will impose certain obligations upon applicant, including the provision by it of the local share of the project costs in the program;

WHEREAS, it is required by the U.S. Department of Transportation, in accord with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that in connection with the filing of an application for assistance under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, the applicant gives assurance that it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the U.S. Department of Transportation requirements thereunder; and

WHEREAS, it is the goal of the applicant that minority business enterprise be utilized to the fullest extent possible in connection with these projects, and that definitive procedures shall be established and administered to ensure that minority businesses shall have the maximum feasible opportunity to compete for contracts when procuring construction contracts, supplies, equipment contracts, or consultant and other services.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened:

1. That Keith Hightower, Mayor, is authorized to execute and file an application on behalf of the City of Shreveport with the U.S. Department of Transportation, to aid in the financing of planning, capital and operating assistance projects pursuant to Section 9 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, as amended.

2. That Keith Hightower, Mayor, is authorized to execute and file with such applications an assurance or any other document required by the U.S. Department of Transportation effectuating the purpose of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3. That Keith Hightower, Mayor, is authorized to furnish such additional information as the U.S. Department of Transportation may require in connection with the application for the program of projects and budget.

4. That Keith Hightower, Mayor, is authorized to set forth and execute affirmative minority business policies in connection with the program of projects and budget procurement needs.

5. That Keith Hightower, Mayor, is authorized to executive grant agreements on behalf of the City of Shreveport with the U.S. Department of Transportation for aid in the financing of the planning, capital and operating assistance program of projects and budget.

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 the resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this and the provision 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 Walford, seconded by Councilman Gibson passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 6 OF 2003

A RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE EVANGEL CHRISTIAN ACADEMY FOR WINNING THE 2002 CLASS 5A LOUISIANA STATE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP; TO DECLARE WEDNESDAY JANUARY 15, 2003 AS EVANGEL CHRISTIAN ACADEMY EAGELS DAY IN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

By: Councilman Hogan and Green

WHEREAS, the Evangel Christian Academy Eagles won the 2002 Class 5A Louisiana State Football Championship; and

WHEREAS, the Evangel Eagles football team has won the state championship for eight out of the last ten years; and

WHEREAS, the Evangel Eagles finished the season with a 14-1 winning record, and completed a ten-year record for 136 wins and only 10 losses; and

WHEREAS, while the Evangel Eagles football team has many outstanding players, all of whom made important contributions to the team’s success, the following players, each of whom made the All State Football Team, excelled individually in 2002:

Jacob Hester, running back, known as "Freight Train," was the first Evangel player to make 1,000-yard rushing mark in the regular season and he ended the season with 1592-yards rushing and 26 touchdowns.

John David Booty, quarterback, in 15 games completed 250 passes in 388 attempts with only 10 interceptions for 3956 yards and 37 touchdowns.

Chris Bowers, defensive linebacker, known as "The Sackman," led the Eagles in 100 total tackles with only 29 of those for losses, including 18 sacks. He was MVP of the state championship game in the Superdome

Chad Johnson, defensive back and kickoff and punt return specialist, had 77 tackles, including six for losses, five interceptions and returned 26 punts for 256 yards, two for touchdowns.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the City Council congratulates Evangel Christian Academy for winning the 2002 Class 5A Louisiana State Football Championship and for the many other successes the team has enjoyed in recent years. The City Council wishes the Eagles the best of luck and every success in their future endeavors.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in recognition of the contributions Evangel Christian Academy Eagles has made to CONTINUED - RESOLUTION NO. 6 OF 2003

the City of Shreveport, the City Council of the City of Shreveport proclaims:

Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2003,

Evangel Christian Academy Eagles Day

in the City of Shreveport

and all citizens are urged to join in the celebration of this special occasion.

s/Calvin B. Lester, District A

/s/Monty Walford, District B

/s/Thomas G. Carmody, Jr., District C

/s/Mike Gibson, District D

/s/James Green, District F

/s/Jeff Hogan, District E

/s/Theron Jackson, District G

Councilman Hogan: Congratulations to the team and to thank ya’ll for coming today. And this is really sort of a joint venture because the school is actually in James Green’s district, District F and the church—

Councilman Jackson: Councilman Hogan, the school is actually in my district.

Councilman Hogan: I beg your pardon. Councilman Jackson: That’s alright.

Councilman Green: The Church is in my district.

Councilman Hogan: I beg your pardon, excuse me. I stand corrected.

Councilman Jackson: That’s alright. Every home game they won was in District G.

Councilman Green: And here again Councilman, if the Church is in my district, the school is too.

Councilman Hogan: I stand corrected on that, but anyway it was my privilege to present this and thank ya’ll again for coming. I saw Joey Hester is a Captain, I believe, where is his son? Is he a Captain on our Police Department. He is a Sergeant. He was here today, I don’t know if he is back out there and that’s one proud dad sitting out there, I’m telling you. But anyway, thanks again for coming and we sure do appreciate ya’ll, we are proud of you, keep up the good work.

Councilman Green: We do have a Vince Lombardi trophy, it is being printed. They just didn’t finish it up, but Councilman Hogan and I will deliver it to the school, hopefully by tomorrow, before the end of the week. It is a nice little trophy from all of us to all of you.

Coach: You can’t do anything of this magnitude without the City being behind you, Mayor and City Council. I speak for the Chancellor and the head of school in saying that we appreciate Shreveport being behind us, the support it has given us. I know that there is talk right now, the national ESPN, national high school game next year, perhaps it could be even here in this City.

We just believe because Shreveport has been behind us and supporting us the way they are, that great things are going to come to national high school football, even a hook-up here against the Delasol perhaps in the next year or so. So, we are exciting about what his happening with Evangel football and especially excited for the City Council is behind us and the Mayor. We just thank you for all that you’ve done.

Councilman Jackson: I want to congratulate you for sustained excellence and success. My history goes back, I guess, probably Ken knows but probably, I don’t know how many years ago, I remember being a high school referee and calling football games out at Evangel when you used to have the speakers that you had to play the music through, it is time to make a change. And those kinds of things and the program has come from that, I guess, single or double A to where you have it and I just want to say that I’ve enjoyed it and my family has as well.

We followed it even as far as going to the game against Catholic in Baton Rouge, a year or so ago, a play off game. So, I just wanted you to know that we are proud of what you are doing in the city as we are of other high schools in the city and your’s simply expresses excellence and sustained excellence and so I certainly want to congratulate not only these players but these players for leaving a legacy but for the coaches, coaching staff, the entire facility and staff who are committed to continuing that excellence as we go through. Certainly you got a critics, but winning is the best recruiter so I thank you for what you’ve done for winning but not only on the field but for the things you’ve done off the field as well.

Coach: Thank you, I appreciate that.

Mayor Hightower: Certainly the team has been fun to watch. I had the opportunity to go watch them play a couple of games and if you hadn’t been to a semi-pro game before, go out and watch these guys play. They do a great job and not only do we want to recognize the team as a whole and the school and the whole organization, but I know a couple of the players on the team have named All-American, Joey and John David, I think were both named High School All-Americans, so certainly that deserves a great deal of recognition, not only to the team but, Joey–Jacob, (oh, he ain’t no All-American–you must have a tough mom.) But we want to congratulate both of you guys, that is certainly impressive as well and coach we want to thank you too, I mean, not only have ya’ll done a great job and brought great recognition back to the City and North Louisiana, but ya’ll been a great economic development partner for us as well. As you mentioned, we may have the opportunity to bring some more games to Independence Stadium, that is what we built it for was not only college and that level, but certainly high school as well and it couldn’t be a more excellent team to come out here, so take that back and tell the coach to keep working.

Councilman Carmody: I have to ask this for my own personal reason, you guys are all seniors? No. Look at this, none of you. Is there a show of hands to anybody that is going to Baton Rouge in the future? Look at them, not a single one. I’m hoping a few of you guys go down there so I can watch you play for the Tigers, but ya’ll are great, ya’ll are all champions. Keep up the good work.

Councilman Hogan: I want to take a second to clarify something, if anybody is wondering, what my connection is to this. Coach Dunn and I went to, I’ve known him for a long time. We went to grade school and junior high together. He did graduate from Woodlawn and that’s alright, I graduated from Southwood, but I just want to clarify if anybody was wondering what my connection was to this. Tell him I said, congratulations.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Gibson passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 10 of 2003

A RESOLUTION AMENDING A PRIOR RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 12, 2002 WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF SEWER REVENUE BONDS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOREGOING.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana (the City) passed resolution no. public improvement of the City including roads, streets, drainage, parks and recreation facilities and public facilities including facilities for the police department and fire department, and other public purposes, and acquiring the necessary land, equipment and furnishings therefore, all as hereinafter provided; and

WHEREAS, in order to realize interest cost savings and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14-A of Title

39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended (the "Act") and other constitutional and statutory authority, the City of Shreveport, Louisiana (the "Issuer") governed by the City Council (the "Governing Authority") intends to proceed with the issuance of not exceeding $12,000,000 aggregate principal amount of General Obligation Refunding Bonds of the City (the "Bonds"), to be issued in one or more series to effectuate the refunding of the Prior Bonds,

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and the Council of the City, acting as the governing authority of the City, that:

SECTION 1. Preliminary Approval of Bonds. For the purpose of providing funds to refund the Prior Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the City intends to proceed with the issuance of the Bonds. The details of the Bonds shall be established by subsequent ordinance adopted by this governing authority. The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to effectuate the refunding of the Prior Bonds and pay costs of issuance. The Bonds shall be general obligations of the City as issuer of the Bonds, payable from and secured by ad valorem taxes levied and collected in the manner provided by Article VI, Section 33 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. The Bonds shall be issued in an amount not to exceed $12,000,000 and shall bear interest at a rate of not to exceed six percent (6%) per annum, maturing no later than fourteen (14) years from the date thereof and shall be issued under the authority previously cited in this section.

SECTION 2. State Bond Commission Application. This governing authority hereby authorizes and directs that application be formally made to the State Bond Commission, Baton Rouge, Louisiana for final approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the City within the parameters set forth above.

SECTION 3. Employment of Bond Counsel. This governing authority finds and determines that a real necessity exists for the employment of special bond counsel in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. Casten & Pearce, A Professional Law Corporation, Shreveport, Louisiana is hereby employed as Bond Counsel to perform comprehensive legal and coordinate professional work as Bond Counsel with respect to the issuance and sale of the Bonds. Said Bond Counsel shall prepare and submit to this governing authority for adoption of all of the proceedings incidental to the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of such Bonds, shall counsel and advise this governing authority as to the issuance and sale thereof and shall furnish its opinion covering the legality of the issuance of the Bonds. The fee of said Bond Counsel shall be fixed at a sum not exceeding eighty (80%) percent of the maximum fee allowed by the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana’s fee schedule for comprehensive, legal and coordinate professional work in connection with the issuance of general obligation bonds and based on the amount of the Bonds actually issued, sold, delivered and paid for, plus "out-of-pocket" expenses, said fees to be contingent upon the issuance, sale and delivery of said Bonds. A certified copy of this resolution shall be submitted to the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana for his written approval of said employment and of the fees herein designated, and the Director of Administration is hereby empowered and directed to issue vouchers to said Bond Counsel in payment for the work herein provided for upon completion of the work herein specified and under the conditions herein enumerated.

SECTION 4. Financial Advisor. King, Bossier, Nosacka & Holley of Baton Rouge, Louisiana is hereby appointed and employed as financial adviser in connection with the Bonds, any compensation to be subsequently approved by the Issuer and to be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds and contingent upon issuance of the Bonds and the Bond Counsel is authorized and directed to prepare necessary documents appertaining thereto and to present them for further action by this Council.

SECTION 5. Publication. This resolution shall be published in The Shreveport Times, a daily newspaper published in Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and that, as provided by the Act, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of such publication, any person in interest may contest the legality of this Resolution and the Bonds to be issued pursuant hereto and the provisions securing the Bonds. After the said thirty days, no person may have any right of action to contest the validity of the Bonds or the provisions of this Resolution, and all of the Bonds shall be conclusively presumed to be legal, and no court shall thereafter have authority to inquire into such matters.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford for passage.

Councilman Lester: Again I wanted to reiterate the question that I had to the Administration on yesterday. Whether or not there was going to be minority counsel participation on this issue and I’ve been assured by Mr. Brown as well as the Administration that there will be minority counsel participation and I just wanted to, thank him for that.

Councilman Gibson: Is that local minority participation?

Councilman Lester: That is, local minority participation.

Resolution passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION:

1. Resolution No. 16 of 2003: A resolution authorizing the employment of special legal counsel to represent the City of Shreveport and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Gibson for Introduction of the Resolution to lay over until the February 11, 2003 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:

1. Ordinance No. 12 of 2003: An ordinance authorizing and providing for an encroachment on a portion of the Montrose Drive right-of-way, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 13 of 2003: An ordinance amending the 2003 budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 14 of 2003: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by approving the continuation of B-1-E, Buffer Business/Extended use District limited to a "pet day care facility with grooming as described at the public haring" only on property located on the north side of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, 150 feet of Laurie Lane Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

4. Ordinance No. 15 of 2003 by Councilman Gibson: An ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances, to create the Planning and Infrastructure Committee, a standing committee of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Lester for Introduction of the Ordinances to lay over until the February 11, 2003 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE:

1. Ordinance No. 200 of 2002: An ordinance to enlarge the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A tract of land located along the West 70^th Street and along Dinkins Drive in Section 29 (T17N-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on November 26, 2002 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 Lester to postpone the ordinance until the February 11, 2003 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

2. Ordinance No. 201 of 2002: An ordinance to enlarge the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A tract of land located in the S/2 of Section 21 and in the N/2 of Section 28 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on November 26, 2002 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 Lester to postpone the ordinance until the February 11, 2003 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

3. Ordinance No. 202 of 2002: An ordinance to enlarge the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A tract of land located along the Norris Ferry and Southern Loop Roads in the SE/4 of Section 20 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on November 26, 2002 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 Lester to postpone the ordinance until the February 11, 2003 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

4. Ordinance No. 203 of 2002: An ordinance to enlarge the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A tract of land located at 5895 Bert Kouns Industrial Loop in the SE/4 of the SW/4 of Section 1 (T16N-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on November 26, 2002 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 Lester to postpone the ordinance until the February 11, 2003 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

5. Ordinance No. 204 of 2002: An ordinance to enlarge the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A tract of land located at 3001 and 3003 Meriwether Road in the N/2 of the SW/4 of Section 33 (T17N-R14W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on November 26, 2002 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 Lester to postpone the ordinance until the February 11, 2003 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

6. Ordinance No. 211 of 2002: An ordinance authorizing the lease of city-owned property to Shreveport Baseball Club, L. L. C. and otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on December 30, 2002 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 Walford for passage.

Councilman Gibson: Mayor are anticipating that they are going to be playing this Spring?

Mayor Hightower: Yes.

Councilman Jackson: Mayor Hightower, is this lease agreement for like $15,000 annually, is that the right number?

Mayor Hightower: Yes, that is the number.

Mr. Antee: In addition to that, they are taking over the responsibility of a lot of the maintenance that we currently have to do out there.

Councilman Lester: Is this going to go down 6-1? From back in the days, that was a joke Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Green: I understand. I don’t know how I’m going to vote.

Ordinance approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

7. Ordinance No. 2 of 2003: An ordinance amending the 2003 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on December 30, 2002 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 Gibson for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program H (Airports Improvements):

Decrease the appropriation for Land Acquisition for Security Purposes (99-H002) by $508,900. Decrease Shreveport Airport Authority and State grant by $48,500 each and Federal Aviation Administration by $411,900.

Decrease the appropriation for Acquire LA DOTD Property (01-H003) by $18,100. Decrease Shreveport Airport Authority and State Grant by $2,000 each and Federal Aviation Administration by $14,100.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford for adoption of the amendment. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford for adoption of the ordinance as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

8. Ordinance No. 3 of 2003: An ordinance to repeal an existing speed limit ordinance for the Clyde Fant Memorial Parkway Ordinance No. 145 of 2002 and amending and reenacting a portion of Section 90-198 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport pertaining to the maximum limits on Clyde Fant Memorial Parkway, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 14, 2003 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 Walford adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Walford: I would like to thank everyone for that vote. I think our Sci-port Board member might echo that.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you.

9. Ordinance No. 4 of 2003: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport relative to legal descriptions of City Council Districts and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 14, 2003 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

10. Ordinance No. 5 of 2003: An ordinance amending Chapter 42 and Chapter 86 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport relative to Occupational License Taxes and License Fees for Peddlers and Itinerant Vendors and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 14, 2003 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

11. Ordinance No. 6 of 2003: An ordinance to amend Section 26-109 of the Code of Ordinances to authorize a Non-refundable $200.00 Administrative Fee for Services rendered in connection with requests for expropriation to the Shreveport Redevelopment Agency and to otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 14, 2003 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

12. Ordinance No. 7 of 2003: An ordinance amending Chapter 42 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport relative to Professional Bondsmen and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 14, 2003 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption.

Councilman Lester: I understand the purpose of this amendment is to prevent professional bondsmen from conducting business without collecting all the monies that are to the City by these businesses, and I agree with this. I am going to vote for this.

My question is I understand that we have that and then there is another ordinance that attempts to do the same thing. My question is, are we targeting everyone that we have any type of license relationship with on this particular scenario. In other words, are we cutting across the board fairly. Are there other categories of folks that owe the City money that have licenses or that do business with the City that we are going to be moving forward with this on? I guess that question would be to someone in the Administration.

Mayor Hightower: What we will do, there be incidences that we are not aware of, but we are trying to find those. For instance, another one that came up yesterday when someone wanted to use Festival Plaza. Low and behold, they owed some money on another public building from a while back, so until they pay, Festival Plaza won’t be available to them. We are trying to look at those, anything revenue generating.

Ordinance adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

13. Ordinance No. 8 of 2003: An ordinance amending Chapter 86 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport Relative to Occupational License Taxes and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 14, 2003 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

14. Ordinance No. 9 of 2003: An ordinance amending Section 004.1 of the Shreveport Comprehensive Building Code relative to Permit Requirements and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 14, 2003 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

15. Ordinance No. 10 of 2003: An ordinance authorizing a Right of Use of approximately 20' x 175' of City-owned property in Cross Lake to Waterfront Grill on the Lake, L. L. C. and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 14, 2003 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 Jackson to postpone the ordinance until the February 11, 2003 meeting. Motion adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

16. Ordinance No. 11 of 2003: An ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 72 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport; providing for the licensing and regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses and Employees, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Councilman Walford: As I said yesterday at the work session, I think the prudent thing to do here would be to postpone. If I might ask our City Attorney if he would like to address that, but based on what I’ve read from Mr. Shaffer, discussions with other Council members, it might be.

Mr. Lafitte: I’ve talked with Tom Arceneaux, yesterday afternoon. He couldn’t be here today by the way, he is attending a funeral. Neither he or myself has had an opportunity to read the big letter and it might be prudent if the Council would to postpone.

Having passed first reading on January 14, 2003 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Lester to postpone the ordinance until the February 11, 2003 meeting. Motion adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Gibson: Ramon, do we have a time frame that you are looking at: a week, two weeks or?

Mr. Lafitte: Just bring it back on at the next Council.

Councilman Gibson: I am talking about in terms for your review? Will you be in a position within the next two weeks?

Mr. Lafitte: Right, absolutely.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Lafitte what I would like to do if we could, as soon as you and Mr. Arceneaux have had time to digest what’s in there, I would like for our committee to meet again and visit with you and go over the items and if we need to amend the ordinance, then we’ll do so and bring it back to the Council in two weeks. So if we could lay on something in that time, if you could advise us as soon as ya’ll have had the opportunity Saturday mornings are a great time, coffee.

Mr. Lafitte: I spent my Saturdays with it, as well. We’ll bring it back before the Committee first.

Having passed first reading on January 14, 2003 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 Gibson adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

The Adopted Ordinances, As Amended, follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 211 OF 2002

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO SHREVEPORT BASEBALL CLUB, L.L.C. AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has negotiated a lease of Fairgrounds Field to Shreveport Baseball Club, L.L.C., for the operation of an independent professional baseball team professional and other activities and events; and

WHEREAS, the lease also provides, among other things, that the Lessee shall manage the Leased Premises and coordinate and schedule the use of same for all events and activities including events and activities sponsored or co-sponsored by third parties; and

WHEREAS, the initial term of the lease will be five (5) year with the option to renew for three (3) additional five (5) year terms; and

WHEREAS, rental payments during the initial term of the lease shall be $15,000.00 per year; and

WHEREAS, the lease also provide that the City shall receive, for non-baseball events, the sum of $2.00 per ticket accepted at the gate (for ticketed events) or per person based upon turn style count (for non-ticketed events); and WHEREAS, the lease of Fairgrounds Field to Shreveport Baseball, L.L.C., serves a public purpose by providing wholesome recreational activities and other events for the enjoyment of the citizens of the City of Shreveport and surrounding areas; and

WHEREAS, LSA-R.S. 33:4712 requires that notice of this ordinance be published at least three (3) times within fifteen (15) days, one week apart; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is hereby authorized to execute a lease of Fairgrounds Field to Shreveport Baseball Club, L.L.C., substantially in accordance with the draft hereof which was filed for public inspection with the original of this ordinance in the office of the Clerk of Council on December 30, 2002.

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.

______________________________

James Green, Chairman

_____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 2 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2003 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 2003 Capital Improvements Budget to provide additional project funding, to create new 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. 162 of 2002, the 2003 Capital Improvements Budget, be further amended and re-enacted as follows:

In Program H (Airports Improvements):

Decrease the appropriation for Rehabilitate Taxiway "D" (02-H001) by $1,408,000. Reduce funding from Shreveport Airport Authority by $128,000, State Grant by $128,000 and Federal Aviation Administration by $1,152,000.

Increase the appropriation for Drainage Improvements – Safety Area (02-H002) by $242,000. Funding sources are Shreveport Airport Authority $22,000, State Grant $22,000 and Federal Aviation Administration $198,000.

Establish a project entitled Security Upgrades at Regional Airport (03-H003) and fund it at $180,200. Funding sources are Shreveport Airport Authority $16,400, State Grant $16,400 and Federal Aviation Administration $147,400.

Establish a project entitled Upgrade ARFF Snozzle (03-H004) and fund it at $22,000. Funding sources are Shreveport Airport Authority $2,000, State Grant $2,000 and Federal Aviation Administration $18,000.

Establish a project entitled Taxiway "C" and "A" North Lights (03-H005) and fund it at $550,000. Funding sources are Shreveport Airport Authority $50,000, State Grant $50,000 and Federal Aviation Administration $450,000.

Decrease the appropriation for Land Acquisition for Security Purposes (99-H002) by $508,900. Decrease Shreveport Airport Authority and State grant by $48,500 each and Federal Aviation Administration by $411,900.

Decrease the appropriation for Acquire LA DOTD Property (01-H003) by $18,100. Decrease Shreveport Airport Authority and State Grant by $2,000 each and Federal Aviation Administration by $14,100.

In Program I (Fire Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for New Central Fire Station (96-I001) by $150,000. Funding source is 1997 GOB, Prop. 1 (Public Safety).

Increase the appropriation for Fire Equipment Replacement (01-I002) by $200,000. Funding source is 1997 GOB, Prop. 1 (Public Safety).

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance 162 of 2002, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

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

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

___________________________

James Green, Chairman

_____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 3 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AN EXISTING SPEED LIMIT ORDINANCE FOR THE CLYDE FANT MEMORIAL PARKWAY ORDINANCE NO. 145 OF 2002 AND AMENDING AND REENACTING A PORTION OF SECTION 90-198 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT PERTAINING TO THE MAXIMUM LIMITS ON CLYDE FANT MEMORIAL PARKWAY, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that Ordinance No. 145 of 2002 is hereby repealed and the portion of Section 90-198 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport pertaining to the Maximum limits on Clyde Fant Memorial Parkway be and the same is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows, to wit:

Street Extent Speed Limit

(MPH)

Clyde Fant Memorial From East 70^th Street (La. 511)

Parkway to Stoner Avenue 55

From Stoner Avenue to 3,000 feet 45

South of Lake Street

From Lake Street to 3,000 feet 35

South of Lake Street

From Caddo Street to Lake Street 25

From Caddo Street to 1300 feet

North of Caddo Street 35

CONTINUED - ORDINANCE NO. 3 of 2003

From 1300 feet north of Caddo Street

to Airport Drive 45

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.

___________________________

James Green, Chairman

_____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 4 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT RELATIVE TO LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 41 of 2002 to reapportion the several council districts of the city; and

WHEREAS, said ordinance adopted the official map showing the council districts; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of official legal descriptions of said council districts will assist city officials and employees and the public in the transaction of city business.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that Section 2-27(e) of the Code of Ordinances is hereby added to read as follows:

Sec. 2-27. City council districts.

* * *

(e) Official district legal descriptions adopted. The legal descriptions for each district attached hereto and made a part hereof are hereby adopted as the official legal descriptions of said districts. The City Engineer shall be responsible for preparing and maintaining updates to the map and legal descriptions when necessitated by annexations.

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.

Shreveport City Council District Descriptions

District A

Begin at the intersection of the Kansas City Southern Railway and the Texas & Pacific Railway, thence run westerly then northwesterly along the Kansas City Southern Railway to its intersection with Hearne Avenue, thence run northerly along Hearne Avenue to its intersection with Cross Bayou, thence run southwesterly then northwesterly then southwesterly along Cross Bayou to its intersection with the shoreline of Cross Lake, thence run southerly then southwesterly along the shoreline of Cross Lake to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line first southerly then westerly to where it again intersects with the shoreline of Cross Lake, thence run along the shoreline of Cross Lake to its intersection with S. Lakeshore Drive, thence run southerly along S. Lakeshore Drive to its intersection with Curtis Lane, thence run southerly along Curtis Lane to its intersection with Greenwood Road, thence run westerly then southwesterly along Greenwood Road to its intersection with Junior Place, thence run northwesterly then westerly along Junior Place to its intersection with Parkwood Drive, thence northerly along Parkwood Drive to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to its intersection with Candlewood Lane, thence run westerly along Candlewood Lane to its intersection with Pines Road, thence run northerly along Pines Road to its intersection with Long Timbers Drive, thence run northwesterly along Long Timbers Drive to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to its intersection with Long Timbers Drive, thence northeasterly along Long Timbers Drive to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to its intersection with the shoreline of Cross Lake, thence follow along the shoreline of Cross Lake which is also the city limits of the City of Shreveport, thence follow the shoreline of Cross Lake to its eastern side to the intersection with the Kansas City Southern Railroad tracks, which are also part of the city limits of the City of Shreveport, thence run along the city limits northwesterly, then easterly, northerly, easterly then southerly to its intersection with Texas Street, thence run southwesterly along Texas Street to its intersection with the shoreline of the Red River, thence run northwesterly along the shoreline of the Red River to its intersection with Cross Bayou, thence run southwesterly then northwesterly then westerly along Cross Bayou to its intersection the Texas & Pacific Railway, thence run southwesterly along the Texas & Pacific Railway to its intersection with Patzman Street, thence run westerly along Patzman Street to its intersection with N. Western, thence run southerly along N. Western to its intersection with Pete Harris Drive, thence run southerly along Pete Harris Drive to its intersection with Milam Street, thence run westerly on Milam Street to its intersection with the Texas & Pacific Railway, thence run southerly along the Texas & Pacific Railway to its intersection with the Kansas City Southern Railway, the point of beginning. Less all non-annexed areas within this district.

District B

Begin at the intersection of Texas Street and the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line in a southerly direction to the intersection with Caddo/Bossier Parish line, north of Coates Bluff line, thence westerly along the parish line to the city limits then southerly then in a easterly direction to its intersection with Bolch Street, thence run southeasterly along Bolch Street to its intersection with E. Washington Street, thence run southwesterly then northwesterly along E. Washington Street to its intersection with Anderson Bayou, thence run southerly then southeasterly CONTINUED - ORDINANCE NO. 4 OF 2003

along Anderson Bayou its intersection with Shreveport Barksdale Hwy., thence run southwesterly along Shreveport Barksdale Hwy., to its intersection with E. Kings Hwy., thence run northwesterly then northerly along E. Kings Hwy. to its intersection with Kings Hwy., thence run westerly along Kings Hwy. to its intersection with Gilbert Drive, thence southerly along Gilbert Drive to its intersection with Slattery Blvd., thence run westerly along Slattery Blvd. to its intersection with Line Avenue, thence run southerly along Line Avenue to its intersection with Monrovia Street, thence run westerly along Monrovia Street to its intersection with Fairfield Avenue, thence run northerly along Fairfield Avenue to its intersection with Lawhon Street, thence run westerly along Lawhon Street to its intersection with the Kansas City Southern Railway, thence run southerly along the Kansas City Southern Railway to its intersection with Hollywood Avenue, thence run westerly along Hollywood Avenue to its intersection with the Union Pacific Railroad, thence run northeasterly along the Union Pacific Railroad to its intersection with Midway Street, thence run westerly along Midway Street to its intersection with Hearne Avenue, thence run northerly along Hearne Avenue to its intersection with to its intersection with I-20, thence run northeasterly along I-20 to its intersection with Greenwood Road, thence run northeasterly along Greenwood Road to its intersection with Texas Avenue, thence run northeasterly along Texas Avenue to its intersection with the Kansas City Southern Railway, thence run easterly along the Kansas City Southern Railway to its intersection with the Union Pacific Railroad thence northerly to its intersection with Milam Street, thence run easterly along Milam Street to its intersection with Pete Harris Drive, thence run northerly along Pete Harris Drive to its intersection with North Western, thence run northerly along North Western to its intersection with Patzman Street, thence run easterly along Patzman Street to its intersection with the Union Pacific Railroad, thence run northwesterly along the Union Pacific Railroad to its intersection with its intersection with Cross Bayou, thence run easterly then southerly then easterly along Cross Bayou to its intersection with the shoreline of the Red River, thence run southeasterly along the shoreline of the Red River to its intersection with Texas Street, thence run northeasterly along Texas Street to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, the point of beginning. Less all non-annexed areas within this district.

District C

Begin at the intersection of E. 77th Street and the Kansas City Southern Railway, thence run easterly along the E. 77th Street to its intersection with Fairfield Avenue, thence run northerly along Fairfield Avenue to its intersection with E. 71st Street, thence run easterly along E. 71st Street to its intersection with Line Avenue, thence run northerly along Line Avenue to its intersection with E.70th Street, thence run easterly along E. 70th Street to its intersection with E. Kings Hwy., thence southeasterly along E. Kings Hwy., to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to its intersection with the Caddo/Bossier Parish line, north of Coates Bluff Drive, thence follow along the Caddo/Bossier Parish line to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow the Shreveport city limits line in a southwesterly then southerly then easterly direction to its intersection with Bolch Street, thence run southeasterly along Bolch Street to its intersection with E. Washington Street, thence run southwesterly then northwesterly along E. Washington Street to its intersection with Anderson Bayou, thence run southerly then southeasterly along Anderson Bayou to its intersection with Shreveport Barksdale Hwy., thence run southwesterly along Shreveport Barksdale Hwy., to its intersection with E. Kings Hwy., thence run northwesterly then northerly along E. Kings Hwy. to its intersection with Kings Hwy., thence run westerly along Kings Hwy. to its intersection with Gilbert Drive, thence southerly along Gilbert Drive to its intersection with Slattery Blvd., thence run westerly along Slattery Blvd. to its intersection with Line Avenue, thence run southerly along Line Avenue to its intersection with Monrovia Street, thence run westerly along Monrovia Street to its intersection with Fairfield Avenue, thence run northerly along Fairfield Avenue to its intersection with Lawhon Street, thence run westerly along Lawhon Street to its intersection with the Kansas City Southern Railway, thence run southerly along the Kansas City Southern Railway to its intersection with E. 77th Street, the point of beginning. Less all non-annexed areas within this district.

District D

Begin at the intersection of E. 77th Street and the Kansas City Southern Railway, thence run easterly along the E. 77th Street to its intersection with Fairfield Avenue, thence run northerly along Fairfield Avenue to its intersection with E. 71st Street, thence run easterly along E. 71st Street to its intersection with Line Avenue, thence run northerly along Line Avenue to its intersection with E.70th Street, thence run easterly along E. 70th Street to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the meandering of the Shreveport city limits line to its intersection with Brushy Bayou, thence run northerly along Brushy Bayou to its intersection with Mount Zion Road, thence run westerly along Mount Zion Road to its intersection with Kingston Road, thence run northerly along Kingston Road to its intersection with Kingstowne Place, thence run easterly along Kingstowne Place to its intersection with Wyngate Blvd., thence run northerly along Wyngate Blvd., to its intersection with the Union Pacific Railroad, thence run southesterly along the Union Pacific Railroad to its intersection with Brushy Bayou, thence run northwesterly along Brushy Bayou to its intersection with W. 84th Street, thence run easterly then southeasterly then easterly along W. 84th Street to its intersection with the Kansas City Southern Railway, thence run northwesterly along the Kansas City Southern Railway to its intersection with E. 77 th Street, the point of beginning. Less all non-annexed areas within this district.

District E

Begin at the intersection of the Shreveport city limits line and Brushy Bayou, thence run northerly along Brushy Bayou to its intersection with Mount Zion Road, thence run westerly along Mount Zion Road to its intersection with Kingston Road, thence run northerly along Kingston Road to its intersection with Kingstowne Place, thence run easterly along Kingstowne Place to its intersection with Wyngate Blvd., thence run northerly along Wyngate Blvd., to its intersection with the Union Pacific, thence run northwesterly, then northerly along the Union Pacific Railroad to its intersection with W. 70th Street, thence run westerly along W. 70th Street to its intersection with the Union Pacific Railroad, thence run southwesterly along the Union Pacific to its intersection with a drainage canal, thence run northwesterly along the drainage canal to its intersection with W. 70th Street, thence run southwesterly then westerly along W. 70th Street to its intersection with Buncombe Road, thence run southwesterly along Buncombe Road to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to where it again intersects with Buncombe Road, thence run southwesterly Buncombe Road to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to its intersection with Brush Bayou, the point of beginning. Less all non-annexed areas within this district.

District F

Begin at the intersection of the Kansas City Southern Railway and E. 84th Street, thence run northerly along the Kansas City Southern Railway to its intersection with Hollywood Avenue, thence run westerly along Hollywood Avenue to its intersection with the Union Pacific Railroad, thence run northeasterly along the Union Pacific Railroad to its intersection with Midway Street, thence run westerly along Midway Street to its intersection with Jewella Avenue, thence run northerly along Jewella Avenue to its intersection with I-20, thence run southwesterly along I-20 to its intersection with Pines Road, thence run southerly along Pines Road to its intersection with Buncombe Road, thence run northeasterly along Buncombe Road to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to its intersection with Buncombe Road, thence run northeasterly along Buncombe Road to its intersection with W. 70th Street, thence run easterly on W. 70th Street to its intersection with a drainage canal, thence run southeasterly along the drainage canal to it intersection with the Texas & Pacific Railway, thence run northeasterly along the Texas & Pacific CONTINUED - ORDINANCE NO. 4 OF 2003

Railway to its intersection with W. 70th Street, thence run easterly along W. 70th Street to its intersection with the Texas & Pacific Railway, thence run southerly then southeasterly along the Texas & Pacific Railway to its intersection with Brushy Bayou, thence run northerly along Brushy Bayou to its intersection with W. 84th Street, thence run easterly then southeasterly then easterly along W. 84th Street to its intersection with the Kansas City Southern Railway, the point of beginning. Less all non-annexed areas within this district.

District G

Begin at the intersection of Pines Road and Buncombe Road, thence run northerly along Pines Road to its intersection with I-20, thence run northeasterly along I-20 to its intersection with Jewella Avenue, thence run southerly along Jewella Avenue to its intersection with Midway Street, thence run easterly along Midway Street to its intersection with Hearne Avenue, thence run northerly along Hearne Avenue to its intersection with I-20, thence run northeasterly along I-20 to its intersection with Greenwood Road, thence run northeasterly along Greenwood Road to its intersection with Texas Avenue, thence run northeasterly along Texas Avenue to its intersection with the Kansas City Southern Railway, thence run westerly then northwesterly along the Kansas City Southern Railway to its intersection with Hearne Avenue, thence run northerly along Hearne Avenue to its intersection with Cross Bayou, thence run southwesterly then northwesterly then southwesterly along Cross Bayou to its intersection with the shoreline of Cross Lake, thence run along the shoreline of Cross Lake to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to where it again intersects with the shoreline of Cross Lake, thence run along the shoreline of Cross Lake to its intersection with S. Lakeshore Drive, thence run southerly along S. Lakeshore Drive to its intersection with Curtis Lane, thence run southerly along Curtis Lane to its intersection with Greenwood Road, thence run westerly then southwesterly along Greenwood Road to its intersection with Junior Place, thence run northwesterly then westerly along Junior Place to its intersection with Parkwood Drive, thence northerly along Parkwood Drive to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to its intersection with Candlewood Lane, thence run westerly along Candlewood Lane to its intersection with Pines Road, thence run northerly along Pines Road to its intersection with Long Timbers Drive, thence run northwesterly along Long Timbers Drive to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to its intersection with the shoreline of Cross Lake, thence follow along the shoreline of Cross Lake to its intersection with the Shreveport city limits line, thence follow along the Shreveport city limits line to its intersection with Buncombe Road, thence run westerly, southerly, easterly, then northerly along the city limits to its intersection with Buncombe Road, thence proceed northeasterly along Buncombe Road to its intersection with Pines Road, the point of beginning. Less all non-annexed areas within this district.

___________________________

James Green, Chairman

_____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 5 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 42 AND CHAPTER 86 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT RELATIVE TO OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAXES AND LICENSE FEES FOR PEDDLERS AND ITINERANT VENDORS 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 Sections 42-295 and 86-29(b) of the Code of Ordinances are hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 42-295. Fees; duration.

For each itinerant vendor's license issued hereunder, the applicant shall pay a fee in accordance with the following schedule and the license shall be effective for the stated period of time.

(1) 30 days--$50.00.

(2) 60 days--$75.00.

(3) 90 days--$100.00.

(4) 180 days--$150.00.

* * *

Sec. 86-29. Peddlers and itinerant vendors.

* * *

(b) In lieu of the annual license fee provided in subsection (a), an itinerant vendor may apply for and be issued a license for a lesser period of time as follows:

(1) 30 days--$50.00

(2) 60 days--$75.00

(3) 90 days--$100.00

(4) 180 days--$150.00

(5) One year--$200.00

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.

CONTINUED - ORDINANCE NO. 5 OF 2003

___________________________

James Green, Chairman

_____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 6 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 26-109 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO AUTHORIZE A NON-REFUNDABLE $200.00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH REQUESTS FOR EXPROPRIATION TO THE SHREVEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that Section 26-109 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport is hereby amended to add Section 26-109 (23) relative to a fee charged by the Department of Operational Services in connection with requests for expropriation to the Shreveport Redevelopment Agency:

Sec. 26-109. Fee schedule for services rendered by the department of operational services.

A fee schedule for certain services provided by the department of operational services is hereby established as follows:

***

(23) Shreveport Redevelopment Agency Expropriation Requests. Two Hundred Dollars per parcel requested for expropriation. The said fee shall be non-refundable except in cases where the applicant is not the winning bidder for the property, in which case, the application fee shall be refunded to the applicant and the winning bidder shall pay the fee to the City prior to final conveyance of the property.

BE IT 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.

___________________________

James Green, Chairman

_____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 7 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 42 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT RELATIVE TO PROFESSIONAL BONDSMEN 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 Section 42-185 of the Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 42-184. Investigation of permit applications by director of finance.

(a) The director of finance shall not issue a permit to a professional bondsman unless:

(1) the application clearly shows that the applicant is duly authorized to obligate, as surety on bonds, a surety company authorized to do business in the state, and

(2) the bondsman has paid all taxes, licenses, fees and any other charges which are outstanding and due to the city.

(b) If the director of finance shall refuse to issue a permit to the applicant, the applicant may appeal to the city council. The city council shall review the application to determine if the above requirements are met, and upon such determination shall approve or disapprove the petition for a permit. If the council approves the petition for a permit, the director of finance shall issue the permit.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Section 42-185 is hereby repealed.

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.

___________________________

James Green, Chairman

_____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 8 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 86 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT RELATIVE TO OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAXES 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 Section 86-32 of the Code of Ordinances is hereby repealed.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, CONTINUED - ORDINANCE NO. 8 OF 2003

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.

___________________________

James Green, Chairman

_____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 9 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 004.1 OF THE SHREVEPORT COMPREHENSIVE BUILDING CODE RELATIVE TO PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 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 Section 004.1(a) of Chapter 00 of the Shreveport Comprehensive Building Code, originally adopted by Ordinance No. 126 of 1953, as amended, is hereby amended and Section 004.1(d) is hereby added to read as follows:

Section 004 - PERMITS

004.1. ACTION ON APPLICATION

(a) If the Building Official is satisfied that the work in an application for a permit and the drawings filed therewith conform to the requirements of this Code and other pertinent laws and ordinances, he shall issue a permit, except as provided in subsection (d) below.

* * *

(d) The Building Official shall not issue as permit to any contractor that does not have a valid occupational license or has not paid all taxes, licenses, fees and other charges which are outstanding and due the city.

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.

___________________________

James Green, Chairman

_____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. Alcohol Retail Permit: Ms. Deborah Hawkins (Employer: 2901 Milam St. - Take-A-Bag Grocery) (G/Jackson)

Mr. Thompson: I believe our office has contacted everyone and April 29 appears to be the date that we can get everybody together. We have it for 3 p.m. I wondered if the Council might want to start earlier. I understand that some people have to leave at 6 o’clock and I’m afraid we are not going to be through by 6.

Councilman Green: What day is that on?

Mr. Thompson: Tuesday, April 29.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Thompson, in that I will only be able to be here until I guess about quarter to 6 in order to make this commitment, would it be prudent for me to go ahead and not attend in that it appears if we start as late as it is being proposed then I will not have the benefit of voting for the matter and I wouldn’t think it would be far to the City or to the applicant for me to sit through it and then not give them the benefit of my vote, one way or the other?

Mr. Thompson: I don’t know that would cause a legal problem , I don’t think that it would. I think it would be a problem for somebody to miss a part of it and then vote but for a person to hear a part of it and not vote, I don’t think that that would cause us problem legally.

The problem that we always have is whether or not we are going to maintain a quorum but that’s a different issue. Councilman Green: Was there an alternate date?

Mr. Thompson: The first was the date that most of the Council members wanted, but Mr. Ed Jones notified me today that he couldn’t, he had to leave at 5 o’clock that day so that didn’t work.

Councilman Green: So the time was 3, is. . . .

Mr. Thompson: It is 3:30, I was wondering if you might want to start earlier?

Councilman Green: We would be able to start earlier than that.

Mr. Thompson: If not, we will notify all of the parties.

Councilman Green: Why don’t’ you do this. Just look at another date, send those flyers back out again.

Mr. Thompson: We’ll we’ve done that. We contacted Mr. King who represents Debra Hawkins and the earliest time that he could be here was the week of April, but the 14^th of April, he couldn’t be here any of that time, so we sent everything out and we have everybody’s dates that they can be present.

Councilman Walford: If I am the hang up go ahead, is 2 o’clock better?

Councilman Green: 2 o’clock would be better.

Councilman Walford: I can go with 2 if everybody is good with that.

Councilman Hogan: Lets vote on it.

Mr. Thompson: 3 o’clock?

Motion by Councilman Lester, to have the hearing beginning at 2 o’clock, seconded by Councilman Hogan.

Councilman Jackson: I just would like for us in all that we do as we consider these things, to just remember that all of us certainly is going to be sacrificial on us whether we start early or stay late and everybody doesn’t have the same problem that some of us may have. But, every Council meeting I attend it actually cost money to attend, I don’t mean time, but I mean leave time. So I just wanted us to be cognizant of that too as we go forward. It may be comfortable to do it an hour earlier, but I just wanted to say that as we move on to the future. It has no necessary impact on this particular vote, but I just think we ought consider those things as well. It is going to be sacrificial, at some point and it would seem to me if we are going to all make an equalivent sacrifice, it ought to be later more than earlier.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Hogan and Green. 5. Nays: Councilman Gibson and Jackson. 2.

Mr. Thompson: Does that mean that the two people who voted against it will not be here?

Councilman Jackson: Is just ask for consideration, I know it is in my district but I am sure that doesn’t matter much but I would just obviously would assume that we would extend that. . . .

Mr. Thompson: If that is what it means.

Councilman Green: I didn’t understand you Councilman Jackson, extend what?

Councilman Jackson: Beg pardon?

Councilman Green: You said you was asking us to. . . .

Councilman Jackson: I don’t think I made a complete statement. I stopped and just left it alone, right there. To me it seems like it is going to be of ill-effect, so.

Councilman Walford: So are we on for 2 o’clock on the 29^th?

Councilman Lester: I have a question to Councilman Jackson to the extent that this is a matter that concerns his district. Is it your position that you would be better served if the meeting would be held later, moved back as opposed to go forward at 2?

Councilman Jackson: Yes, sir, that is what I was saying.

Councilman Lester: Well see I didn’t understand that. If that be the case then, would I be proper in withdrawing my, have a motion to reconsider the time. I would move to reconsider the time consider the time given the fact that this is an issue that concerns Councilman Jackson’s district. What time would be more amendable to Councilman Jackson?

Councilman Jackson: If it was 2 or 3, I would go with 3.

Councilman Lester: Well given that fact, and given the fact that that it does concern Councilman Jackson’s district and do believe certain deferences should be made to that particular Councilman, I would move to reconsider the vote for 2 o’clock, seconded by Councilman Walford (motion unanimously approved).

NEW BUSINESS:

1. BAC-95-02: Gumbeaux’s of S’port, LLC, 760 S’port-Barksdale Hwy., Special Exception Use and Variance in hours of operation in B-3 District; Restaurant w/on-premise consumption of high alcoholic content beverages operating til 12 a.m. (C/Carmody)

Councilman Carmody: Fellow members you will recall that this is concerning the appeal that was filed by a number of citizens in District C around this particular piece of property at 760 Shreveport Barksdale Highway. And my request to the gentleman who wants to open this restaurant, Gumbeaux’s, was that he go back to those citizens and confirm his verbal representation that they were agreeable to withdraw their appeal. They did provide that in writing back to Mr. Thompson and each of you should have a copy fo that, I have got a copy with me today, I am comfortable.

I want to ask for some guidance on the appropriate way to handle this. I believe that it should be in the affirmative, my motion should be in the form of an affirmative and asking for a negative vote, is that correct, Ms. Glass.

Ms. Glass: I apologize, my computer will not call it up.

Councilman Carmody: The only thing I did want to make a mention of was that it does again appear on our electronic agenda that it is showing approval to 2 a.m. and the approval is until 12 midnight and I want to make sure that, that is corrected before we act.

Mr. Thompson: Why don’t you make a motion that the recommendation of the ZBA being approved and that the Special Exception Use and Variance in hours of operation in B-3 District; Restaurant w/on-premise consumption of high alcoholic content beverages operating til 12 midnight.

Councilman Carmody: Excellent. I will take Mr. Thompson guidance and make that my motion, seconded by Councilman Walford. Motion approved by the following vote: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEE: None.

CLERK’S REPORT: Letter of Appeal: C-60-02: SALLY CICERONE, 2960 Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, rezoning to B-1-E, continuation of pet day care and grooming facility. (E/Hogan)

THE COMMITTEE RISES AND REPORTS (reconvenes Regular Council Meeting).

ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:50 p.m.

___________________________

James Green, Chairman

_____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council